HomeMy WebLinkAbout4/5/1988Tuesday, April 5, 1988
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 5, 1988, at 9:00 o'clock A.M. Present were Don C.
Scurlock, Jr., Chairman; Gary C. Wheeler, Vice Chairman; Richard
N. Bird; Margaret C. Bowman; and Carolyn K. Eggert. Also present
were Charles P. Balczun, County Administrator; Charles P.
Vitunac, Attorney to the Board of County Commissioners; and
Barbara Bonnah, Deputy Clerk.
The Chairman called the meeting to order.
Dr. James Sanders of the Indian River Correctional
Institution gave the invocation, and Commissioner Wheeler led the
Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag.
ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA/EMERGENCY ITEMS
Chairman Scurlock requested the following additions to
today's Agenda:
1) As Item 5 on the Consent Agenda, a proclamation for Rev.
Dr. Robert Stanley Sanford.
2) The establishment of a County Correctional Planning
Committee.
3) A discussion on the old Jail site.
Commissioner Eggert requested the addition of a
recommendation tor resurfacing several roads.
APR 5 1988
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Wheeler, the Board unanimously added
the above items to today's Agenda.
BOOK 71 ['AGE 418
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
The Chairman asked if there were any corrections or
additions to the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of February 23,
1988. There were none.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Wheeler, the Board unanimously
approved the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of
2/23/88, as written.
CONSENT AGENDA
Chairman Scurlock requested that Item 2 be removed from the
Consent Agenda for discussion.
1. Reports
Received and placed on file in the Office of the Clerk to
the Board:
St. Johns River Water Management District
Annual Financial Audit for FY 1986/87 ending 9/30/87
Fellsmere Water Control District
Fiscal Year Audit, 1986/87 ending 9/30/87
Fellsmere Water Control District
Schedule of Bi -monthly Meetings, Fellsmere, FL
2. Acceptance of Dorothy Hudson's Resignation from Building
Board of Adjustments and Appeals
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 3/25/88:
2
APR 5 1988
BOOK 71 FACE 419
MAR 1;;88
IV Re-,.
0�� Cn
s9 COMMISSIONS S cV
Dorothy A. Hudson
CHARTERED
ATTORNEY AT LAW
2125 WINDWARD WAY. SUITE 200
VERO BEACH. FLORIDA 32963
(305) 231-5133
March 25, 1988
Don C. Scurlock, Jr.
Chairman
Board of County Commissioners
1840 25th Street
Vero Beach, FL 32963
DISTRIBUTION LIST
Commissioners
Administrator
Attorney
Personnel
Public Works
Community Dev.
Utilities
Finance
Other
RE: Resignation from the Building Board of Adjustment
and Appeals
Dear Commissioner Scurlock:
It is with sincerest regret that I tender my
resignation from the Board of Building Code Adjustments. I
have enjoyed my service on the Board both from having the
opportunity to interact with the County Building Staff and
with my fellow Board members. I am left with a deep respect
for their efforts, integrity and complexity of the job.
Were it not for the increase in the number and length of
meetings coupled with the greater demands of my job, I would
certainly continue on the Building Code Board. I do not,
however, feel I am doing justice to my responsibility as the
representative of the Board of Zoning Adjustment.
'While I realize it is the Commission prerogative to
make the appointment to this Board, the Board of Zoning
Adjustment had discussed my resignation as its
representative at their last meeting and have suggested that
John Kirshner be named as my replacement. He is very
capable and I recommend him to you. I am confident he will
do a fine job.
The County is fortunate to have the quality of
personnel working with the Building Code Board that it has.
Bill Collins is doing a first rate job assisting that Board
as it becomes increasingly quasi-judicial. And, as I am
sure all the Commissioners know, Ester Rymer, Dory Roy,
Wayne Russ, Mike Dalton, Jim...Craig, Bill Gavin, Paul Kindel,
Claude Hodgson and Harold Gover, (who all advise the Board
Code Board of Adjustment) in the Building Department, do a
heck of a job for the County.
I have enjoyed serving the County in this position and
look forward to being of further service in the future.
Very tru yours,
Dorot A. Ilfls
3
APR 5 198$
BOOK 71 FAGS 420
Chairman Scurlock did not teel that all the Commissioners
have had a opportunity to meet with Mr. Kirchner as yet.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Wheeler, the Board unanimously accepted
Dorothy Hudson's resignation from the Building Board
of Adjustments and Appeals.
3. Release of County Utility Lien
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 3/29/88:
TO: Board of County Commissioners
FROM:
DATE:
Charles P. Vitunac, County Attorney
March 29, 1988
RE: CONSENT AGENDA - FOR BCC MEETING 4/5/88
RELEASE OF COUNTY UTILITY LIEN
This office has processed the following matters and requests
permission for the Chairman to execute the standard release
forms:
RELEASE of 1 SEWER ERU paid by REALCOR
Lot 271 of COUNTRYSIDE SOUTH
(Map #41)
The back-up information for the above is on file in the
County Attorney's office.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Wheeler, SECONDED by
Commissioner Eggert, the Board unanimously approved
the Release of Assessment as set out in the above
memo.
PARTIAL RELEASE OF ASSESSMENT LIEN IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF
THE CLERK TO THE BOARD
4
APR 5 1988
BOOK 711 MC421.
4. Investigation Equipment
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 3/30/88:
j eti.ff
P. 0. BOX 608
PHONE 569-6700
March 30, 1988
MEMORANDUM
TO .
FROM:
RE .
Doug Scurlock
R.T. "Tim" Dobeck, Sheriff
INVESTIGATION EQUIPMENT
R.T."TIM' DOB ECK • INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
MEMBER FLORIDA SHERIFFS ASSOCIATION
MEMBER OF NATIONAL SHERIFFS ASSOCIATION
VE no BEACH, FLORIDA 32901-0008
DISTRIBUTION LIST
Commissioners f,q, Ii
Administrator 4/
Attorney
Personnel
Public Works
Community e,./.
Utilities
Finance
Other
-moo
I would like to request that the following electronic investigation
equipment be approved for purchase from the Sheriff's Seized Forfeiture
Fund. This equipment is necessary for ongoing investigations. If
possible I would like this placed on the April 5th, Consent Agenda.
Listed below you will find the equipment I am referring to.
One (1) Bartec Dialed -Number Recorder, Model ATS -2000B $3,695.00
Two (2) Marantz.Cassette Recorders, Model PMD 220 Total -$500.00
Ten (10) Radio Shack Cassette Recorder, Model 14-1050 Total -$500.00
One (1) Portable VHF Repeater, Model BXR-2202 (96702) $3,795.00
Four (4) HS EM 200 PTT Ear -Mics for Port. Radios Total -$960.00
Six (6) Field Binoculars 10 x 50 Total -$480.00
Final total for above equipment is $9,930.00.
Thank you for your assistance.
R.T. "Tim" Dobeck, Sheriff
Indian River County
5
APR 51988
BOOK 71 KF 422
ON MOTION by Commissioner Wheeler, SECONDED by
Commissioner Eggert, the Board unanimously authorized
the purchase of the investigation
in the above memo.
TO: Members of the Board
of County Commissiors
FROM: Joseph A. Baird
THROUGH:
equipment as set out
SUBJECT: BUDGET AMENDMENT
NUMBER: 036
DATE: April 25, 1988
Entry Number
1.
Fund/Department/Account Name
Special Reserve for
Law Enforcement/Contingency
Special Office Furn.
Law Enforcement/Equipment
Account Number
112-600-581-099.91
112-600-581-066.41
Explanation:
The above mentioned funds were approved
at their meeting held April 5, 1987 for
by the Sheriff.
Increase
0
$9,930.00
Decrease
$9,930.00
0
by the Board of County Commissioners
the purchase of investigation equipment
(See attached memo from Sheriff Dobeck to the Board dated March 30, 1988).
6
APR 51888
BOOK 71 F'Acir 423
5. Proclamation - Reverend Dr. Robert Stanley Sanford
PROCLAMATION
WHEREAS, Reverend Dr. Robert Stanley Sanford has been Pastor
of the First Baptist Church of Wabasso since June, 1982; and
WHEREAS, on April 10, 1988 Reverend Sanford will be
resigning his pastorate of the First Baptist Church of Wabasso to
assume a pastorate of the First Baptist Church in St. Marys,
Georgia; and
WHEREAS, Reverend Sanford received his Doctor of Ministry
degree from Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, Louisville,
Kentucky in 1985; and
WHEREAS, -Reverend Sanford has contributed to the community
by serving on numerous denominational, benevolent and community_.
boards in Indian River County. and
WHEREAS, Reverend Sanford has worked diligently_ toward _a_
-___drugfree^community since 1986; and
WHEREAS, Reverend Sanford was involved in many committees
for the betterment of children in Indian River County; and
WHEREAS, Reverend Sanford wrote "The Pastor's Perspective,"
a weekly newspaper column for the Sebastian Sun newspaper;
NOW, THEREFORE, THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN
RIVER COUNTY, Florida proclaims its appreciation for the
leadership and guidance exhibited for many of the residents and
youth of Indian River County by the Reverend Dr. Robert Stanley
Sanford.
The Board further extends best wishes to Reverend Sanford in
all his future endeavors.
APR 51988
•
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
Don C. Scu ock, Jr. t'h-irman
Adopted April 5, 1988
BOOK 1 f A
GF.
424
PUBLIC HEARING - HAGGAS'S PETITION FOR RIGHT-OF-WAY ABANDONMENT
The hour of 9:05 o'clock A.M. having passed, the Deputy
Clerk read the following Notice with Proof of Publication, to
wit:
VERO BEACH PRESS -JOURNAL
Published Daily
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 daily newspaper published
at Vero Beach in Indian River County, Florida; that the attached copy of advertisement, being
a
in the matter of € i(4_ ,C(* ,
in the Court. was pub-
lished in said newspaper in the issues of '7)44G1(/ /S 79
Aftient further says that the said Vero Beach Press -Journal is a newspaper published at
Vero Beach, in said Indian River County, Florida. and that the said newspaper has heretofore
been continuously pLblished in said Indian River County. Florida, each daily and has been
entered as second class mail matter at the post office in Vero Beach, in said Indian River Coun-
ty, Florida, for a period of one year next preceding the first publication of the attached copy of
advertisement; and atfiant 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
advertisement for publication in the said newspaper.
Sworn to and subscribed Jfort>Rte thi
(SEAL)
07 -day of A D 19 99
O
/ r, / .1 /: l i. 7otl�iness Manager)
(Clerk o1 the Circuit Court, Indian River County, Florida)
NOTICE OF PUBLIC NEARING II
closing, Notice of hearing to consider a petition for baelea1l
Lane lying between Lot 1. d iA
Block0 and Lot 9l
Block 2. of Oceanaire Heights Subdivision Said
right-of-way fol owaa ung a particularly describer)
The subject properly is described as -I
Block C of Oceanain at the o airs Heiest ghts Unit No. -of Lot 9,
the plat of which is recorded in Pier
Book- 3, Page 84 of the Public Records
of Indian River County, and run east
130.3 feet to the northeast corner of the
•
said Lot 9. Then run north 70 feet to the
southeast comer of Lor 1, Block D or
Oceanaire Heights Unit No. 2. the plat of •
which is recorded in Plat gook 4, Page 4
of the Public Records of Indian River
County. Then run 130.0to the
southwest comer of westthe0 Load. Then
run south 70 feet to the Point of Begin- I
rung
A public hearing at which parses in interest-
and citizens shall have an opportunity
'lard. mil be held by the Board of to be
missioners of Indran•Rwer County. Florida
the
County Commission Chambers. of the Caere
ty
Admmistrahon Building. located at 1840 25th
•
Street. Vero Reach, Florida. on Tuesday. April 5.--
1988 at 905 a.m.
Anyone who may whsh to appeal any decision!
which
be
aat
will need to,
ensere that a verbatim record of the proceedings
is made which includes the testimonn.
dance upon which the appeal ma be based -i
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
By -s -Don C. Scurlock. Jr
Chairman
March 15. 1988
Stan Boling, Chief of Current Development, presented the
following recommendation by staff for denial of the Haggas's
petition for abandonment:
TO:Charles Balczun DATE: March 9, 1988
County Administrator
DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE:
%^
.1/
FILE:
HAGGAS'S PETITION FOR
R: ert M. Kea'tizyg, iC SUBJECT: RIGHT-OF-WAY ABANDONMENT
Community Developme Director
THROUGH: Stan Boling -42'
Chief, Current Development
FROM: John W. McCoy
Staff Planne
ct\
REFERENCES:
haggas
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 5, 1988.
8
APR 51988
BOOK 71 Fa GF 425
LOCATION & DESCRIPTION:
Hiram Manning, on behalf of Jeanne and William Haggas)has submit-
ted a petition for the abandonment of that portion of Azalea Lane
west of the west right-of-way of Frangipani Drive in Oceanaire
Heights.
This portion of right-of-way is bordered on two sides by lots in
Oceanaire Heights and dead -ends into the Kennedy Groves property.
The purpose of this abandonment is to provide for more developable
area for the lots bordering the right-of-way.
Per guidelines established by the Board of County Commissioners,
the petition was reviewed by all County division and utility
providers having jurisdiction within the right-of-way. All
agencies have completed their review of the proposed abandonment.
The traffic engineer has stated that the request should be denied
since,in accordance with Section 10(3) of the subdivision ordi-
nance, the stub -out of Azalea Lane is needed to provide future
access via a street extension to undeveloped properties to the
west. Planning staff also objects to the request for similar
reasons: extension of the right-of-way will be needed in the
future to extend roadway, drainage, and utilities systems.
Although this portion of Azalea is presently unused and is not a
part of the roadway system as noted on the County Thoroughfare
Plan, the right-of-way does provide for future connection to the
undeveloped lands to the west.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the County not abandon its rights to this,
portion of Azalea Lane, and that Chairman of the Board of County
Commissioners not be authorized to execute the attached resolution
(Attachment #3) .
Chairman Scurlock opened the Public Hearing, and asked if
anyone wished to be heard in this matter.
Attorney Hiram Manning presented his clients' petition for
the abandonment of the stub -out of Azalea Lane, which consists of
approximately 130 ft. He noted that the petitioners feel it is a
reasonable request since 1) the roadway is not in any present
use; 2) the lands owned at present by Kennedy Groves have been
zoned back to agricultural status, and 3) there would be access
to CR -5I0 through Jungle Trail and any cuts into that road. In
addition, if any east -west connectors are desired from
subdivision to subdivision, they can use Magnolia Lane to the
north and Cocoa Palm Lane, which is a through road from AIA.
Attorney Manning stressed that it is not a short street; it runs
APR 5 1988
9
BOOK 71 [Au 426
for one block, from Frangipani to Sea Grape Lane. The
abandonment would permit each of the adjoining property owners to
obtain approximately 35 feet, which will allow them to build
driveways• into their residences. Kennedy Groves has consented to
joining this petition and has no objection if the Board sees fit
to grant the abandonment.
Commissioner Eggert asked the width of the Haggas's lot, and
Attorney Manning explained that the lot has 130 feet fronting on
Azalea Lane and 93.5 feet fronting on Frangipani, which is
typical of all the lots in that platted subdivision.
Commissioner Bird felt it might be premature to give up this
right-of-way since the undeveloped property to the west is yet to
be subdivided. He believed the Board might be more favorable if
the matter was considered at some future time.
Attorney Manning stated that his clients are simply asking
what they believe to be a reasonable request, but they will go
along with whatever this Board sees fit to do.
There being no others who wished to be heard, the Chairman
declared the Public Hearing closed.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously denied
the Haggas's petition for abandonment, as recommended
by staff.
PUBLIC HEARING - PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO COUNTY CODE OF LAWS AND
ORDINANCES - PROVISION FOR COUNTY DUNE STABILIZATION SETBACK LINE
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:
APR 5 1988
ih.______
10
BOOK .71 P E 427
VERO BEACH PRESS -JOURNAL
Published Daily
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 daily newspaper published
. at Vero Beach in Indian River County, Florida; that the attached copy of advertisement, being
•
in the matter of �•'��✓i i�' `�Yw�u��
in the _ Court, was pub-
a/Vril /. /q.71
fished 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, Florida. and that the said newspaper has heretofore
been continuously pt:blished in said Indian River County, Honda, each daily and has been
entered as second class mail matter at the post office in Vero Beach. in said Indian River Coun-
ty, Florida, for a period of one year next preceding the first publication of the attached copy of
advertisement; 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
advertisement for publication in the said newspaper.
Sworn to and subscribed •efor� me this _/5. day ofARZA.D. 19 gr
(SEAL)
iness Manager)
t. :1
(Clerk of the Circuit Court, Indian River County, Florida)
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
TO CONSIDER THE
ADOPTION OF A COUNTY ORDINANCE '
Notice is hereby given that the Board of
County Commissioners of Indian River County.
Florida, shall hold a public hearing at which par-
ties in interest and citizens shall have an oppor-
tunity to be heard, in the County Commission .
Chambers of the County Administration Build-
ing. located at 1840 25th St.. Vero Beach, Flor-
ida, on Tuesday. Apra. 5. 1988. at 9:05 A.M. 10
consider the adoption of an Ordinance entitled:
AN ORDINANCE OF INDIAN RIVER •
COUNTY. FLORIDA. AFFECTING EN-'
CROACHMENT. OR INGRESS ONTO
OR NATURAL VEGETATION SEAWARD
OF A LINE HEREBY ESTABLISHED BY
AMENDING SECTIONS 23V-10 (a) (b).
(d) and (e). INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES: BY
AMENDING GENERAL PROVISIONS,
SECTION 25(x), (1). (2). (3)(f). (4) and (6)
COASTAL MANAGEMENT AND SHORE-
LINE PROTECTION, INDIAN RIVER
COUNTY CODE OF LAWS AND ORDI-
NANCES. TO PROHIBIT ENCROACH-
MENT ONTO. OR ALTERATION OF
NATURAL VEGETATION SEAWARD OF
A LINE HEREBY ESTABLISHED:
PROVIDING FOR EFFECTIVE DATE.
SEVERABILITY AND INCORPORATION
IN CODE
A copy of the proposed ordinance is available
at the Planning Department office on the second
floor of the County Administration Building.
Anyone who may wish to appeal any decision
which may be made 01 this meeting will need to
ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings
is made which includes the testimony and evi-
dence upon which the appeal will be based.
Indian River County
Board of County Commissioners
By: -s -Don C. Scurlock Jr
March 15. 1988
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 2/12/88:
•
TO:
Charles Balczun
County Administrator
DEPARTMENT HEAD CONCURRENCE:
DATE: February 12, 1988 FILE:
Robert M. Kea ing ICP BJECT:
Community De elo nt Director
FROM: Michael K. Miller PIA REFERENCES:
Chief, Environmental Planning
and Code Enforcement
Proposed Amendment to
Section 231-10, Tree
Protection, and Section
25X, General Provisions, to
provide for a County Dune
Stabilization Setback line
AMEN SEC 23i-10
MIKE
It is requested that the data presented herein be given formal
consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their
regular meeting of April 5, 1988.
APP 5198
11
800E 71 Pr�'uE 428
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS:
On March 3, 1987, the Governor and Cabinet, acting as head of
the Florida Department of Natural Resources, adopted Rule
16B-26.018, Florida Administrative Code, that moved the Indian
River County Coastal Construction Control Line (CCCL) approxi-
mately 200 feet west of the line that was established in 1981.
The CCCL is administered as a line of regulation by the State,
whereby construction is authorized seaward of the line from
time to time. The County, on the other hand, had administered
the CCCL as a line of prohibition and historically not authorized
construction seaward of the CCCL. When the State moved the
CCCL landward by approximately 200 feet last year, the County
realized that the continuance of an absolute prohibition of
construction seaward of the CCCL was not reasonable, and on
March 10, 1987, the Board of County Commissioners adopted
several amendments to the local code to permit the construction
of State approved houses and other structures seaward of the
CCCL. At this Hearing, the staff advised the Commission that
additional revisions would be necessary to the Tree Protection
Ordinance to permit the continuation of County policy that
prohibited most construction seaward of the "old" control line)
and the Commission authorized additional revisions. The
proposed ordinance officially designates the "old" 1981 CCCL as
the County Dune Stabilization Setback Line and continues the
present policy of general County prohibition of Construction
and dune vegetation protection seaward of the 1981 control
line.
In recent years, the State has been in a process of analyzing
each coastal County's CCCL and revising the location of the
CCCL for a few counties each year. The "new" or relocated
Coastal Construction Control Lines are the result of numerous
studies, including computer modeling that indicate that storm
erosion damage is likely to extend further inland than was
previously thought. This fact has dictated that the CCCL be
moved a significant distance landward of the old line that was
established in 1981.
The Planning and Zoning Commission, at the February 11, 1988,
Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting, voted unanimously to
recommend approval of the proposed ordinance to the Board of
County Commissioners.
ALTERNATIVES & ANALYSIS:
The Proposed ordinance takes the "Old" Control Line and desig-
nates it as the County Dune Stabilization Setback Line. The
old control line is utilized since that line approximates the
landward limit of the primary dune along with typical Coastal
Strand vegetation including cabbage palm, sand live oak,
seagrape, red bay, saw palmetto, sea purslane, beach morning-
glory, seaoats, and sanbur, among many others.
Adoption of the proposed ordinance will not change county policy
from the way it has been applied to coastline development for many
years.
Within the last year, the staff has examined several legal and
technical considerations associated with the proposed ordinance,
and the proposed ordinance changes are new in a form ready for
adoption by the County.
APR 5198
12
BOOK 71 PAGE 429
RECOMMENDATION:
Based on the above analysis, staff recommends that the Board of
County Commissioners approve the proposed amendments to the existing
ordinance.
Commissioner Eggert questioned the leeway zone mentioned on
page 6 of the proposed ordinance, and Michael Miller, Chief,of
Environmental Planning, explained that the leeway zone is a:
15 -ft. zone extending east of the old coastal construction line.
Commissioner Eggert understood that they cannot build within
15 feet of the old line, but Mr. Miller explained that in either
case they cannot build seaward of the line. With the leeway
zone, they can build up to the line, which gives them an area for
routine construction activity. In other words, workmen can move
across there as long as we have guarantees that it will be put
back as before.
Robert Keating, Director of Community Development, clarified
that you can build right up to the County's old dune
stabilization line.
Chairman Scurlock opened the Public Hearing and asked if
anyone wished to be heard in this matter. There being none, he
declared the Public Hearing closed.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Wheeler, the Board unanimously adopted
Ordinance 88-17, providing for a county dune
stabilization setback line.
ORDINANCE 88-17 IN ITS ENTIRETY IS HEREBY MADE A PART OF OFFICIAL
RECORD.
APR 19
13
BOOK. 71 FAGS 430
•
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY ORDINANCE
ORDINANCE NO. 88-17
AN ORDINANCE OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, AFFEC-
TING ENCROACHMENT, OR INGRESS ONTO OR ALTERATION OF
NATURAL VEGETATION SEAWARD OF A LINE HEREBY ESTABLI-
SHED BY AMENDING SECTIONS 23-1O (a) (b) , (c) , (d) and
(e), INDIAN RIVER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES;
BY AMENDING GENERAL PROVISIONS OF APPENDIX A, ZONING,
SECTION 25(X), (1) , (2) , (3) (f) , (4) , AND (6) COASTAL
MANAGEMENT AND SHORELINE PROTECTION, INDIAN RIVER
COUNTY CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES, TO PROHIBIT
ENCROACHMENT ONTO, OR ALTERATION OF NATURAL VEGETA-
TION SEAWARD OF A LINE HEREBY ESTABLISHED: PROVIDING
FOR EFFECTIVE DATE, SEVERABILITY AND INCORPORATION IN
CODE.
WHEREAS, the State of Florida recently relocated the
Coastal Construction Control Line several Hundred feet landward
of the location where the line has existed since 1981; and
WHEREAS, the County has eliminated the prohibition of
construction seaward of the recently relocated Coastal Con-
struction Control Line and the State of Florida may, from time
to time, authorize construction activity, wholly or in part, to
extend seaward of the relocated Coastal Construction Control
Line; and
WHEREAS, the State will generally prohibit construction
seaward of the "old" Coastal Construction Control Line and the
"old" line defines the most seaward and therefore most critical
segment of coastal dune; and
WHEREAS, certain natural dune vegetation on the primary
and secondary dunes are invaluable in the prevention of beach
and shore erosion; and
WHEREAS, the conservation and coastal zone management
element of the County's Comprehensive Plan requires the County
to enact a native plant community ordinance in order to pre-
serve native flora & fauna and to further protect the social,
economic, and environmental attributes of the coastal system;
and
WHEREAS, the protection of dune vegetation within Indian
River County is not only consistent with the comprehensive
plan, but is essential to the present and future health, safety
and welfare of all citizens of Indian River County.
BOOK 71 r,,cr431
APR 5 1988
ORDINANCE NO. 88 -
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1
AMENDMENT OF SECTION 23i-10 (a) , (b) , (c) , (d) , and (e) ,
Indian River County Code of Laws and Ordinances.
Section 23i -10(a), (b) , (c) , (d) , and (e) , Indian River County
Code of Laws and Ordinances is hereby amended as follows:
23i -10(a) Establishment of Description of the County Dune
Stabilization Setback Line. The following legal description
describes the location of the County Dune Stabilization Set-
back Line:
Commence at P.R.M. 88-78-A04, THENCE N61°54'34"E A DISTANCE OF
92.937 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING: THENCE N25°48'35"W TO
THE POINT OF INTERSECTION WITH THE MEAN HIGH WATER LINE OF THE
SOUTHERN BANK OF SEBASTIAN INLET; SAID POINT BEING THE
NORTHERLY TERMINUS OF THE INDIAN RIVER COUNTY DUNE STABI-
LIZATION SETBACK LINE. THENCE RETURN ALONG THE SAME COURSE TO
THE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE S245°48'35"E A DISTANCE OF
985.09 FEET TO A POINT, THENCE S26°24'56" E A DISTANCE OF
972.65 FEET TO A POINT, THENCE S26°24'56"E A DISTANCE OF 972.65
FEET TO A POINT,THENCE S26°09'54"E A DISTANCE OF 992.01 FEET TO
A POINT, THENCE S26°15'53"E A DISTANCE OF 965.73 FEET TO A
POINT,THENCE S26°27'40"E A DISTANCE OF 1044.65 FEET TO A POINT,
SAID POINT BEING N13°03'41"E A DISTANCE OF 364.721 FEET FROM
P.R.M. 88-78-A05. THENCE S26°25'29"E A DISTANCE OF 942.15 FEET
TO A POINT, THENCE S26°01'12"E A DISTANCE OF 1087.25 FEET TO A
POINT, THENCE S25°25'04"E A DISTANCE OF 923.32 FEET TO A POINT,
THENCE S25°38'32"E A DISTANCE OF 1080.35 FEET TO A POINT,
THENCE S25°49'46"E A DISTANCE OF 1065.83 FEET TO A POINT, SAID
POINT BEING N88°02'27"E A DISTANCE OF 238.599 FEET FROM P.R.M.
88-78-A06. THENCE S25°33'52"E A DISTANCE OF 828.20 FEET TO A
POINT, THENCE S24°53'45"E A DISTANCE OF 998.98 FEET TO A POINT,
THENCE S25°15'38"E A DISTANCE OF 988.05 FEET TO A POINT, THENCE
S24°05'55"E A DISTANCE OF 974.13 FEET TO A POINT, SAID POINT
BEING N05°58'26"E A DISTANCE OF 239.786 FEET FROM P.R.M.
88-78-A07. THENCE S23°38'48"E A DISTANCE OF 1012.21 FEET TO A
POINT, THENCE S24°38'11"E A DISTANCE OF 976.75 FEET TO A POINT,
THENCE S26°20'20"E A DISTANCE OF 968.57 FEET TO A POINT, THENCE
S26°00'58"E A DISTANCE OF 1033.56 FEET TO A POINT, SAID POINT
BEING N47°26'24"E A DISTANCE OF 675.967 FEET FROM P.R.M.
88-78-A08. THENCE S23°38'46"E A DISTANCE OF 955.08 FEET TO A
POINT, THENCE S22°43'22"E A DISTANCE OF 989.02 FEET TO A POINT,
THENCE S26°11'35"E A DISTANCE OF 1019.91 FEET TO A POINT,
THENCE S25°24'59"E A DISTANCE OF 1028.84 FEET TO A POINT,
THENCE S25°25'02"E A DISTANCE OF 995.08 FEET TO A POINT, SAID
POINT BEING N11°46'54"E A DISTANCE OF 712.224 FEET FROM P.R.M.
88-78-A09. THENCE S25°19'37"E A DISTANCE OF 1118.89 FEET TO A
POINT, THENCE S26°58'18"E A DISTANCE OF 966.74 FEET TO A
POINT, THENCE S28°05'39"E A DISTANCE OF 755.47 FEET TO A
POINT, THENCE S28°43'55"E A DISTANCE OF 1046.03 FEET TO. A
POINT, THENCE S28°12'23"E A DISTANCE OF 956.49 FEET TO A POINT,
THENCE S27°02'48"E A DISTANCE OF 1019.16 FEET TO A POINT, SAID
POINT BEING N24°57'03"E A DISTANCE OF 604.425 FEET FROM P.R.M.
88-78-A10. THENCE S26°02'34"E A DISTANCE OF 936.46 FEET TO A
POINT, THENCE S25°55'08"E A DISTANCE OF 959.22 FEET TO A POINT,
CODING: Words underlined are additions; 000$0/Attto1E/txtotoyi
APR 51988
2 BOOK 71 FACE 432
ORDINANCE NO. 88 -
THENCE S24°50'53"E A DISTANCE OF 990.21 FEET TO A POINT, THENCE
S24°24'27"E A DISTANCE OF 961.15 FEET TO A POINT, THENCE
S24°06'30"E A DISTANCE OF 1054.60 FEET TO A POINT, SAID POINT
BEING S70°56'11"E A DISTANCE OF 705.700 FEET FROM P.R.M.
88-78-A11. THENCE S23°43'13"E A DISTANCE OF 886.39 FEET TO A
POINT, THENCE S24°46'24"E A DISTANCE OF 958.21 FEET TO A POINT,
THENCE S23°27'45"E A DISTANCE OF 950.89 FEET TO A POINT, SAID
POINT BEING N537°C7'36"E A DISTANCE OF 512.466 FEET FROM P.R.M.
88-78-Al2. THENCE S24°09'25"E A DISTANCE OF 989.38 FEET TO A
POINT, THENCE S24°09'17"E A DISTANCE OF 1016.49 FEET TO A
POINT, THENCE S26°14'00"E A DISTANCE OF 1064.85 FEET TO A
POINT, SAID POINT BEING S75°06'33"E A DISTANCE OF 673.213 FEET
FROM P.R.M. 88-78-A13. THENCE S32°11'26"E A DISTANCE OF 1001.21
FEET TO A POINT, THENCE S28°19'24"E A DISTANCE OF 1048.28 FEET
TO A POINT, THENCE S28°30'46"E A DISTANCE OF 1001.26 FEET TO A
POINT, SAID POINT BEING S77°19'32"E A DISTANCE OF 557.656 FEET
FROM P.R.M. 88-78-A14. THENCE S26°40'17"E A DISTANCE OF 1023.37
FEET TO A POINT, THENCE S23°48'04"E A DISTANCE OF 917.94 FEET
TO A POINT, THENCE S23°25'28"E A DISTANCE OF 974.08 FEET TO A
POINT, THENCE S26°15'09"E A DISTANCE OF 982.47 FEET TO A POINT,
THENCE S23°44'18"E A DISTANCE OF 994.80 FEET TO A POINT, SAID
POINT BEING N74°30'52"E A DISTANCE OF 405.713 FEET FROM P.R.M.
88-78-A15. THENCE S20°29'48"E A DISTANCE OF 1034.00 FEET TO A
POINT, THENCE S19°49'21"E A DISTANCE OF 1020.12 FEET TO A
POINT, THENCE S18°10'31"E A DISTANCE OF 984.78 FEET TO A POINT,
THENCE S17°12'19"E A DISTANCE OF 1039.34 FEET TO A POINT, SAID
POINT BEING N53°37'59"E A DISTANCE OF 621.574 FEET FROM P.R.M.
88-78-A16. THENCE S11°32'42"E A DISTANCE OF 1008.33 FEET TO A
POINT, THENCE S13°14'48"E A DISTANCE OF 970.18 FEET TO A POINT,
THENCE S15°31'12"E A DISTANCE OF 995.23 FEET TO A POINT, THENCE
S17°48'16"E A DISTANCE OF 928.62 FEET TO A POINT, SAID POINT
BEING N28°45'45"E A DISTANCE OF 531.851 FEET FROM P.R.M.
88-78-A17. THENCE S14°37'08"E A DISTANCE OF 986.88 FEET TO A
POINT, THENCE S15°06'52"E A DISTANCE OF 989.92 FEET TO A POINT,
THENCE S18°50'42"E A DISTANCE OF 1157.11 FEET TO A POINT,
THENCE S 21°1823"E A DISTANCE OF 962.27 FEET TO A POINT, THENCE
S16°51'47"E A DISTANCE OF 1004.65 FEET TO A POINT, SAID POINT
BEING S70°34'11"E A DISTANCE OF 765.357 FEET FROM P.R.M.
88-78-18. THENCE S15°42'31"E A DISTANCE OF 987.77 FEET TO A
POINT, THENCE S16°01'30"E A DISTANCE OF 1086.70 FEET TO A
POINT, SAID POINT BEING N70°21'42"E A DISTANCE OF 1132.723 FEET
FROM P.R.M. 88-78-A19. THENCE S18°46'41"E A DISTANCE OF 941.92
FEET TO A POINT, THENCE S18°02'42"E A DISTANCE OF 1026.15 FEET
TO A POINT, THENCE S19°48'41"E A DISTANCE OF 923.01 FEET TO A
POINT, THENCE S17°48'27"E A DISTANCE OF 979.56 FEET TO A POINT,
THENCE S19°18'16"E A DISTANCE OF 1137.33 FEET TO A POINT, SAID
POINT BEING N57°18'50"E A DISTANCE OF'971.626 FEET FROM P.R.M.
88-78-A20. THENCE S19°53'42"E A DISTANCE OF 1033.94 FEET TO A
POINT, THENCE S13°54'00"E A DISTANCE OF 1106.41 FEET TO A
POINT, THENCE S12°01'21"E A DISTANCE OF 985.29 FEET TO A POINT,
THENCE S16°22'57"E A DISTANCE OF 940.87 FEET TO A POINT, SAID
POINT BEING S81°00'40"E A DISTANCE OF 850.643 FEET FROM P.R.M.
88-78-A21. THENCE S15°32'29"E A DISTANCE OF 1067.62 FEET TO A
POINT, SAID POINT BEING N32°45'12"E A DISTANCE OF 370.130 FEET
FROM P.R.M. 88-78-A22. THENCE S14°46'13"E A DISTANCE OF 1150.53
FEET TO A POINT, THENCE S17°39'15"E A DISTANCE OF 887.84 FEET
TO A POINT, THENCE S18°14'52"E A DISTANCE OF 994.54 FEET TO A
POINT, SAID POINT BEING N79°10'06"E A DISTANCE OF 310.588 FEET
FROM P.R.M. 88-78-A-23. THENCE S10°21'07"E A DISTANCE OF
1031.15 FEET TO A POINT, SAID POINT BEING S87°44'04"E A DIS-
TANCE OF 1042.062 FEET FROM P.R.M. 88-78-A24. THENCE Sll
°50'19"E A DISTANCE OF 935.03 FEET TO A POINT, THENCE
S18°13'27"EA DISTANCE OF 1182.35 FEET TO A POINT, SAID POINT
BEING N70°45'06"E A DISTANCE OF 1156.120 FEET FROM P.R.M.
88-78-A225. THENCE S16°41'16"E A DISTANCE OF 893.43 FEET TO A
POINT, THENCE S14°20'12"E A DISTANCE OF 979.91 FEET TO A POINT,
THENCE S15°00'01"E A DISTANCE OF 947.25 FEET TO A POINT, THENCE
S14°32'48"E A DISTANCE OF 1138.03 FEET TO A POINT, THENCE
CODING: Words underlined are additions; 00jast/iitt,ka/Wottm
APR 5 1988
3
BOOK
71 [AGE 433
ORDINANCE NO. 88-
S15°52'55"E A DISTANCE OF 812.35 FEET TO A POINT, SAID POINT
BEING N86°28'45"E A DISTANCE OF 2399.437 FEET FROM P.R.M.
88-78-A26. THENCE S15°34'51"E A DISTANCE OF 1143.01 FEET TO A
POINT, SAID POINT BEING N81°31'08"E A DISTANCE OF 2512.615 FEET
FROM P.R.M. 88-78-A27. THENCE S12°35'22"E A DISTANCE OF 821.55
FEET TO A POINT, THENCE S03°32'32"E A DISTANCE OF 1088.24 FEET
TO A POINT, THENCE S01°58'19"E A DISTANCE OF 806.10 FEET TO A
POINT, THENCE So6°48'14"E A DISTANCE OF 876.63 FEET TO A POINT,
SAID POINT BEING N 77°13'29" E A DISTANCE OF 1669.359 FEET FROM
P.R.M. 88-78-A28. THENCE S12°56'35"E A DISTANCE OF 980.67 FEET
TO A POINT,THENCE S16°58'05"E A DISTANCE OF 1076.82 FEET TO A
POINT, THENCE S20°42'52"E A DISTANCE OF 973.68 FEET TO A POINT,
THENCE S22°33'49"E A DISTANCE OF 1032.52 FEET TO A POINT, SAID
POINT BEING N77°18'23"E A DISTANCE OF 1186.041 FEET FROM P.R.M.
88-78-A29. THENCE S24°18'55"E A DISTANCE OF 973.30 FEET TO A
POINT, THENCE S 28°01'09"E A DISTANCE OF 961.56 FEET TO A
POINT, SAID POINT BEING N58°24'51"E A DISTANCE OF 1116.894 FEET
FROM P.R.M. 88-78-A30. THENCE S33°41'27"E A DISTANCE OF 1014.93
FEET TO A POINT, THENCE S37°25'09" E A DISTANCE OF 889.85 FEET
TO A POINT, THENCE S32°03'43"E A DISTANCE OF 1063.03 FEET TO A
POINT, SAID POINT BEING N87°01'58"E A DISTANCE OF 1970.248 FEET
FROM P.R.M. 88-78-A31. THENCE S36°54'45"E A DISTANCE OF 1094.46
FEET TO A POINT, SAID POINT BEING N78°46'28"E A DISTANCE OF
1762.191 FEET FROM P.R.M. 88-78-A32. THENCE S37°19'51"E A
DISTANCE OF 968.06 FEET TO A POINT, THENCE S32°22'40"E A
DISTANCE OF 1000.15 FEET TO A POINT, SAID POINT BEING
N71°20'02"E A DISTANCE OF 1241.068 FEET FROM P.R.M. 88-78-A33.
THENCE S28°31'38"E A DISTANCE OF 889.87 FEET TO A POINT, SAID
POINT BEING N 48°52'18"E A DISTANCE OF 1207.025 FEET FROM
P.R.M. 88-78-134. THENCE S22°44'33"E A DISTANCE OF 1112.43 FEET
TO A POINT,THENCE S18°45'29"E A DISTANCE OF 916.54 FEET TO A
POINT, THENCE S11°08'45"E A DISTANCE OF 1223.06 FEET TO A
POINT, THENCE S10°09'17"E A DISTANCE OF 769.67 FEET TO A POINT,
SAID POINT BEING S 81°08'42"E A DISTANCE OF 1108.663 FEET FROM
P.R.M. 88-78-A35. THENCE S11°16'12"E A DISTANCE OF 826.02 FEET
TO A POINT, THENCE S10°16' 06"E A DISTANCE OF 944.91 FEET TO A
POINT, SAID POINT BEING S81°24'29"E A DISTANCE OF 1183.360 FEET
FROM P.R.M. 88-78-A36. THENCE S11°36'24"E A DISTANCE OF 1067.16
FEET TO A POINT, SAID POINT BEING S87°38'35"E A DISTANCE OF
985.112 FEET FROM P.R.M. 88-78-A37. THENCE S10°39'02"E A
DISTANCE OF 917.23 FEET TO A POINT, THENCE S11°09'24"E A
DISTANCE OF 965.16 FEET TO A POINT, SAID POINT BEING
S86°36'06"E A DISTANCE OF 948.700 FEET FROM P.R.M. 88-78-A38.
THENCE S09°20'49"E A DISTANCE OF 1172.90 FEET TO A POINT, SAID
POINT BEING S82°44'03"E A DISTANCE OF 836.104 FEET FROM N.G.S.
RIOMAR 2. THENCE S10°52'20"E A DISTANCE OF 698.17 FEET TO A
POINT, THENCE S11°21'40"E A DISTANCE OF 1323.24 FEET TO A
POINT, SAID POINT BEING S47°00'11"E A DISTANCE OF 801.625 FEET
FROM P.R.M. 94-77-A40. THENCE S14°21'44"E A DISTANCE OF 899.82
FEET TO A POINT, THENCE S15°05'00"E A DISTANCE OF 917.94 FEET
TO A POINT, THENCE S14°58'11"E A DISTANCE OF 1101.11 FEET TO A
POINT, SAID POINT BEING N62°13'11"E A DISTANCE OF 479.316 FEET
FROM P.R.M. 94-77-A39. THENCE S16°00'16"E A DISTANCE OF 970.48
FEET TO A POINT, SAID POINT BEING S44°16'16"E A DISTANCE OF
990.810 FEET FROM P.R.M. 94-77-A39. THENCE S16°33'15"E TO THE
POINT OF INTERSECTION WITH THE INDIAN RIVER AND ST. LUCIE
COUNTY LINE, SAID POINT BEING THE SOUTHERLY TERMINUS OF THE
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY DUNE STABILIZATION SETBACK LINE.
23I -10(b) Except as provided herein, encroachment or
ingress onto or any disturbance of the main dune or natural
vegetation seaward of the tt¢//q'qWt/4//ftbhAtta ai//adriViAi1
CODING: Words underlined are additions; 00tA$/$tttOlt/tM '0Yi014
APR 51988
4
BOOK 71 L\ GE 434
ORDINANCE NO. 88-
Jjyi¢ County Dune Stabilization Setback Line is prohibited,
including encroachment or disturbance caused by individuals
upon foot or by vehicle or any kind. Ingress by foot seaward
of the County Dune Stabilization Line must be associated with
an approved dune crossover structure.
23i -10(c) The land between the Coastal Construction
Control Line and the County Dune Stabilization Setback Line is
established as a zone of regulation whereby the Bureau of
Beaches and Shores of the Department of Natural Resources and
Indian River County may permit construction activity and
construction related dune alteration. Except as provided
herein, new construction and/or disturbance of the dune and
associated native vegetation is not permitted seaward of the
County Dune Stabilization Setback Line.
23i -10(d) Except as expressly provided in Subparagraph
(e) , it shall be unlawful for any person to operate, drive or
propel any truck, tractor, bulldozer, grader, crane, automo-
bile, motorcycle, dune buggy, moped, minibike, all terrain
cycle, or any other vehicle seaward of the ¢0A4¢AX/0044ttAotXt3Y1
Witt¢1/74Akh County Dune Stabilization Line excluding, howev-
er, any of the aforementioned vehicles when operated by an
officer of an
agency of the State of Florida or $ of a political subdivision
of the State of Florida in the furtherance of official duties,
or those operations which have received the express au-
thorization of the Board of County Commissioners.
23i -10(e) Notwithstanding the foregoing provisions, ¢¢ X¢4
¢¢¢4ktA¢t1¢71/44/t14¢/t64¢41444V¢t/01¢/4AXyi/¢Yiyi¢l an applicant who
has received the express written approval of the Bureau of
Beaches and Shores of the Department of Natural Resources to
carry on construction $¢tL164i±t. //s'a' W'''/bf//tbf¢/OQW5,WV/fCb/i/
$tt1it¢¢X(i11/,Cbb kbf.//t/i/rJe of an approved structure closer to the
County Dune Stabilization Line than 15 feet landward of the
County Dune Stabilization Line may make use of a leeway zone
CODING: Words underlined are additions; 0¢k¢0/4jE>F>Q¢ /¢xtE¢l[tx
$t¢/0$X$i±X?A$
APR 51988 5 Ng 71 PAGE 435
ORDINANCE NO. 88 -
seaward of the County Dune Stabilization Line. Said zone may
extend to a line up to fifteen (15) feet seaward of the dune
stabilization line but may not extend more than (6t//t/pf//c,b
fifteen (15) feet seaward of said 0957itbOX/IVINci!/f/c/r//abbk
0¢ bX )6X U00 / /r/e/Va/t/e/c3/ / U/ /c%/r/s/t/rA*/t/i/c%/ / q t/ /i/ dv/We/r/t/W / / Incl /
X 710.0AU/b/f//ice'$/0071tt0//dam/. structure. The purpose of the
leeway zone is to provide for temporar encroachment of workers
and equipment seaward of the Dune Stabilization Line necessary
for construction activity. All proposed activity within the
fifteen (15) foot leeway zone shall be described in writing and
submitted to the Environmental Planner. Such written request
for authorization of a leeway zone up to 15 feet in depth shall
include a vegetation survey that accurately locates and identi-
fies all vegetation within an area between the County Dune
Stabilization Setback Line and a line twenty (20) feet seaward
of that line as well as a plan for revegetating and maintaining
the leeway zone with natural indigenous dune vegetation. No
permanent improvement or structure may be made in the leeway
zone and, prior to encroachment therein, a temporary barrier
running parallel to the Coastal Construction Control Line or
County Dune Stabilization Setback Line shall be placed at the
most seaward extent of the leeway zone to identify the limits
beyond which no encroachment of any kind may occur; provided,
however, all activities related to construction of an approved
dune crossover or elevated bridge shall be governed by authori-
zation t4160A/h/0fix//bA,fAttAW/4'/, Sbbk/. of the Department of
Natural Resources, Bureau of Beaches and Shores, or its succes-
sor. 444/IpVcric/s/dcY/0¢t4tb4tt//t17i0//f/i/fft-/e/ /f/c%/t//X0000t
43vi0 / Abla4/11 /tdgi / 111044)050d/ /i/h/ /1310/ Nlai(/titiad / bb/ /We/ / �f
)bat 0)146014U///16/01vfct`// d //i/r/ildrl //r//v/i/e .//4h1//k4144-k 1 fi//,fib//010
A1S15bqS34X /NV /t q'/$Xi ceAxi/,b/f// yid /,8bbhk.,§//)s! 5IZ'e'l /ii}6bt0/
Approvals required under this paragraph may be obtained concur-
rently with site plan or subdivision approval, as the case may
be, but must be obtained Xyi/,6y//q'v/eh/t prior to the scheduled
CODING: Words underlined are additions; 1046/00/0bb/i¢XioitU'4 i
APR 51988
6
BOOK 71 DU 4:36
ORDINANCE NO. 88 -
activity. The leeway zone shall be revegetated with natural
indigenous dune vegetation upon completion of construction
activities and prior to the issuance of any certificate of
occupancy for the subject improvements. The applicant remains
responsible for successful reclamation of the dune vegetation
temporarily destroyed under this paragraph.
SECTION 2
AMENDMENT OF SECTION 25 (X) (1) , (2) , (3) (f) , (4) , and (6) ,
Indian River County Code of Laws and Ordinances, Appendix
A -Zoning, Section 25 (X) (1) , (2) , (3) (f) , (4) , and (6) , Indian
River County Code of Laws and Ordinances, Appendix A -Zoning, is
hereby amended as follows:
25X. COASTAL MANAGEMENT AND SHORELINE PROTECTION.
1. $00014///a 7///$17107/46f//PkkAkk*AiLibh///Q'h' tla'rl //A.10 0¢11
Establishment of County Dune Stabilization Setback
Line.
The 4 $X / ad kkZ. 444,41/ AVrik/i'd7/ / .XIAO, County Dune
Stabilization Setback Line, as established in 7$04¢1i
OW Section 231-10(a), Indian River County Code of
Laws and Ordinances, $X0 //V cis' 'vV1a4a7//ANt/Q'r
Z$11 /X'UbtL91,./15kaa $$/Fht.t/ k/ ff .,3//f/rk /1X.i/TV/Vo
adie1 is adopted by reference. No building, exca-
vation or man-made structure, except dune crossovers
or other similar minor structures as defined by the
Florida Department of Natural Resources shall be
located seaward of the 001EUX// 6A A(kjtjt,,bh//q'gfra(t/ilgfl
%LAO1 County Dune Stabilization Setback Line except
as provided in § 23i -10(e).
Itg¢01bt/khak/ /1'W /0Xti40 /k Aakkii//a//iq'i/r alti/t 'QUI
0,0/ 01//i/5/a//000,71Eiigt'i0//i4//Aatti .if 'a1 /AeAbut,5 oi,ce
OktOtt////005flia1Z1z////t!c////1. /141////LbAk44/,////rX03,fXU4
CODING: Words underlined are additions; 00tdA/ottt¢)E/ixtgtoi.
7
APR 5 1988
8001( 71 FAME 437
ORDINANCE NO. 88-
4>6X4X AtXTb6/0q54I0/AW0A/Aii4/Pt000 1dt0A/XUt/00A4tUX
0040tt140t404/440/U0A1boit40YiYl
2. Dune and Vegetative Disturbance Prohibited.
Except as provided for herein, or in Section 23i-10
of this code, disturbance of the natural dune or
vegetation seaward of the ¢04W40t404/ kkk4, ik/ /a!alVe
County Dune Stabilization Setback Line is prohibited.
Any construction, excavation, removal of beach
material, or damage Of to vegetation or 0$p dune dj&
seaward of the /40 1 ¢14/X1I10I County Dune
Stabilization Setback Line, except as allowed herein,
shall be considered a violation of this Ordinance.
Nothing in this section shall be construed to pro-
hibit the undertaking of coastal erosion control
projects seaward of the 00A4tU4//bYiAktak t5/i/,dbdvaa
XXyI� County Dune Stabilization Setback Line, when
approved by the Bureau of Beaches and Shores of the
Department of Natural Resources of the State of
Florida, and when the applicant can demonstrate to
the County that the project is in the public interest
or is necessary to protect OOlit15010140 real property
improvements; provided that any such coastal erosion
control project which includes beach sand renourish-
ment shall also include a program of dune system
restoration as a component of the project. Such
restoration program shall include both dune revegeta-
tion, using native and salt tolerant plant material,
and reestablishment of the dune profile.
3. Protection of Beach and Dune System.
All development along the shoreline shall comply with the
following provisions:
CODING: Words underlined are additions; 00400/0t4>d g/tivolittx
At0/00X0tIOA0
APR 51988
L_
8
BOOK 71 AGF 4.38
ORDINANCE NO. 88-
a. Beach Access. Any development along the
shoreline shall include a point of beach access
served by an elevated dune walkover structure.
Single family homes shall be exempt from this
provision. Single family subdivisions contain-
ing lots off as well as on the shoreline shall
provide an easement for beach access served by
an elevated dune walkover.
b. Stability of the Primary Dune Beach/System. No
construction that threatens the stability of the
primary beach and dune system shall be permit-
ted.
c. Shoreline Protection. No rigid shore protection
structures shall be permitted except when used
as part of a Comprehensive plan for beach
restoration and when nonstructural alternatives
are not acceptable.
d. Prohibition of Motorized Vehicles. Operation of
motorized vehicles on the primary dune and beach
system shall be prohibited except in cases of
emergency or as approved by the Florida Depart-
ment of Natural Resources, or as provided in
Section 23i -10(d) of the Ordinances of Indian
River County.
e. Regulation of Beach Cleaning Activities. Beach
cleaning activities shall have their method of
operations and equipment approved by the Florida
Department of Natural Resources.
f. Protection of Sea turtles. All shoreline
development shall 15.407640¢//A//A44A%//V1/ ///a'r/d
WX0414/0XAvi/d0t04$ttAtIlit/tO .A0d4/tUt
tta.00U4YiJ/404/t44f104/4Vi4444/Yi0At4A4/4044014/4A0Xii47'
XAd/ //,f//X141 //skit-irQ'e///LA/ /4410/kb//4 oU
CODING: Words underlined are additions; 0¢5t4A/iittl ¢x/txt0441i
AJO/d0X0t40 $
APR 51988
9
Boo F'nf. 439
ORDINANCE NO. 88-
L//41b/ikib/////f////e/W //1'vlidi'WW/41141YTA4//44 .4
4044041 comply with Section 25(z)of the Indian River
County Code of Laws and Ordinances.
4. Roadways. No roadway shall be allowed to cross the AiliA
04 1 A/t40/004$t4l,4¢tiO4/40t4A¢X,l County Dune Stabilization
Setback Line, except at specific locations, to be desig-
nated by resolution of the Board of County Commissioners.
5. Parking Prohibited. Parking of automobile, boats, trail-
ers, motor homes, recreation and like vehicles is prohib-
ited within the setback area.
6. Regulations During Construction.
T tJiit//dchi6olivalagsa///a'/k'k1(all/r//ktr//kb k//}5, kt 4t/ /444144414
164i.44404/tO/t44/¢044t44/0044ttt0t404/400540X/4440/ 414414/160
164U IUXX/I40//ib/RAW*//lid/00/04X44/ki` b//f/i/fit'/ eil/VY5'Y/f00t
044t0444/ kv`f1 /Ybi / 44,A=A4441 / fikkkA4Xt/ /0/0/e' /0144014
41+LXXX/tk/v001/V021hi014!/AAVVIVII il/4444t544/ik//ah/d//TiiiitOt441.4
tUUgli//A44A444t4.M///WV /044' ///e'r/d'//a(tld ///040Y4' f ////.XXX
1640k3g4X0//00Yi4t4t0t104//X0f,l$lttt//VXi-MUii//t140//04iEA XX.41iXv
Z 'i4t/ b/ik/ kJlAL/i/ U/ / rJdv/e/d/ /a'r/cY /dcdr/d'ddi/dc7 /Y4 / o 14644 0
v4J-)9i / /thy/ / Z 0 Y 4 / X,4 Xkk/ /Q'd/Ir/i.'I/ / k t 4 0 / /A'l'dtk/dVi/dr/ / O t 4 L ii 54 A 0 01
All shoreline development shall comply with the leeway
zone requirement as contained in the Indian River County
Tree Protection Ordinance, Chapter 23z-10 Indian River
County Code of Laws and Ordinances.
71 OtOtAtXOA4/04/440.04/t6XM10X0,l//Xis/4X444/164/110iX .04YiX/fOt/4Yit
I60t404/1W /0164tHt0l //d(r/Vv/e'/Ot14/x/a/a'1//414//a!u(tk�iu/db/1/]/e(,//tdiOf
7W040/01440/164th/0h/ 0t0i/tb0MX0X0/Yii60Wht/04t1444
SECTION 3
CODING: Words underlined are additions; yb.7Volit/ ttA¢X/tXt4SYi M
APR 51988
10
BOOK 71 GE 440
ORDINANCE NO. 88- 17
00/
i$Xi/ 404/k,abMod/ kb/ Mie/ /r/aWr/a'J/ /v/ iOteatt.1dr[ /]!.v1(/ / 016f
./ /s/p' "c/1/f/i/ / /¢¢.44 / /r/u/VW / 4 / /p{r/c/O/d/o/d/ / / /146/r/a/gh/a/pW / Y
0/7. Emergency provisions. During periods of emergency, such
as hurricanes or severe storms, in order to protect life
or property, provisions of this ordinance may be tempo-
rarily suspended by petition to, and approval of, the
Board of County Commissioners.
SEVERABILITY
If any section, part of a sentence, paragraph, phrase or word
of this ordinance is for any reason held to be unconstitution-
al, inoperative or void, such holdings shall not affect the
remaining portions hereof and it shall be construed to have
been the legislative intent to pass this ordinance without such
unconstitutional, invalid or inoperative part.
SECTION 4
EFFECTIVE DATE
The provisions of this ordinance shall become effective upon
receipt from the Florida Secretary of State of official ac-
knowledgement that this ordinance has been filed with the
Department of State.
Approved and adopted by the Board of County Commissioners
of Indian River County, Florida on this 5th day of
April , 1988.
CODING: Words underlined are additions; 000 /ot¢yi¢yt/tbito & bi
APR 5 1988
11
BOOK. 71 FA E 441
ORDINANCE NO. 88- 17
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
By
ATTEST BY
Don C. Sc rlock, J
Chairman
Acknowledgement by the Department of State of the State of
Florida, this llth day of April , 1988.
Effective Date: Acknowledgement from the Department of State
received on this 15th day of April , 1988, at
10:00 A.M./P.M. and filed in the Office of the Clerk of the
Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida.
APPROVED AS TO FORM AND
LEGAL SUFFICIENCY:
6L �l Zvi �1- lSz�'l l -crjJ
William Collins
Assistant County Attorney
APPROVED AS TO PLANNING MATTERS
Ro ert M. 6tin67qP9Planning& Develo
Director
ORDINANCE NO. 88-17
ORDII
CODING: Words underlined are additions; OcVd0/4tt4OX/fttOt i
APR 5 1988
12
BOOK 71 FAGS 442
MANATEE AREA - JOHN'S ISLAND SOUND
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 3/30/88:
TO: County Commissioners
DATE: March 30, 1988 FILE:
SUBJECT:
Manatee Area
FROM: Carolyn K. Eggert REFERENCES:
County Commissioner
Ray Biggs of Lost Tree Village and Bayard Pope of John's Island
would like to install "No Wake" signs in John's Island Sound to
protect the 2 to 8 manatees that gather daily and are mating and
producing young in that area during this season.
They request the County Commission's permission to put them up at
least during manatee season.
Commissioner Eggert advised that Mr. Pope hurt his back and
could not be here today and that Linda Calmes, officer of Lost
Tree Village, Inc., who developed John's Island, will present the
request to the Board.
Mrs. Calmes advised that Mr. Pope's daily count of manatees
off his dock in John's Island Sound during the period of March
20th through the 29th was as many as 7 and as few as 3. They are
requesting that they be allowed to erect "no wake" signs in
John's Island Sound to protect the manatees from the boats that
speed through there.
Commissioner Eggert pointed out that boaters ignore a couple
of existing manatee warning signs. She understood that this
request is for temporary authorization to erect signs which they
themselves will provide.
Chairman Scurlock suggested that in addition to the
authorization, the County highlight the area to the appropriate
agencies for some stepped-up enforcement.
Commissioner Eggert noted that the Marine Patrol is aware of
the problem, as is the "Save the Manatee" group.
15
APR 5 1988
BOOK
71 OSE443
Attorney Vitunac advised that the County Attorney's Office
has contacted the Marine Patrol, and it appears that we have to
go through a formal procedure of at least applying for a letter
permit, and failing to do that, any signs that are put up in
there will be declared a nuisance and would subject the County to
liability and will be taken down immediately.
Commissioner Bowman advised that Pat Rose of the DNR told
her that a County ordinance would solve the problem for these
people, but in the meantime, the land owners can put the signs on
their own property. The signs would have no teeth, so to speak,
but they would serve as good public relations for the manatee.
Commissioner Bowman urged that we declare the area from the
Sebastian River over to the John's Island area a sanctuary and
have it included in the Comprehensive Land Use Plan.
Attorney Vitunac emphasized that in order to put the signs
in the water, we have to go through a format procedure.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously authorized
staff to do whatever can be done to get some "no wake"
signs in John's Island Sound as quickly as possible.
MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Bowman, SECONDED by
Commissioner Eggert, that the Board direct staff to
draft a county ordinance creating a manatee sanctuary
for the entire county and to incorporate it into the
County's Comprehensive Land Use Plan.
Under discussion, Commissioner Eggert stated that she would
support the Motion provided it does not remove boating from those
areas, especially John's Island Sound, but Commissioner Bowman
stressed that it would never affect boating in the Intercoastal
Waterway.
16
1988
BOOK 1 i f,10E 444
Commissioner Wheeler preferred to wait until the Marine
Advisory Committee has had an opportunity to look at this before
directing staff to prepare an ordinance.
Commissioner Bird stated he would feel better if the Motion
directed staff to start preparation of an ordinance after looking
at all of the alternatives.
THE MOTION WAS AMENDED to direct staff to begin preparation
of an ordinance,Iook at all alternatives, and have it reviewed by
the Marine Advisory Committee before bringing it back to the
Board.
THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION. The Motion,
as amended, passed unanimously.
FARBER, INC. APPEAL OF DENIAL OF ADMINISTRATIVE PERMIT AND MAJOR
SITE PLAN APPROVAL
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 3/22/88:
TO:Charles Balczun
County Administrator
DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE:
DATE: March 22, 1988 FILE:
Robert M. Keati g, SUBJECT: FARBER, INC . ' S APPEAL OF
Community Developme7it Director A DECISION TO DENY AN
ADMINISTRATIVE PERMIT &
THROUGH: Stan Boling •}��� MAJOR SITE PLAN APPROVAL
Chief, Current Development
FROM: John W. McCoy/?0 PP
REFERENCES: blvd. shoppes
Staff Planner • JOHN2
It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal
consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at its regular
meeting of April 5, 1988.
LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION:
H.J. Ross has submitted a request ori behalf of Leonard Farber
Associates to receive administrative permit and major site plan
approval for a commercial retail project located at the corner of
U.S. #1 and the Vista Garden entrance road (the old McKee Jungle
Gardens site). Because the project site is zoned CL .(limited.Com-
mercial) and includes a department store, an administrative permit
is required.
APR 51988
17
BOOK 71 PCE 445
A use which requires an administrative permit is one which normal-
ly would not have an adverse impact on its surroundings when
carefully regulated in scale, duration, or nature. Administrative
permit approval requires submittal of an approvable site plan
meeting all site plan criteria, zoning district criteria, and the
criteria set forth in the regulations for the specific use. It is
then the responsibility of the Planning and Zoning Commission to
either deny or grant approval, based on a recommendation by the
Planning and Development Director. The Planning and Zoning
Commission may attach to its approval any reasonable conditions
which it feels necessary to further lessen any possible negative
impacts.
At its March 10, 1988 meeting, the Planning & Zoning Commission
voted 4-2 to deny Farber, Inc.'s request for administrative permit
and site plan approval due to concerns that the increased traffic
generated by the project could not adequately be handled by the
area's traffic system. Specifically, the Commission determined
that a level of service (L.O.S.) problem at U.S. #1 and 1st
Street, an intersection within the required traffic impact study
area of the project, rendered the proposal unapprovable. The
' Commission acknowledged that the developer was in a "Catch-22"
situation because FDOT had refused to permit the only improvement
which could adequately raise the L.O.S. at the U.S. #1/1st Street
intersection (see off-site traffic section for a detailed
analysis).
On March 18, 1988 the Community Development Department received a
valid letter of appeal in response to the action taken by the
Planning and Zoning Commission. According to Section
23.1(M)(2)(b) of the zoning code, the Board of County Commis-
sioners hears appeals of decisions made by the Planning and Zoning
Commission.
23.1(M)(2)(b,) - Decisions by the planning and zoning
commission. Appeals of site plan decisions made by
the planning and zoning commission shall be heard by
the board of county commissioners. Decisions of the
board of county commissioners shall be final, unless
review is sought by filing an application for a writ
of certiorari with the circuit court for the 19th
Judicial Circuit within thirty (30) days of the
decision.
ANALYSIS:
1. Project Size: 18.37 acres
2. Zoning Classification: CL (Limited Commercial)
3. Land Use Designation: U.S. 1 Commercial Corridor
4. Building Area: General Retail - 135,081 sq. ft.
Restaurant - 2,600 sq. ft.
[NOTE: three "out -parcels" are shown on the plan"' which may be
developed at a later date. The application under
consideration in no way proposes development of these
parcels. Future plans would have to be approved to
develop these out parcels. A revised Traffic Impact
Analysis will be required for the development of each
of these "out -parcels").
5. Off -Street Parking Required: 715 spaces
Provided: 763 spaces
APE 519
18
BOOK 71 FACE 446
6. Traffic Circulation: There are four proposed access points
to the project. Three access points will be along U.S.,1 and
one to Indian River Blvd.
The southernmost access point is proposed to be 45' wide,
consisting of a single ingress and dual egress (left and
right turns) drives to U.S. #1. The applicant is proposing a
traffic signal at this intersection.
The central access point is proposed to be 30' wide, consist-
ing of a single ingress and egress drive to U.S. #1. Howev-
er, this access drive, as depicted on the plan, does not
align with the center driving aisle as per Technical Review
Committee recommendation. The northern access point is the
existing Vista Gardens/U.S. #1 access road which is to remain
in its present configuration.
The plan proposes a project entrance to Indian River Boule-
vard via the Vista Gardens Trail/Indian River Blvd. connector
road. This access would necessitate project traffic crossing
Vista Gardens Trail. Proposed modifications to the access
road are inconsistent between sheets of the site plan.
The plan proposes internal driveway connections to the Vista
Gardens Trail, making it possible for vehicles to access U.S.
#1 or Indian River Blvd. The site plan also depicts a
marginal access easement through the parking area in the-
northwest
henorthwest corner of the site, connecting the Schlitt parcel
to the.. site and to Vista Gardens Trail. However, the
easement as depicted conflicts with several parking spaces.
The plan depicts a golf cart path from the Vista Gardens
project to the shopping center. The cart path runs along. the
southern part of the retention area and connects with the
rear parking area of the shopping center. This creates a
potential for conflict with vehicles because of approximately
100 feet of shared driveway use. Currently, no golf cart
parking is provided.
7. Off -Site Traffic: As required by site plan regulations, the
applicant prepared a traffic impact analysis of his project
and its impact on the road system. The traffic impact
analysis takes into account such factors as existing traffic,
proposed traffic, and proposed improvements. The traffic
impact analysis identified two areas of concern: the U.S.
#1/4th Street/Indian River Boulevard intersection and the
U.S. #1/1st Street intersection.
U.S. #1/4th Street/Indian River Boulevard
Since the traffic impact analysis was done shortly after
Indian River Boulevard had opened and before any peak season
traffic counts (with the Boulevard open) had been taken, the
traffic impact analysis incorporated projections of peak
season traffic volumes. The following conclusions were
reached by the County Traffic Engineer, January 17, 1988,
after reviewing the revised Traffic Impact analysis
(including proposed improvements) provided by the applicant:
a. LOS "D" will be maintained at the intersection of U.S. 1
and 4th Street with the site.
b.. LOS "E" will result at U.S. 1 and 4th Street if the site
does not access indian River -boulevard directly via the
Vista Gardens entry road.
c. LOS "D" will be maintained for the worst movement
(northbound LT) at Indian River Boulevard and the entry
road. This was determined using the "shadowing" concept
of storing single left -turning vehicles in the Indian
River Boulevard median.
19
APR 51988
BOOK 71 PACE 447
On January 26, 1988, however, a traffic count was conducted
to determine actual peak season volumes. This count revealed
the following information:
The P.M. peak level of service for U.S. 1/4th Street/Indian
River Boulevard is:
Existing LOS
LOS with Site
11/24/87 1/26/88
LOS; Saturation* LOS Saturation*
D; 84%
D; 87%
E; 94%
E; 103%
*Saturation can be defined as percent of roadway capaci-
ty used.
Based upon the new data, it is apparent that the applicant's
traffic impact analysis under estimated peak season traffic
volumes. Using the most recent estimates, the staff deter-
mined that the project will impact an intersection that
already functions at level of service E. Section [23.2(d)
(1)e] of the zoning code precludes approval of this project
with the existing traffic conditions, unless improvements are
programmed into the traffic system which will create enough
additional capacity to accept the traffic attracted by the
project without creating level of service E conditions.
The applicant submitted a revised traffic study on March 3,
1988, which confirmed that the intersection is now func-
tioning at level of service "E" for the P.M. peak. Sub-
sequently, the applicant has proposed a southbound right turn
lane from U.S. #1 to 4th Street. Staff concurs with the
applicant that this improvement would raise the level of
service for the intersection to a marginal level of service
(D) after the completion of the project. Staff feels addi-
tional intersection improvements should be made to ensure the
intersection continues to function at an acceptable L.O.S.
taking into account annual growth and the increase in back-
ground traffic.
The FDOT has also responded to the applicant's and the
County's questions concerning site related off-site improve-
ments to U.S. 1. Major comments are that traffic signals are
not warranted at U.S. 1 and the site's southern entrance nor
at 1st Street and U.S. 1. Neither Public Works nor FDOT
encourage additional .traffic signals on U.S. #1, although
future conditions at the entrance could warrant signali-
zation.
The staff feels that the signal warrants at the southern
entrance/U.S. #1 intersection will- be met. Since the pro-
posed traffic signal at the south entrance is a site related
improvement to service only this project, the developer
should bear the cost of installation, operation and upkeep
[see attachment 5 for specifics), if and when the signal is
permitted by FDOT.
U.S. #1/1st Street Intersection
According to the traffic impact analysis, the U.S. #1/1st
Street intersection is currently functioning at level of
service "E" (peak hour). The critical movements are left
turns from 1st Street onto U.S. #1 northbound, and a
"through" movement from 1st Street to Vista Royale. Until
recently, the County Traffic Engineer and the applicant's
traffic consultant agreed that signalization was the only
improvement that could bring the entire intersection up to an
APR 519
20
BOOK. 71 FADE 448
acceptable level of service. The applicant agreed to pay for
signalization. However, the FDOT has stated that the U.S.
#1/1st Street intersection does not meet the warrants. for a
signal and will not permit a signal. (FDOT does not want to
interrupt the traffic flow on U.S. #1 with another signal).
Since the Planning and Zoning meeting of March 10th, staff
has determined that there is an alternate improvement which
can raise the 1st Street/U.S. #1 level of service to accept-
able standard. This improvement would require restricting
eastbound 1st Street traffic to southbound right turns only.
This could be ensured by placing concrete curbing at the 1st
Street/U.S. #1 intersection, effectively prohibiting left
turns and through movements. This option has not been
reviewed by the Technical Review Committee or the Planning
and Zoning Commission.
Since the U.S. #1/1st Street intersection is already below
the acceptable level -of -service, it is the responsibility of
the County to make provisions to bring the intersection up to
an acceptable level -of -service. While these level -of -service
problems do not need to be corrected immediately, no
development impacting the intersection may be approved until
the LOS problem is resolved.
' 8. Landscape Plan: The landscape plan is in accordance with
Ordinance #84-47.
While the proposed site plan meets the minimum landscape
requirements, it does not use all available ordinance
provisions to maximize tree protection. The parking
ordinance allows up to a 10o reduction in the required
parking for preserving protected trees. However, the appli-
cant is using only 24 of 71 spaces eligible for removal under
the tree preservation provision.
The Environmental Planning division recommends that a greater
effort be made to save protected trees by:
a. Deleting more proposed parking spaces by maximizing the
protected tree credits available via the parking ordi-
nance [Section 24 (b) (8) ] ; or
b. The redistribution of compact spaces to save protected
trees. Currently, most of the compact spaces are
provided in large lineal blocks, away from areas where
existing trees can be saved.
9. Drainage Plan: The original Vista Garden's Stormwater
Management Plan was designed to accommodate the discharge
from the subject property, thereby vesting the Vista Gardens
system (including the site's discharge) with the County,
SJRWMD, and DER.. Consequently, the project was not required
to meet either SJRWMD or the County's permitting criteria.
However, during the rains from Hurricane Floyd (close to a 10
year, 24 hour design storm), Vista Gardens experienced
localized flooding, causing staff to assess the adequacy of
the existing Vista Gardens systems and the expected project
impact. After a review of the initial stormwater plan, the
staff estimated that, with the proposed design, the discharge
from the site would result in an approximate .5 foot increase
in the peak stage of the Vista Gardens lake system for the 10
year, 24 hour design storm. This would have produced
flooding in the Vista Gardens development.
21 Boot( 71 FACE 449
APR t 1988
The applicant agrees that the original design would cause
additional flooding in Vista Gardens and has re-routed the
stormwater outfall to alleviate the flooding potential. The
Public Works Director has reviewed and approved this new
outfall. The new outfall will also require permit modifi-
cations through the St. John's Water Management District.
10. Proposed Utilities: The site will be serviced by County
water and wastewater. The connection has been conditionally
approved by the County Utilities department. The Utilities
department recommends that the applicant fully demonstrate
the adequacy of the Vista wastewater plant and collection
system, and be financially liable for improvements needed for
the plant and the collection system.
11. Dedications & Improvements: The applicant has agreed to:
1. Dedicate 15' of property parallel to the U.S. #1 right-
of-way as depicted on the site plan, prior to site plan
release.
2. Construct a 5' wide public sidewalk along the site's
U.S. #1 and Indian River Blvd. frontage as depicted on
the site plan, prior to certificate of occupancy.
3. Provide a marginal access easement and record a marginal
access easement agreement, prior to release of the site
plan.
4. Relocate an access easement to the County, prior to site
plan release.
5. Make some of the existing transplanted/relocated trees
(e.g. palms and saplings) available to the Vista Gardens
Homeowner's Association, prior to any tree removal.
6. Five lane U.S. 1 to accommodate construction traffic,
prior to site plan release.
12. Open Space Required: 20%
Provided: 26.5%
13. Administrative Permit Criteria: The following administrative
permit criteria is applicable:
(2) Department store, furniture and appliance sales, show-
room catalog stores, and variety store (Administrative
Permit).
a. Districts requiring administrative permit: Depart-
ment stores, furniture and. appliance sales, show-
room catalog stores and variety stores may be
allowed in CL District upon receiving approval as
an administrative permit as provided in Section
25.2 and after meeting the requirements defined
below.
b. Additional information requirements:
1. A site plan meeting all requirements of
Section 23.
22
APR 5 1988
ih._
N ` 1 F,,tGE 450
c. Criteria for department stores, furniture and
appliance sales, showroom catalog stores and
variety stores.
1. The total gross floor area of such establish-
ments shall not exceed forty thousand (40,000)
square feet.
14. Surrounding Land Use/Zoning:
North: Vacant/I.R. Blvd./Wal-Mart/CG
South: South Relief Canal/NA
East: Vista Gardens/RM-10
West: U.S. #1/FDOT Trailer/RR/RMH-6
RECOMMENDATION:
Based on staff analysis, it is recommended that the Board of
County Commissioners approve the administrative permit and major
site plan application, subject to the following conditions:
1. That the applicant fulfill the conditions as presented in the
dedication and improvements section of this item.
2. That the applicant submit a parking/tree preservation plan
acceptable to the Environmental Planning division.
3. That the rear driving aisles be stripped to provide addi-
tional safety for the golf cart access and that golf cart
parking be provided.
4. That the Indian River Boulevard/Vista Trail connector road be
redesigned to provide additional capacity and provide for
drainage of the road.
5. That the applicant identify and commit to 4th Street/Indian
River Blvd./U.S. #1 intersection improvements which would
raise thelevel of service of that intersection to an accept-
able standard.
These being:
a. a southbound right -turn lane from U.S. #1 to 4th Street;
b. dual left -turn lanes from I.R. Blvd. to U.S. #1; and
c. if a C.O. is not issued for the entire project prior to
April 30, 1989, the developer shall sumit a revised
traffic impact analysis; any level -of -service problems
reflected in the analysis results must be adequately
addressed by the developer prior to issuance of a C.O.
7. That the applicant commit to any improvements which need to
be done to the Vista Gardens sewage treatment plant and
collection system as a result of this project.
8. That the shopping center owner commit to the responsibility
for installation costs and annual operating and maintenance
costs for a traffic signal at U.S. #1 and the main project
entrance.
9. That the applicant five -lane U.S. 1 (providing a southbound
left -turn lane serving the main site entrance) between 4th
Street and the south relief canal bridge prior to building
permit.
10. That the applicant revise the site plan to resolve the
marginal access/parking space conflict.
23
APR 5 1988
BOOK 71 PAF 451
11. That the applicant revise the site plan to conform to the
numerous minor site design changes required by the Technical
Review Committee.
12. That revised plans and application items, in response to the
foregoing conditions, be re -reviewed by the T.R.C. to ensure
compliance with and implementation of conditions.
13. That the County agree to prohibit left turn and through
movements at eastbound 1st Street and that the applicant
make any necessary improvements to the intersection prior to
issuance of a C.O.
Robert Keating, Director of Community Development, and Stan
Boling, Chief of Current Development, briefly reviewed the 13
conditions contained in staff's recommendation for approval.
Chairman Scurlock understood that the two central issues
today are going to be transportation traffic and drainage.
Director Keating advised that after denial of site plan
approval by the Planning & Zoning Board, the applicant made no
attempt to modify the site plan to make it acceptable. They just
submitted a letter requesting an appeal of the denial.
Chairman Scurlock asked if they would have been allowed to
modify their site plan to give the P & Z Commission an
opportunity to vote in a favorable fashion, and Director Keating
confirmed that the applicant could have done that and the P & Z
could have approved the modified site plan if they so chose. He
pointed out that the proposed site plan shows 3 out -parcels which
are on the west side of the parcel that are not a part of this
submittal. Nothing is proposed for those areas; they will remain
in their natural state. If they are subsequently site planned,
they will have to come in under site plan approval and amend the
traffic impact analysis that was prepared for this site.
Commissioner Eggert asked if any of the parking is to be on
those out parcels, and Director Keating explained that there is
parking around each of those parcels. He noted that the
applicant has included more parking than the minimum requirements
for the entire site.
APR 5 1988
ih.__
24
Bou 71 rACE 452
Director Keating pointed out 4 access points to the site, 3
of which are on U.S. #1. The northern most access point on U.S.
#1 is the entrance to Vista Gardens. The other 2 access points
to the south of that are proposed by the applicant. The
southernmost one was originally recommended for signalization,
but the DOT has determined that warrants have not been met; so
signalization is not allowed at this time. The final access is
through the connector road that goes to Indian River Boulevard,
which is on the north part of the site. He also noted on the map
that just north of the site and just west of the connector road
is the Schlitt parcel, which is commercial and the applicant has
shown a marginal access easement to that parcel. He advised that
a site plan has been submitted for the Schlitt parcel, but it has
not been approved. It was reviewed by the Technical Review
Committee and response was not made to TRC comments. Director
Keating also pointed out that a golf access path is proposed to
come in from the condominiums to the east to access the stores in
the shopping center.
Director Keating next addressed the drainage matter. When
the site plan first came in, the applicant proposed to send all
their drainage to the Vista system, and they were vested because
the original drainage plan for Vista Gardens development had
included this parcel. However, during the review process, it was
pointed out to staff that some flooding had occurred in the Vista
Gardens development. The applicant agreed to make some changes,
and a lot of those changes have been made. There is a retention
area just north of the golf cart path on the southeast part of
the site, which was added since the tirst submittal. In
addition, there have been a number of linear feet of exfiltration
trenches put in under the proposed parking area. Just recently,
the applicant has shown that they are rerouting their stormwater
outfall to bypass the Vista Gardens system to fall directly into
one of the lakes and eventually into the impoundment.
APR 51988
ih.__
25 BOOK 71 PAGE 453
Chairman Scurlock did not concur with Director Keating's
statement that there was some vesting. He was not sure that just
because someone gets approval originally, which they did, it
necessarily vests them from the standpoint of the Commission
approving a site plan, particularly when we can identify that
substantial harm could come to adjacent properties. He believed
that if an error was made, and if, indeed, we can say that it did
occur, the Commission has the ability to address that issue
through the site plan process.
Director Keating advised that Public Works Director Jim
Davis and Traffic Engineer Mike Orr coordinated the preliminary
traffic analysis. Wilbur Smith did the first preliminary
analysis for the applicant in the original submittal, and
Kimley-Horn did the analysis in the latest submittal.
Chairman Scurlock asked if there was a conflict of interest
on Kimley-Horn's part in that they represented the County on
Indian River Boulevard and now they are representing the
developer.
Director Davis explained that basically, Kimley-Horn's scope
of work in designing Indian River Boulevard was to design the
roadway geometrics and the drainage. The County, basically, did
the traffic studies in-house.
Chairman Scurlock assumed then that Kimley-Horn would not be
testifying or entering information as to the traffic capacities
or that sort of thing.
Planner Stan Boling pointed out 3 critical intersections:
1) The entry road from Vista Trail up to Indian River
Boulevard, especially the left-hand turn movements going
towards U.S. #1.
2) The intersection of 4th St. and U. S. #1.
3) The intersection of 1st St. and U.S. #1.
Mr. Boling advised that the developer has committed to 2
major types of improvements at U.S. #1 and 4th Street
intersection:
26
APR 5 1988
BOOF
` 1 a[,E 454
1) A right-hand turn lane into 4th Street as you are coming
southbound on U.S. #1, which will help the capacity of that
intersection.
2) A dual left -turn lane coming from Indian River Boulevard
south onto U.S. #1. This improvement would be a very
involved and costly improvement as it could involve
right-of-way acquisition and expansion of the railroad
crossing at 4th Street.
Mr. Boling noted that when the P & Z Commission voted 4-2 to
deny the site plan, the main focus was on the level of service
(LOS) standards in the ordinance at the intersection of U.S. #1
and 1st. Street. Right now, that intersection is at LOS "E01,
peak hour, peak season movements.
Chairman Scurlock asked that in the event the Board is going
to be presented with information this morning beyond what was
presented at the P & Z meeting, if it would be appropriate that
this matter go back to P & Z before coming to the Board.
Attorney Vitunac advised that the Planning & Zoning
Commission is an advisory body, and if they have not heard this
information, the Board may want to send it back to them for their
review and also that of the Technical Review Committee.
Chairman Scurlock had some serious questions about what
testimony the Board should be considering today, and Attorney
Vitunac felt the Board has the prerogative of sending it back for
full review if something different has happened since the P & Z
reviewed it. Secondly, if there are technical changes that have
not been run through the testing procedure of our staff, the TRC,
and the P & Z, the Board may want to have that testing done,
because any change on ist Street, 4th Street, or other roads may
attect the entire view of the site plan with regard to the
traffic impact of the proposed shopping center. The Board would
not be denying the site plan or the appeal at this moment, but
the Board would be saying that they need the full review before
it comes back up. In fact, if it goes through the P & Z after
the full review, it may be approved at that time.
Chairman Scurlock emphasized that we talk a lot about
property rights, and felt that the property rights we need to
27
KPR, 51988
Etoof 71 PACE 455
consider in this case are threefold: 1) The adjacent residents,
who are going to be affected by the project; 2) The owner of the
property and his rights to develop that property; and 3) Future
development along that corridor. The U.S. #1 corridor is
extremely important to Indian River County, and there are certain
limitations on how many lanes can be added to handle the
increased traffic. He felt we have to consider traffic impact of
future development, and not just totally consume the capacity on
U.S. #1 tor this one project.
Commissioner Eggert wanted to hear any new information that
has come up since the P & Z meeting. She personally did not see
how the situation with Indian River Boulevard and Vista Trails
can be improved by putting a heavy commercial situation there.
Further, she could not see approving a site plan that allowed
commercial traffic to come out on the Boulevard through Vista
Trail.
Chairman Scurlock felt that a tremendous safety problem
would be created by forcing the residential traffic to pass
through the commercial area. He asked for clarification on what
legal ability the Board has today to consider information that
has not been presented before.
Attorney Vitunac advised that if the applicant is willing to
go ahead with an appeal on the exact site plan he presented to P
& Z without any modifications that might help the site plan, he
has the right to go through the appeal today, and the Board can
either deny it or not. If the applicant wants to take advantage
of some of the changes suggested by staff and others, such as
prohibiting left turns off of U.S. #1, he may wish to postpone
this right now and send it back for appropriate review by staff,
the Technical Review Committee and the P & Z Commission. If he
does, it will be a new site plan because of the new modifications
and the P & Z could approve it, and then there may not be an
appeal here.
27a
APR 51988
BOO 71. N,F 456
Chairman Scurlock pointed out that there still would be the
public hearing process to allow the public an opportunity to
react to any factual change.
Attorney Vitunac believed the ball is in the applicant's
court, and that the applicant should state whether he wants to
proceed now without the benefit of any changes from the site plan
that was reviewed by the P & Z, or whether he wishes to send it
back voluntarily for full review of any modifications. Attorney
Vitunac stressed that he did not say the Board could not look at
this new information; however, they do have the right to send it
back to the P & Z for further review.
Attorney Michael O'Haire, representing Farber, Inc., stressed
that the changes to which the members of the Commission are
alluding originated with staff, not the applicant, subsequent
to the meeting. He stated that the applicant will proceed with
the appeal.
Commissioner Eggert asked if the improvements that are being
alluded to are improvements that Farber, Inc. has agreed to, and
Attorney O'Haire stated that they have formally agreed to them
and are on record with staff as having agreed to them.
Commissioner Wheeler asked what the specific improvements
were that Farber, Inc. agreed to, and Director Keating advised
that the one major change since the P & Z meeting is the proposal
for the applicant to request the County to approve the
prohibiting of left turns from eastbound 1st Street to northbound
U.S. #1 and prohibiting that through movement.
Chairman Scurlock understood that the applicant's
improvement is to limit straight across access into Vista
Gardens, and Planner Boling explained that the left turn and
through movement are both considered problems, and both have to
be removed in order to raise the level of service to an
acceptable standard.
Chairman Scurlock understood that if the Commission decided
that was not an acceptable alternative, the developer would be
28
it 51988
BOOK 71 PAGE457
back to exceeding LOS "E", and then the Board would not be able
to approve anything that exceeds the traffic element in that
entire corridor.
Commissioner Bird understood that whether or not the
shopping center goes in, it has been identified that the level of
service at that particular intersection is "E" and they need to
do something to modify it. He asked how you determine the LOS on
such an intersection on U.S. #1.
Director Davis Davis explained that the waiting time has a
tremendous amount to do with it. Recently there has been a lot
of discussion with the applicants abut unsignalized
intersections, and it is feasible that low turning volumes on a
connecting street accessing such a high volume roadway as U.S.
#1, or even Indian River Boulevard, could have a LOS "E" or even
"F" simply due to a long delay.
really cannot be thrown into the
intersections. In this case the
Unsignalized intersections
same criteria as signalized
DOT has taken the position that
they will not approve a signal until warrants are met for a
higher number of vehicles per hour. At this time they have not
approved signalization for that intersection.
Commissioner
have a right turn
on 1st Street and
Bird understood that the only alternative
is to
only out of there, and if someone is going east
wants to go north, it means turning right and
somehow working their way over to the lett-hand lane and very
quickly getting into the turning lane at the median cut in front
of the entrance to Vista Gardens, and then trying to make a
U-turn in the face of traffic going 50-70 mph.
Chairman Scurlock telt that to address the absolute
immediate needs, we would end up with a Rube Goldberg approach
for this particular area, and then have to worry about what we
are going to do for future developments at some point in time.
He did not believe that was in the public interest.
Commissioner Bowman felt it would be similar to a rat maze.
29
c___WR 51988
BOOK 71 FACE 458
Lengthy discussion ensued regarding the traffic level at Old
Dixie and 1st Street S.W., and Director Davis believed it was
somewhere around L.O.S. "D" or "C". Basically, he did not know
of any problems there due to the fact that 1st Street does not
continue west of Old Dixie.
Chairman Scurlock understood that if this Board took the
position of not allowing co -mingling of traffic on the
entranceway or allow the restriction of turns, the developer
would exceed the transportation levels, and, therefore, the only
recourse for the Commission is to deny the appeal.
Commissioner Bird pointed out that the only safe way to get
the people in and out of the proposed shopping center onto U.S.
#1 is a signal at the entrance to the shopping center, but the
DOT is adverse to that at this time. He opposed the co -mingling
of residential traffic to Vista Gardens through the shopping
center because it would be creating a hazardous situation. He
emphasized that he opposed that part ot the site plan from the
very beginning and conveyed that to everyone involved.
Chairman Scurlock believed it would be like trying to put
110 pounds into a 100 -Ib. bag, and he wished to hear from the
person appealing the denial and let him convince the Board of
these various elements that perhaps we are not seeing properly.
Attorney Michael O'Haire, representing the applicants,
Farber, Inc., advised that his client is appealing the denial of
site plan approval by the Planning & Zoning Commission. He
stressed that they have met all of the criteria required by the
site plan ordinances of the county, plus the criteria of the
Planning Dept. and the Planning & Zoning Commission. He
emphasized that they are here on an appeal ot a site plan and not
here on a political judgmental decision from the Board.
Chairman Scurlock interjected that neither is the Board.
The Board is here to listen to the facts.
Attorney O'Haire maintained that if the applicant complies
with all the criteria set forth in the ordinance, he has a right
30
LPR 5 1988
BOOK 71 PAGE 459
and is entitled to use his property. There have been only 2
issues raised and they are storm drainage and traffic levels.
With regard to storm drainage, the applicant has redesigned the
entire storm drainage to bypass the Vista system all together,
putting aside ail questions of being vested in the Vista system.
Attorney O'Haire noted that the other issue that has
persisted throughout is the traffic issue. He stressed that
according to the requirements of the site plan ordinance, the
applicant has done a traffic impact analysis within a one -mile
radius, and has identified and addressed all major intersections
within that area, including unsignalized intersections. He noted
that you cannot analyze an unsignalized intersection without a
composite of all movements through the intersection. You cannot
isolate one movement and say that makes it even. At present, if
you isolate that left-hand movement off of U.S. #1, the LOS will
be "E". You cannot isolate that one movement and have a
meaningful idea of what that intersection is doing. Any
Left-hand movement across 4 lanes of traffic results in a LOS
"E". The applicant has committed to improvements at that
intersection, which will bring it up to LOS "D". The ordinance
does not require them to do anything other than be at LOS "D",
nor does the ordinance require them to solve all the traffic
problems in the county in order to be entitled to use their
property.
Attorney O'Haire asked Director Davis whether staff has had
any additional factual data submitted other than by Kimley-Horn
on traffic movement as to how this project impacts the network,
and Director Davis advised that they have data coming into the
office weekly regarding the entire area, mostly because it is an
area of interest to us since the Boulevard has onlybeen open
since September, 1987. Data changes weekly on that corridor.
However, he stated that he has not received any data from Mr.
Curtain, traffic engineer, within the last 30 days.
31
APR 51988
•
BOOK 71 ME 460
Chairman Scurlock understood that if the Board doesn't allow
access off of Indian River Boulevard, it would put the L.O.S at
"E" on U.S. #1, but Attorney O'Haire emphasized that the access
road is a dedicated road and they have the right to use it.
Chairman Scurlock believed that the Board has the right to
make a safe environment for the residents in the community.
Commissioner Eggert concurred that the Board has the
latitude of health, safety and welfare, and that there is more
involved here than pure traffic counts as to whether or not
something is safe, but Attorney O'Haire pointed out that the
County's ordinance has identified a safe environment there as LOS
"D", peak season, peak hour, and the applicant has met that
criteria.
Attorney Vitunac advised that the County cannot be arbitrary,
or capricious with respect to approving or denying a site plan.
County regulations on the use of property are set out in the Code
through our technical staff. If our technical staff finds a
violation of one of the requirements of the Code, they bring it
to the Board's attention, and the Board can take ameliorative
measures, including less or more traffic on Indian River
Boulevard. However, if our technical staff has no facts showing
that there is a danger there that cannot be overcome, the County
Commission just cannot have a hunch that traffic will be too
dangerous, it has to have some facts. The burden of proof on a
site plan appeal is on the County Commission. Unless we show
otherwise by competent, substantial evidence, the applicant has a
right to certain things as long as he meets our site plan
technical requirements. Attorney Vitunac noted that the
appropriate question now is to ask staff if they can quantify
that there is a real, perceived danger in accessing Indian River
Boulevard by that northern access drive.
Director Davis felt it is the type of vehicle that is the
safety issue when you talk about co -mingling, because heavy
trucks and semi trucks could be a problem.
32
APR 5 1988
BOOK 71 ocF461
Commissioner Bird did not know what kind of analyses they
would go through, but felt common sense tells you that when you
have to cross through traffic that isn't even there yet, it will
increase the chances for accident and injury. Right now there is
no cross traffic on that entranceway.
Director Davis advised that the original traffic study
performed by Wilbur Smith made some traffic distribution
assumptions, one of which was that 10% of the traffic from the
site would use the Vista Gardens access road connecting to Indian
River Boulevard. He did not concur with the 10% because of what
they have seen since the Boulevard has been opened. The
consultant has done a little bit more analysis on that, and
basically, they have distributed 30% of the traffic to that
access road. Based on the 30%, they feel that the storage within
that area between Vista Gardens road and the Boulevard could
accommodate about 204 vehicles an hour, which means that 3-4
vehicles would be turning left every minute, or a left-hand turn
off the Boulevard every 15 seconds.
Commissioner Bowman could not imagine what will happen when
the Boulevard is extended north to 53rd Street and the Boulevard
becomes a major highway.
Director Davis advised that the results of the most recent
analysis has been that a signal will be needed to provide the
appropriate access to the site, and he assumed that the
consultant is talking about U.S. #1, where we don't have
autonomous control with the DOT to put a signal in.
Commissioner Eggert asked about Indian River Boulevard and
Vista Trail, and Director Davis stated that at this time we do
have autonomous control there, unless proper signalization is
imposed and we have to tie the two together and coordinate it
with the signal at U.S. #1. He felt that probably should be
done.
Commissioner Bird asked about someone coming south and
wishing to turn into the main entrance of the shopping center on
33
APR 51988
L,
BOOK 71 PAGE 462
U.S. #1, and Attorney O'Haire explained that the developer has
agreed to construct a 5th lane, a left-hand lane turning south
off of U.S. #1 in front of the site, which staff and the traffic
consultants have identified as being required to maintain LOS
IDn.
Director Keating emphasized that the turning lane would be
built before construction begins so that construction traffic can
use that left -turn southbound lane.
Chairman Scurlock asked Director Davis for his professional
opinion on whether it is a safe situation to co -mingle traffic
between a residential entranceway and a commercial, and Director
Davis stated that in his opinion, the type of vehicle is
important. If there is co -mingling of large trucks which have
large turning radii and that type of thing, then there could be
some safety problems. If proper signalization is imposed and if
the traffic control is set up properly with adequate site
distance with respect to vegetation, etc., it could be made a
safe situation.
Attorney O'Haire noted that the applicant has offered to
both the TRC and the P & L to restrict by signage the type of
vehicle that goes through that particular intersection.
In conclusion, Attorney O'Haire reemphasized that the
applicant has met all of the standards and abided by all of the
rules established by county ordinance. He felt that if the Board
denies that the applicant has met all of the requirements, they
were backing themselves into a condemnation situation, which
could be the magnitude of 7 figures. However, if as a judgement
call, the Board is willing to back themselves in that situation,
then he would not quarrel with that, but would go on from there.
Attorney O'Haire introduced Mike Bird, a State registered
traffic engineer with Kimley-Horn, who explained what traffic
i
counts actually would have to be met and how they analyzed the
intersections of Indian River Boulevard and the Vista access
road, U.S. #1 and 4th Street, and. U.S. #1 and 1st Street.
APR 5 1988
34
BOOK 71 PA;E 463
Q4ez7» ,
�-,r�•���tbni _ ti� Q7e4 t
3 4a
LAPR 51988
BOOK
Vt.07-A
o yA L
71 F'A8E464
Mr. Bird first discussed the signal on U.S. #1, noting that
Kimley-Horn does feel that a signal is needed for appropriate
access to the site; however, the DOT has been involved in the
review of this project and made the comment to relocate the main
entrance to the south to provide for good spacing for future
signalization. It is a matter of DOT policy not to approve the
installation of a signal before a project is built, otherwise the
project might never be completed and they could end up with a
signal that serves nothing. Mr. Bird pointed out that this is a
typical DOT response. Until the shopping center is there and
until the traffic is there, the DOT will not approve a signal,
but the analysis shows that the traffic will be there. How does
this relate to the access road? Obviously, if there is no signal
at the main entrance, there could be an increased demand at the
access road. The analysis was based on the assumption that a
signal would be there, because that is what the numbers indicated
and that is a reasonable assumption to make. When they analyzed
the access road intersection with Indian River Boulevard, it was
at the L.O.S. "D" for the left-hand turn out.
Commissioner Eggert asked Mr. Bird to address a sharply
curved intersection like Vista Gardens access road and Indian
River Boulevard, and Chairman Scurlock recalled that we had to
cut that curve down through a change order from Kimley-Horn.
Mr. Bird remembered that also.
Chairman Scurlock asked Mr. Bird if Kimley-Horn were
starting the project from scratch, if they typically would design
it to co -mingle traffic or try to avoid it.
Mr. Bird stated that what he would do is try to minimize the
amount of traffic on the access points, and he did not see it as
a relevant fact whether you co -mingle or not. He felt traffic is
traffic and that a mixed use of development is very appropriate.
Commissioner Bowman asked the distance between the U.S. #1
and 4th Street intersection to the main entrance to the
35
CPR 5 1988
BOCK 71 ['Au 465
development, and Mr. Bird stated that it is in excess of 900
feet, probably 1000 feet.
Chairman Scurlock felt the Board has a right to tell the
applicant how to use the stub road, which, in his opinion, would
be to tell them that they won't be allowed to mix the traftic.
He pointed out that when he looks at Miracle Mile and other
places where traffic is co -mingled, it is a very dangerous
situation, and it does not equate to average trips per day and
all this other nonsense. It equates to people who make mistakes
and who get older and who have problems. In his opinion, it is
going to be a big safety problem. Therefore, he would say that
they could do the shopping center, but do it without that access
road.
Mr. Bird next addressed the U.S. #1 and 1st Street inter-
section, and explained that at this point the unsignalized
intersection analysis is not accepted in current practice except
as a measure of L.O.S. standards. The Regional Planning Council
does not accept it, nor does Palm Beach or St. Lucie Counties.
Chairman Scurlock interjected that he understood that there
is no way the consultants can demonstrate to the Commission that
the intersection at U.S. #1 and 1st Street will not exceed L.O.S.
"En.
Mr. Bird explained that he is saying that the unsignalized
level of service analysis is not applicable to the L.O.S.
standards. He emphasized that they are doing some improvements
to Indian River Boulevard and 4th Street to raise the level of
service from "E" to "D". There is no doubt that this site.
generates traffic, but he felt that they have shown that with the
improvements, it does meet the L.O.S. standards that are in the
ordinance.
Chairman Scurlock did not feel they had shown that, because
they cannot tell the Board about that unsignalized intersection,
but Mr. Bird repeated that what he is saying is that intersection
L_APR 5198B
36
BOOK 71 r cE 466
is not at L.O.S. "E" because it does not have signalization, but
he could not quantify that at the moment.
Lengthy discussion ensued about traffic coming out from
Indian River Trail and not being able to turn left.
Chairman Scurlock felt that, in his opinion, there is no way
in the world that we can allow this property to develop at this
intensity without it being a substantial problem, not for just a
year or two years, but forever. As one Commissioner, he was
willing to vote not to allow that to happen and to vote against
the use of that access. In fact, if they go through this
process, and they are right and we are wrong because we have
misread it, and we have to condemn it, then so be it. At that
point, even if it costs us some money, he felt the Board would be
derelict in it responsibilities if it did not support a safe
situation down there.
Commissioner Bowman pointed out that the Board would not be
saying that they could not come in with a lesser development or
different access.
Assistant County Attorney William Collins wished to ask
Director Davis to reiterate some of the statements that he made
earlier in this meeting in order to make a record since the
County has the burden of proving by substantial, competent
evidence that unsafe traffic conditions would result from the
proposed development.
Attorney Collins: Earlier in this meeting we were shown the
1st Street intersection where northbound turn movements of 35
trips across 4 -lane U.S. #1 was considered to make for a L.O.S.
"E" at that intersection. If 35 left turns across U.S. #1 from
1st Street going east and turning north into U.S. #1 got us into
a L.O.S. "E" there, would not 204 left-hand turn movements across
4 -lane Indian River Boulevard also result in a L.O.S. "E"?
Director Davis: "The analysis indicated that would result
in a L.O.S. "D" with the traffic volumes at present. The
situation would be aggravated in the future by increased traffic
APR 5198
37
Booty 71 FADE 467
on Indian River Boulevard, and would become L.O.S. "E" at that
point."
Commissioner Wheeler felt that any time a car crossed 4
lanes of traffic to make a left turn, the L.O.S. was considered
"E", and Director Davis explained that it depends on the volume
of traffic on the 4 -lane roadway. Right now the volume is in the
order of 11,000-12,000 trips per day, and you can interrupt and
make a turn movement without lengthy delay.
Attorney Collins: "Based on experience with the trips out
of the Vista residential area, is an assignment of 10o traffic
onto Indian River Boulevard from the shopping center a
conservative assignment, or would an assignment of 30% of the
trips onto Indian River Boulevard be more accurate?"
Director Davis: "In my opinion, 1 feel that 30o is more
accurate."
Attorney Collins: "Does the 30o assignment show 204 left
turns onto Indian River Boulevard from the shopping center?"
Director Davis: "I feel that the consultant, Kimley-Horn,
is indicating that the storage that is provided by adding a lane
in that area would accommodate 204 vehicles per hour, based on
DOT standards."
Attorney Collins: If there is 204 trips capacity stacking
lane, how many trips do the 30o convert into per hour. In other
words, if 30o trips out of the shopping center are going out onto
Indian River Boulevard, how many trips per hour are turning left
onto Indian River Boulevard?"
Mr. Bird felt he could answer that question. He stated that
there is a total of 396 trips from the site, and 30% of 396 is
118 trips. However, some of those will go north onto Indian
River Boulevard and some will go left, so we are looking at a
portion of the 118 trips. He explained that Kimley-Horn showed
the 204 figure just to show that there is an overkill on storage
with the addition of the 4th lane and that it is more than what
is needed based on the traffic volumes.
38
APR 51988
BOOK 71 PAGE 468
Commissioner Eggert understood that is just the volume
coming out of the shopping center and does not include the
residents coming out of Vista Gardens, and Mr. Bird confirmed
that was correct and noted that the total outbound traffic coming
oft of the site includes every driveway.
Attorney Collins pointed out that earlier Attorney O'Haire
stated that the standards by which this was to be reviewed apply
to a level of service only for a major thoroughfare and major
intersection. However, Section 23.3 (d)(2)d. of the ordinance on
site plan standards says that no proposed development shall be
approved which reduces the level of service on major
thoroughfares and/or intersections below the L.O.S. "C" on an
average annual basis or below a L.O.S. "D" during peak hour, peak
season conditions. He felt that it may be a matter of how you
read that, but he believed that our site plan standards require
consideration of major thoroughfares and/or intersections, not
just major intersections, however that would be defined, but
consideration of all the intersections that are within the study
area boundaries for this development. The Code defines study
boundaries in terms of how many peak hour trips are generated,
and certainly in this case, both the Indian River Boulevard stub
access and the U.S. #1 and 1st Street intersection are within the
one -halt mile study area radius of the traffic impact analysis.
Attorney O'Haire felt that since it seems abundantly clear
that we will be going on from here, and since Attorney Collins
has done what he could to clear up the County's part of the
record, he would like to ask Mr. Bird a few more questions just
for the record:
Attorney O'Haire: "Mr. Bird, as an engineer registered with
the State of Florida and as a traffic consultant for this
project, are you familiar with the requirements of County
Ordinance Section 23.3 on Site Plan Review Standards?"
Mr. Bird: "Yes sir."
APR 1988
39
BOOK 71 ME 469
Attorney O'Haire "Did you analyze the impact of this site
and this project and this site plan in terms of the requirements
of that ordinance?"
Mr. Bird: "Yes sir."
Attorney O'Haire: "With respect to Section 23.3 (d)(2)d. of
the ordinance, did you analyze it in terms of impact relative to
L.O.S. "C" on an average annual basis and a L.O.S. "D" peak hour,
peak season, as defined in the highway capacity manual current
edition of the Highway Research Board."
Mr. Bird: "I utilized the Circular 212 Manual, which is a
spin-off of that, just in technical terms.
Attorney O'Haire "Is that what the County uses for site
plan traffic analysis?"
Mr. Bird: "Yes."
Attorney O'Haire: "Did you determine what intersection
improvements were necessary to meet the requirements of the
ordinance?"
Mr. Bird: "Yes sir."
Attorney O'Haire: "Did the applicant agree to make those
intersection improvements?"
Mr. Bird: "Yes sir."
Attorney O'Ha►re: "With the intersection improvements that
you determined to be necessary and designed, and the applicant
agreed to make, are you able to maintain the requirement of the
ordinance that L.O.S. "C" be maintained off season and a L.O.S.
"D" bemaintained during peak season, peak hour?"
Mr. Bird: "I feel that we met the L.O.S. standards."
Chairman. Scurlock asked if that is contingent upon the
signal that the DOT won't allow, and Mr. Bird answered that he
did not feel that U.S. #1 and 1st Street is at L.O.S. "E",
because there is not enough traffic there to warrant
signalization. He stated that the Highway Capacity Manual says
it is inappropriate to compare unsignalized analysis to
signalized analysis.
!WR 51988
40
BOOK 71 PAGE 470
Chairman Scurlock said that he was talking about the main
entrance signal, and Mr. Bird stated that the main entrance
signal works. We need that.
Chairman Scurlock understood though that they cannot meet
the level of service if they don't have it, and asked Mr. Bird if
that was correct.
Mr. Bird felt that was a real interesting question, because
if we don't have it, it means we are not generating near enough
traffic, and Chairman Scurlock emphasized that we may have a
conflict with the DOT, because they have their own rules, and he
did not agree with the DOT in a lot of cases.
Mr. Bird stated he did not either. The DOT has said that it
is good spacing for future signalization, and there is no
apparent reason why they would deny it if the traffic volumes are
there.
Attorney O'Haire emphasized that if the volumes were not
there, then the projections in the volume of traffic are not
there, and Mr. Bird answered, "Correct."
Attorney O'Haire reiterated that the applicant has met all
requirements of the ordinance, has very carefully analyzed the
entire roadway, and has maintained what the ordinance requires.
He stressed that they were not required to do anything more than
that: He asked the Board to grant the appeal for denial of site
plan approval and approve the site plan with the conditions that
staff has outlined and that are acceptable to the applicant, and
let them go on.
Attorney Collins felt that it is important to clarify for
the record that the 1st Street intersection was the principal
reason why the Planning & Zoning Commission recommended denial of
the site plan as submitted. At that meeting he asked Mike Orr,
the County Traffic Engineer, whether or not the 1st Street
intersection at U.S. #1, which is within the study area of this
site plan, would be able to operate at better than L.O.S. "E",
and Mr. Orr indicated that it would not without a signal, which
41
APR 5 1988
Beg 71 PAGE 471
the DOT will not approve at this time. Attorney Collins asked
Director Davis, if in his opinion, the U.S. #1 and 1st Street
intersection will not function at better than L.O.S. "E" without
signalization, and Director Davis stated that he concurs with Mr.
Orr's comments.
Attorney Collins asked Director Davis to confirm that the
DOT has been approached about approving a signal there, but has
not consented to putting in a signal there due to their concerns
about through capacity on U.S. #1, and Director Davis stated that
according to the correspondence received from the DOT at this
time, they have not approved a signal for that location.
Commissioner Eggert stated that because of the problems at
U.S. #1 and 1st Street/ Vista Gardens entrance/ U.S. #1/ 4th
Street, and what she considers to be even worse problems at the
Vista Gardens access road and Indian River Boulevard intersection,
she would be wilting to make a Motion to deny the appeal.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously denied
the appeal by Farber, Inc. of the denial of site
plan.
Former County Commissioner Grover Fletcher distributed the
following announcement dated 4/5/88:
TO: County Commissioners, Indian River County - April 5, 1988
FROM: McKee Jungle Gardens Preservation Society; A. Grover Fletcher, President
F.o. 30x Gs. V.3. 32.96S
-
The McKee Jungle Gardens Preservation Society would like to make you aware
that our group has met, formally organized with officers and a Board of Directors, and
have applied for a state charter as a not-for-profit corporation with plans to apply also
as a 5013-C corporation with tax exempt status. Our desire is that, as an alternative,
Mr•. Farber and Mr. Ewing of Vista Properties will consider selling the 17-20 acre site
presently ear -marked for a shopping center at the entrance to Vista Gardens. Our group
proposes to purchase the property as a nature study area thereby saving the many native
and exotic trees and plants found in this rare coastal hammock.
In addition to saving the plants, we suggest that we will also be saving
lives as that site, just north of a narrow drainage canal bridge and adjacent to the
extremely busy intersection of U.S.#1 with 4th Street and Indian River Blvd. extension,
is extremely dangerous at present. Heavy traffic generated by a successful shopping
center would be disastrous!
It would be impossible to build a shopping center or make any so-called
improvements there without removing or causing the death of the majority of plants at
this site. In seeking information and support for our idea of a nature study area, we
42
APR 5 988
BOOK 71 FACE 472
wrote to Dr. John Popenoe of Fairchild Tropical Gardens in Miami. He is world renown
for his work in saving endangered species and as director of the famous Fairchild
Tropical Garden. He is very familiar with McKee Jungle Gardens and made a Special trip
here to see if there were rare specimens that should be saved and moved out. He tells
us that William Lyman Phillips who designed McKee's gardens later designed Fairchild's
garden. I quote from Dr. Popenoe's letter: "I certainly support the preservation of
the tract with its magnificent specimens and landscape. I think that your group must
organize..."
A letter from Indian River Community College President Edwin R. Massey
states, "If this area could be saved, an arrangement could be developed whereby the
college could utilize the Gardens for courses in college botany, horticulture, botanical
gardens development and management, landscaping, and lifelong learning classes to assist
our residents in learning to identify specimens native to our area."
The Department of Natural Resources sent us an application form so we
might apply for the state program designed to acquire lands such as McKee Jungle Gardens.
This is under the "CARL" program which stands for Conservation and Recreation Lands.
Dr. Greg Brock, Environmental Administrator for Division of State Lands, states in his
letter, "...projects of this type are generally more likely to be included on the CARL
list if local government indicates a willingness to cooperate financially with their
ace; isition."
We are not asking for financial support from you as we feel that interested
citizens and organizations will provide that. We only ask that you cooperate by not
allowing the destruction of this site which will surely happen if a shopping center or
further residential building is allowed.
And we would ask Mr. Ewing to consider us a pleasant alternative to the
problems they have and are facing. We understand their position - they are businessmen
in the pursuit of their business just as many of us are. That is why, as a corporate
entity, we propose to purchase the land.
We are aware of the legal considerations the commission must ponder in an
issue such as this. We respectfully request that our organization and effort be included
in your decisions reference the long range use of this property. Thank you.
Mr. Fletcher was confident that with the support of the
entire community and the Commission, they would be able to
purchase the property. He thanked the Board for their consid-
erations.
WINTER BEACH CEMETERY
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 3/11/88:
TO: Board of County Commissioners DATE: March 11, 1988 FILE:
Charles P. Balczun
FROM: County Administrator
SUBJECT: WINTER BEACH CEMETERY
REFERENCES:
BACKGROUND
"On August 27, 1980 the Board of County Commissioners approved dedication of a
19.7 acre parcel in Winter Beach for use as a cemetery and 'cemetery related
purposes'. This dedication is in apparent violation of either an original
dedication dated March 9,. 1967 and/or conditions of Federal Land & Water
Conservation Fund grants.
43
APR 51988
B001( 71 PACE 473
ANALYSIS
A request to vacate the reverter clause was rejected by the federal government.
Alternatives available to us now are:
1. Purchase a parcel of like size and value to 'compensate' for the
'loss' of the 19.6 acres originally dedicated.
2. Await future acquisition of additional lands for park/recreation uses
and dedicate a portion of 'like size' and 'like value' so as to avoid
reversion on the Winter Beach parcel.
3. Reject the request for utilization of the Winter Beach property --as a
cemetery.
RECOMMENDATION
This matter was discussed by staff at its meeting on March 7. At that time,
staff elected to unanimously recommend rejection of the request.
Staff does not feel it would be prudent to expend a substantial amount of
taxpayers' money for the purpose of providing land for this activity. While we
are certain the contemplated activity would be for the public good, we do not
believe it should be done at public expense. The sole direct and immediate
benefit to the County which would arise would be burial of indigents. However,
we believe this would be more properly accomplished at other locations. In the
last five years, the County has been responsible for the disposition of 27
indigents; we estimate 14 have been buried in the Winter Beach cemetery.
Administrator Balczun advised that the current estimate for
replacing the land is $300,000.
Chairman Scurlock asked how much it costs the County to bury
indigents in other cemeteries, and Administrator Balczun believed
it was probably around $1,000 per burial.
Commissioner Eggert asked about cremating indigents, and
Attorney Vitunac advised that according to taw we would have to
obtain family approval to cremate, and in most cases, an indigent
does not have any known family. Without that approval, they have
to be buried, by law.
Attorney Vitunac explained that we cannot take land which is
already intended for use as parks or recreation and put this
reverter on it. We must buy new land which we weren't otherwise
going.to buy, and then put it to recreational purposes.
Commissioner Bird asked if, at sometime in the future in our
acquisition of lands for park purposes, we could attach that
reverter to some land that is designated for recreational use.
APR b)
44
BOOK 71 PAGE 474
Attorney Vitunac could not say. The federal government's
theory is that they want to expand parks and recreation oppor-
tunities, and if you are taking out something that had this
restriction on it, you cannot put it back on something that does
not actually replace it.
Administrator Balczun_felt that the overlying philosophy is
that the federal government and/or the State, or through the
State, provided us with money to buy lands to expand recreational
____opportunities. They provided the money on the theory that you
would not have otherwise purchased the land, and that is the rub
in this case. They could turn around and ask what other purpose
would we have bought this other property.
Attorney Vitunac referred to the following letter dated
11/5/86 concerning replacement of recreation properties:
State of Florida
: 43/
DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES
DR. ELTON J. GISSENDANNER
Executive Director
Marjory Stoneman Douglas Building
3900 Commonwealth Boulevard. Tallahassee. Florida 32103
November 5, 1986
Mr. Bruce Barkett
Indian River County
1840 25th Street
Vero Beach, Florida 32960
Re: LWCF Project #12-00019, 12-00051
Kiwanis-Hobart Park
Dear Mr. Barkett:
BOB GRAHAM
Governor
GEORGE FIRESTONE
Secretary of State
JIM SMITH
Attorney General
GERALD A. LEWIS
Comptroller
BILL GUNTER
Treasurer
DOYLE CONNER
Commissioner of Agriculture
RALPH D. TURLINGTON
Commissioner of Education
NOV 10 1986
This letter is written in response to your letter of October 20,
1986, addressing the County's proposed conversion of a portion of the
above -referenced LWCF grant project site. The Land and Water
Conservation Fund Manual information which we sent with our August
14, 1986 letter was apparently too general and subject to
misinterpretation. We regret not providing more specific details.
APR 51988
45
!QM 71 Face 475
Your August 1, 1986, letter to Mr. Richard Froemke states that
"Indian River County had a proposed land exchange involving Kiwanis-
Hobart Park in progress until late 1983, when for some reason the
application process was halted." The reason that the process was
halted was because the proposed replacement property did not meet
federal LWCF requirements and the County was so informed in 1983.
Possibly, since you were not with the County at that time, you were
not aware of this action and the reason for the rejection.
In 1967, the State (Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust
Fund) dedicated 489.61 acres, specifically designated for parks and
recreation, to Indian River County. In 1969, the County received a
federal Land and Water Conservation Fund Program grant (#12-00019)
for acquisition of a 106 acre parcel adjacent to the dedicated
property. The purpose of the grant was to enable the County. to
connect separated park tracts. With approval and funding of the
County's project the acquired 106 acres and the 489.61 acres (totaling
595.61 acres) were dedicated to outdoor recreation in perpetuity in
accordance with federal LWCF program requirements. The LWCF
development grant which the County received in 1971 (#12-00051) only
served to reiterate the federal limitation of use requirement and the
continued dedication of this park for outdoor recreation purposes.
It is our understanding that both the 19.72 acre parcel proposed
for conversion to cemetary use and the 38.31 acre parcel which the
County again proposes to utilize as replacement property for the'
conversion are included within the 595.61 acre park already dedicated
in perpetuity to outdoor recreation. Since the 38.31 acres is
already part of the park and permanently dedicated to outdoor
recreation, it is unsuitable as replacement for the 19.72 acres. As
replacement property, the National Park Service is seeking an
addition to the recreation estate, since there would be a withdrawal
with the removal of the 19.72 acres.
As we mentioned previously, if the County proposes to purchase
and develop suitable property (of equal value, utility and location)
which could be added to an existing park or constitute a viable
recreation area in itself, this could possibly be acceptable to the
National Park Service. Otherwise, the County could propose the
substitution of other property currently owned by the County (of
equal value, utility and location) which is neither utilized nor
dedicated for outdoor recreational use at this time. If approved,
either property would then have to be dedicated, developed and made
available for public outdoor recreation.
We hope that this letter clarifies the situation for you. As
always, we will be pleased to render further assistance in this
matter, as needed.
APR 5 1988
Sincerel
,V
s ull
Chry ivan
Grants Specialist
Office of Recreation Services
Division of Recreation and Parks
46
BOOK 71 F'nE 4Th
Discussion ensued regarding the possibility of using the old
landfill on 4th Street and Old Dixie Highway as replacement
property.
Public Works Director Jim Davis preferred that the Board not
consider purchasing any of the regional parks that are presently
identified in our new Tong -range parks plan as replacement land
for the cemetery because we could run into some problems in
getting federal grants to develop that property.
Chairman Scurlock suggested that since the property on Old
Dixie Highway is an old landfill and structures could not be
built on parts of it, perhaps we could make it into a walking/
jogging trail which would fulfill the recreation requirements,
and the Commissioners agreed that staff should check out the
landfill as a possibility for replacement property for the
cemetery.
Reverend Leon Blanton, member of the Cemetery Association,
expressed his appreciation for the Board's dilemma in this
matter. He noted that although the commitment was made back in
1976, it has been working since 1974. At that time there was
extensive discussion about the County having control of the
cemetery as to who would be buried there, and whether there
should be a limit of two plots to a family, etc. That was fine
with.them, because all they wanted were free burial plots for
everyone. He stressed that no one has every been refused burial
at Winter Beach Cemetery. Reverend Blanton also remembered that
at that time Commissioner Bird felt the County should be true to
their commitment in this matter. They appreciate the Board's
dilemma, but it seems that this problem continues to get buried.
Because of the commitment the Board made back then, they did not
purchase other property tor their purposes, and now there is no
way they could afford to purchase the property at its present
value.
Commissioner Bird felt that what Rev. Blanton was hearing
today from the Board is a reaffirmation of the County's
47
APR 51988
a()OK. 71 PACE 477
commitment to the cemetery land. He felt that we can work this
out by using the Old Dixie property unless we run into some snag
down there that we are not aware of today. He wanted to see us
have a piece of property ready for submittal for federal approval
within 90 days.
Reverend Blanton trusted that this matter finally would be
resolved at that time, and thanked the Board for their consid-
eration.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by
Commissioner Eggert, the Board unanimously directed
staff to pursue using the old landfill on Old Dixie
Highway as replacement recreational property for the
Winter Beach Cemetery property.
Jimmy Walker, Vice Chairman of the Cemetery Association,
felt confident that the County Commission, Attorney, and Adminis-
trator would know of a shortcut through the red tape so that the
90 -day deadline would be met.
APPROVAL OF FUNDS TO PURCHASE RADIOS FOR ANIMAL CONTROL AUTHORITY
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 3/28/88:
TO: Charles Balczun DATE: March 28, 1988 FILE:
County Administrator
SUBJECT: Agenda Matter
Request For Funds to
Purchase Radios for
Animal Control Authority
FROM: Doug Wright, Director REFERENCES:
Emergency Management Services
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
On October 14, 1987, a former Animal Control Officer was respond-
ing to a call in the Sebastian Highlands. He left his county
vehicle unattended in an effort to capture an animal during
48
APR 5 1988
BOOF 71 ME 478
which time person or persons unknown stole a GE PLS Portable
Radio from the vehicle. A report was made to the Sebastian
Police Department however, the portable radio has not been
recovered as of the date of this memorandum.
The portable radio for some reason had not been reported to
the county insurance carrier and was not covered by insurance.
The value of the radio is $800.00 with a spare battery.
ANALYSIS AND ALTERNATIVES
The portable radios are used by the Animal Control Officers
for communication with the dispatcher as well as the Sheriff's
Office. After 5:00 p.m, when the officer is out of the vehicle
there is no other form of communication should the officer
encounter an adverse situation. There have been several inci-
dents where an officer may well have been injured if the radio
was not available to summon assistance. As recent as the end
of February Officer Brenda Lohse was threatened with physical
harm by a group of residents who were upset when she observed
an animal being abused and attempted to impound and treat the
dog.
An additional officer was authorized by the Board of County
Commissioners in the current budget year.
Funding of certain equipment, such as a radio and other support
equipment was not included in accounts when the budget was
finalized. Therefore, additional funding will be required
to replace the stolen portable radio as well as purchase another
radio for the additional position which has now been filled.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners auth-
orize the purchase of two portable radios for $1,600.00 for
the Animal Control Authority to utilize since the officers
are on call twenty-four hours a day and the equipment is
utilized for their personal protection. Funding is requested
from general revenue contingency funds.
MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by
Commissioner Wheeler, that the Board approve the
request to purchase two portable radios for $1,600
for the Animal Control Authority; funding to come from
general revenue contingency funds.
Under discussion, Chairman Scurlock stated he would not
support the Motion since funding would have to come out of
contingencies. He announced that he would be voting against all
of these types of items because contingencies are running low.
APR 51988
1
THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION. The Motion
carried by a vote of 4-1, Chairman Scurlock dissenting.
49
BOOK 71 FnC 479
APPROVAL OF PURCHASE OF USED TOPDRESSER FROM MARTIN DOWNS COUNTRY
CLUB
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 3/28/88:
TO: Board of County CommissionATE: March 28, 1988 FILE:
THRU: Charles Balczun SUBJECT: Topdresser
County Administrator
FROM: Bob Komarinetz
Director of Go
REFERENCES:
DESCRIPTION:
Cushman mounted PTO Driven USED Topdresser, from Martin Downs
Country Club.:- This equipment is used to spread sand to top dress
over greens and tees. The topdresser would cost new $2500.00.
We can purchase it for $1100.00.
RECOPM'1ENDATION:
Staff recommend the purchase of the topdresser from Martin Downs.
FUNDS AVAILABLE:
Account #418-221-572-066.49
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by
Commissioner Eggert, the Board unanimously approved
the purchase of a used Topdresser from Martin Downs
Country Club at a cost of $1100.
RESURFACING COUNTY PARKING LOTS
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 3/25/88:
50
APR 51988
BOOK 71 F'AGF 480
TO: Charles Balczun,
County. Administrator
FROM: James W. Davis, P.E..
Public Works Director(;
SUBJECT: Resurfacing County Parking Lots
REF. LETTER: Lynn Williams to Jim Davis dated March 8, 1988
DATE: March 25, 1988
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
During the FY 1987/88 budget session, $16,000 was appropriated
for slurry seal treatment of the County Administration Building
Parking lot and $4,500 for resurfacing the County Administration
Building Public Parking Lot. After a detailed inspection of all
County owned lots, staff is of the opinion that the State
Attorney's Building Parking lot and Courthouse Parking lots are
in greater need of resurfacing than slurry seal of the County
Employee's lot at the Administration Building. The cost to
resurface the four lots as listed below is approximately $11,000.
Administration Building Parking lot
Courthouse Public Parking lot
Courthouse Employee Parking lot
State Attorney's Parking lot
$ 4,300
2,500
3,000
1,200
$11,000
If the above work is accomplished, $9,500 would be available to
resurface 42,750 s.f. of the County Employee Parking lot at the
County Administration Building.
ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS
Staff is of the opinion that slurry seal of the County Employee's
Administration Building Parking lot is not in the best interests
to the County. Since the cost of asphalt resurfacing is the
lowest it has been in the past 10 years, staff is of the opinion
that resurfacing is the best alternative.
RECOMMENDATION AND FUNDING
Staff recommends resurfacing the following lots:
1) Administration Building Public lot
2) Courthouse Public Parking lot
3) Courthouse Employee Parking lot
4) State Attorney's Parking lot
5) County Administration Building
Employee lot - north 42,000 sf
$ 4,300
2,500
3,000
1,200
9,500
$20,500
Funding to be from Buildings and Grounds FY87/88 budget as
appropriated.
Administrator Balczun noted that we have sufficient funds,
and there is no contingency money involved, at least based on our
estimates.
51
APR 5198
BOOF 71 PAGE 481
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously
approved staff recommendation for resurfacing as set
out in the above memo.
RECOMMENDATION FOR RESURFACING ROADS
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 3/31/88:
TO:
James W. Davis, P.E.
Public Works Director
DATE:
March 31, 1988
SUBJECT:
FILE:
Recommendation for
Resurfacing
FROAlbert L. VanAuken, Supt. REFERENCES: R1
Road & Bridge Division
The following is a list of roads which are in need of resurfacing:
58th Ave. 8th St. to 12th (west lane) 107/T = $3900 .3 M
Sugar Mill Est.
178/T = $6450 .3 M
*43rd Ave. 26th St. to Main Relief Canal 280/T = $10,100 .4 M
*25th St.,SW 6th Ave., SW to 12th Ave., SW 645/T = $23,300 1. M
*6th Way, SW 25th St., SW to Highland Dr. 130/T = $4700 .2 M
*10th Ave., SW 25th St.,SW to Highland Dr. 130/T = $4700 .2 M
35th Ave. 12th St. to 14th St. 145/T = $5250 .25 M
10th St. 6th Ave. to U. S. #1 125/T = $4500 .2 M
AVA:ms ,Z.,41 00
APR 51988
52,
BOOK 71 FACE 482
Public Works Director Jim Davis recalled that the Board
approved various resurfacing projects for Road & Bridge a couple
of meetings ago. However, staff found that some of those
resurfacing projects should be delayed until new utilities
projects are completed, such as Lindsey Road where there is going
to be some major utility lines installed. He distributed a
supplemental list for the Board's approval, and explained that he
was somewhat under the gun because the contractor would like to
begin next week when his portable plant will be operating. He
noted that the list calls for $62,900 worth of work, and we have
almost $300,000 in that resurfacing budget.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously approved
staff's recommendation for resurfacing the streets
listed above at a cost of $62,900.
TRANSFER OF ST. CHRISTOPHER LANE FROM PUBLIC ROAD STATUS TO
PRIVATE ROAD STATUS
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 3/1/88:
TO: Charles P. Balczun,
County Administrator
FROM: James W. Davis, PE
Public Works Direct
SUBJECT: Request by Property Owners of St. Christopher Lane for
Road to Be Transferred from "Public Road" Status to
"Private Road" Status
REF. LETTER: Clifford Bowers, V.P., St. Christopher Lane
Property Owners Assoc. to Charles Balczun, dated
1-28-88
DATE: March 1, 1988
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
The paving of St. Christopher Lane was approved under the County
Petition Paving Program and a resolution was adopted (No. 87-50)
on June 9, 1987 at a public hearing. The County staff is in the
process of designing the road paving. This is a staff initiated
project.
Some property owners have made a request to have this road made
private and kept in its present condition (unpaved).
APR 5 1988
53
BOOK 71 PAGE 483
The plat dedicating the road was recorded in Indian River County
on April 21, 1953, originally with a public utility and easement.
There is also a 10' beach access, for the sole use of the
property owners of St. Christopher Beach, St. Christopher Harbor
and Seminole Shores Subdivision. There isn't any mention of this
beach access being public on the plat.
Back in 1974, St. Christopher Harbor and Seminole Shores were
re -platted and made private still allowing these property owners
to use the beach access in St. Christopher Beach Subdivision.
In staff's research, we cannot find any information or replat for
St. Christopher Beach Subdivision being made private.
The County has been grading this road since 1953 according to
Albert VanAuken, Road & Bridge Superintendent.
There are at the present time 66.7% of the property owners in
favor of having this road made private. A letter was received
from one property owner who is against it (see attached petition
and letter).
ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS
ti
The Public Works Department staff has no objection to designation
of the road= as a "Private Road" and the County discontinue
maintenance. If the road remains public, it should be paved so
that the County grader does not have to travel across the 17th
Street Bridge and A -1-A. This would be the only unpaved public
road in this area once one other road is paved.
The County Attorney's office has rendered the attached legal
opinion that an abandonment of the right-of-way should be
approved by the County and a Homeowners Association be
established to provide for future maintenance.
RECOMMENDATION AND FUNDING
It is recommended that the property owners of St. Christopher
Lane be encouraged to submit an abandonment petition to the
County requesting this road be made "Private" and that the
Homeowners show evidence that a proper Homeowners Association has
been established for maintenance of the road. Also, if the road
is made "Private", a public utility and access easement should be
retained.
Administrator Balczun advised that in its research the
Planning Department found in their records some provision for a
dune crossing, which appears to be an access at the end of the
St. Christopher Lane right-of-way; however, that should not
affect the Board's decision today.
Commissioner Bowman had a problem if we are giving them the
right-of-way, and felt that this agreement should be given
careful scrutiny by the County Attorney beforehand.
L
5 1988
54
Ku( 71. PACE 484
Public Works Director Jim Davis explained that St.
Christopher Lane always has been a public road, and Administrator
Balczun pointed out that we brought it forward to be paved. It
appears that part of the difficulty that caused the move for
abandonment is the fact that somebody has to move the pump house
that is in the middle of the right-of-way if it is to be paved.
It is not our well, nor is it our pump house, and we never
approved installation of that pump house in our right-of-way.
Chairman Scurlock pointed out that there is public access to
the beach, but there are two subdivisions with private access to
the beach, and those owners don't want it to become a beachcomber
lane.
Commissioner Bird felt the staff recommendation is the
correct way to go, and felt we should encourage them to go
through the abandonment petition and see what kind of response we
get.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by
Commissioner Eggert, the Board unanimously
approved staff's recommendation that the property
owners of St. Christopher Lane be encouraged to submit
an abandonment petition to the County requesting this
road be made "Private" and that the Homeowners show
evidence that a proper Homeowners Association has been
established for maintenance of the road; further, that
if the road is made "Private", a public utility and
access easement should be retained.
PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING SERVICES AGREEMENT- MISCELLANEOUS
INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS PHASE III
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 3/28/88:
APR 5 1988
55
BOOK 71 PAGE 485
TO: The Honorable Members of the
Board of County Commissioners
FROM: James W. Davis, P.E. 0(i.'
Public Works Director
SUBJECT: Professional Engineering Services Agreement
Miscellaneous Intersection Improvements Phase III
DATE: March 28, 1988
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
The Public Works Department staff has prepared and transmitted to
Lloyd and Associates, the attached Professional Engineering
Services Agreement.. The scope of work has been carefully
prepared and the Engineering fee has been negotiated to result in
a lump sum fee of $75,491.
RECOMMENDATION AND FUNDING
It is recommended that the Chairman be authorized to execute the
agreement and that a NOTICE TO PROCEED be issued. Funding to be
from 109-141-541-033.13, Traffic Impact Fees, Anvo Lu- op�„r. Gks 'rn7c-.
Administrator Balczun pointed out that we have indicated to
the Board of Education that upon execution of this agreement, we
would let Mr. Lloyd know that we intend to "fast track" the work
at 43rd Avenue and 8th Street, principally because of the diffi-
culties the children have in crossing that intersection.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Wheeler, SECONDED by
Commissioner Eggert, the Board unanimously approved
the Professional Engineering Services Agreement with
Lloyd and Associates for a lump sum fee of $75,491;
authorized the issuance of a Notice to Proceed; and
authorized the Chairman's signature. Funding to be
from traffic impact fees and local option gas tax.
AGREEMENT IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD
FLEET MANAGEMENT GAS PUMPS
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 3/23/88:
APR 5 1983
56
mu 71 FACE 486
TO: Charles P. Balczun,
County Administrator
FROM: James W. Davis, P.E.
Public Works Director
SUBJECT: Fire Extinguishing System and Aluminum Roofing
for Fleet Management Gas Pumps
REF. MEMO: James Davis to Jack McCorkle dated Dec. 22, 1988
DATE: March 23, 1988
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
The South County Fire District has informed the Public Works
Department that a chemical fire extinguishing system is required
for each of the three gas pump islands at the Fleet Management
Division (4625 South Gifford Road). The estimated cost for the
three systems is $5,500.
In addition, the County staff recommends that an aluminum roof
structure (24' x 84') be constructed to protect the fire
extinguishing systems and gas pumps from direct exposure to the
weather. The cost estimate for the roofing is $30,000.
The above items were requested during the FY1987/88 budget
session, however, they were not approved. Funds are not
available in the Fleet Management Budget.
ALTERNATIVE AND ANALYSIS
The following alternatives are presented:
Alternative No. 1
Funds are available in the Federal Revenue Sharing Fund
102-000-389-040.00 (balance as of March 18, 1988 is
$224,461). Bidding documents are essentially complete and
staff could bid this item immediately.
Alternative No. 2
Delay this construction until FY88/89. In speaking with Bob
Hunt, South County Fire District Inspector, the State Fire
Code requires the extinguishing systems, and they should be
installed as soon as possible.
Alternative No. 3
Deny funds to construct the roofing, but proceed to install
the fire extinguishing system. if this alternative is
approved, the maintenance on the system will intensify.
RECOMMENDATION AND FUNDING
It is recommended that the Board authorize staff to advertise for
bids for both the fire extinguishing• system and roofing. Once
bids are received, staff will recommend action and funding.
Funding is anticipated from Federal Revenue Sharing Fund 102.
Chairman Scurlock favored purchasing the fire protection
equipment, but not the roof. He suggested that the roof be put
in next year's budget.
APR 5 1988
57
ROOK
7.1 F1GE487
Public Works Director Jim Davis advised that there will have
to be some metal work done to support the extinguishing system,
which would be in addition if we don't go with the roof.
Chairman Scurlock supported whatever it takes to put in the
extinguishing system, and delay putting the roof in until next
year's budget.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously approved
Alternative No. 3 of staff's recommendation, and
directed staff to bring back final figures to the
Board when they get the final bids.
DATA PROCESSING SOFTWARE AND HARDWARE NEEDS FOR DEPT. OF UTILITY
SERVICES
the Board reviewed the following memo dated 3/29/88:
TO:
THRU:
CHARLES P. BALCZUN DATE: MARCH 29, 1988
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
TERRANCE G. PINTOl if /A--
DIRECTOR OF UTILITY SERVICES
FROM: JEFFREY K. BARTON
ASSISTANT DIRECTOR (ASF UTILITY SERVICES
SUBJECT: DATA PROCESSING SOFTWARE AND HARDWARE NEEDS
DEPARTMENT OF UTILITY SERVICES
BACKGROUND.
Indian River County Utilities has experienced tremendous growth over
the last few years and, as we expand with the many projects under way,
we need to look at our financial, accounting, and data processing
.needs.
The County's auditing firm, Coopers and Lybrand, Certified Public
Accountants, were asked for proposals to define the needs of the
Department of Utility Services. Attached are the proposals from
Coopers and Lybrand, which include a credit for forty (40) hours of
consulting services under our audit contract.
APR 51 0
58
BOOK 71 PAGE 488
ANALYSIS
The proposals from Coopers and Lybrand are to cover two areas of
concern for future needs of Utilities:
1. Customer billing and information system not to exceed
$30,000.
2. Financial Projection System not to exceed $50,000, less the
credits for the forty (40) hours of additional services from
Indian River County's audit contract.
RECOMMENDATION
The Department of Utility Services recommends to the Board of County
Commissioners to approve the two proposals for services from Coopers &
Lybrand with funding from the Utilities budgeted line items for water
and sewer - Other Contracted Services: 471-218-536-033.49 and
471-219-536-033.49, after the credit for the forty (40) hours of time.
Chairman Scurlock was concerned about spending $50,000 and
not keeping it current, and Jeff Barton, Assistant Director of
Utility Services, explained that he discussed with them what they
are going to do for daily and monthly maintenance, and they have
assured us that it is going to be the simplest type of system
that would require the least amount of people necessary to
maintain it.
Chairman Scurlock asked if Coopers & Lybrand are presently
doing this work, and Director Barton said that Coopers & Lybrand
has done the first part, but have not got to the specifics of the
second area. They have just done the area of the total data
processing needs.
Chairman Scurlock asked what contract authorized them to do
that work, and Director Barton advised that they are working on
the time available in the 40 hours audit work until such time
that this was approved. He stressed that we need this work done
as quickly aspossible, and they had an open window in their
schedule which allowed them to do the work.
Chairman Scurlock asked how many hours they had consumed out
of the 40 hours, and Director Barton advised that one individual
was here about 3 hours and another individual has been here 6
days, but did not put in 8 hours a.day. He explained that the
figures quoted are prior to the credits for the audit time.
APR 19
..
59
Elm( 71 Fr3F489
Chairman Scurlock felt we need to have more information on
this, and Director Barton advised that this is a supplement to
the proposal that was before the Board about 6 weeks ago.
Commissioner Eggert understood that Personnel is doing so
much of it by hand, and a lot of the burden has been falling on
OMB Director Joe Baird.
Commissioner Bird suggested that we table this for one week,
and Commissioner Eggert wanted to see a copy of the original
proposal.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by
Commissioner Eggert, the Board unanimously
tabled this item until next week's meeting.
AWARD OF CONTRACT #1 - GENERAL CONSTRUCTION - REVERSE OSMOSIS
PLANT IMPROVEMENTS
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 3/16/88:
TO:
THRU:
FROM:
CHARLES P. BALCZUN
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
TERRANCE G. PINTO<
DIRECTOR OF UTILITY SERVICES
WILLIAM F. McCAIN
PROJECTS ENGINEER/
DEPARTMENT OF UTIL S 'fICES
DATE: MARCH 16, 1988
SUBJECT: AWARD OF CONTRACT. #1 - GENERAL CONSTRUCTION REVERSE
OSMOSIS PLANT IMPROVEMENTS
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY PROJECT NO. UW -88 -01 -WC
BACKGROUND
Two bids have been received for the aforementioned work. The
bidders are:
a. Butler Construction Company, Rockledge, FL.
b. Metro Equipment & Construction Association Inc.,
Orlando, FL.
ANALYSIS
The bids have been Itipas:46L=Lird with regard to the following:
a. General compliance with instructions
b. Equipment manufactures
c. Subcontractors
d. Summary of prices
e. Unit prices
60
APR 5 1989
BOOR 71 .f r,.E 4..7O
The comparisons are given on the attached sheets. Both bidders are
in compliance with specifications and are acceptable.
RECOMMENDATION
The Department of Utility Services recommends that the Board of
County Commissioners approve and authorize the awarding of this
contract to the low bidder, Butler Construction Company for a total
lump sum contract price of $1,154,114.00.
Commissioner Eggert asked which fund would be used to pay
for this, and Director Barton advised that ultimately it will
come out of impact fees. Construction was budgeted for this
fiscal year in Utilitie's operating accounts, but there is a fund
transfer out of impact fees. It is a legitimate impact fee item.
Commissioner Eggert asked if this will take care of
everything that needs to be done now, and Director Barton
explained that this will bring the plant up to its ultimate 5
million gallons a day-.
Chairman Scurlock noted that the only thing this will not do
is raise the storage facility that is set too low, and Director
Barton explained that the storage is not, part of this contract.
Projects Engineer Bill McCain advised that there are 3
separate contracts, one of which is the award of contract for the
well construction for $51,500, which is the next item on today's
Agenda. He felt that once Contract #1 gets on its way, there'
will -be several modifications that will be needed to supply
service pumps at the reverse osmosis facility. Staff plans to
bring these in as change orders after the general contractor is
on the job, thus allowing the County to get a much better price
for that work.
Commissioner Eggert cautioned them to be careful in what
they are doing to the neighborhood with,these pumps.
61
APR 51988
BOOK 71 FAH 491
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by
Commissioner Eggert, the Board unanimously awarded
the general construction contract #1 to the low bidder,
Butler Construction Company, for a total lump sum
contract price of $1,154,114, as recommended by staff.
(CONTRACT ON FILE IN OFFICE OF CLERK TO THE -BOARD -
PART I - "GENERAL CONSTRUCTION"
AWARD OF CONTRACT #2 -:SOUTH COUNTY REVERSE OSMOSIS PLANT
IMPROVEMENTS "WELL CONSTRUCTION"
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 3/23/88:
TO: CHARLES P. BALCZUN DATE: MARCH 23, 1988
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
THRU: TERRANCE G. PINT
DIRECTOR OF UTILITERVICES
FROM: WILLIAM F. MCCAIN
PROJECTS ENGINEE (�\`Ilti
DEPARTMENT OF UTI gY SERVICES
SUBJECT: AWARD OF CONTRACT #2 SOUTH COUNTY REVERSE OSMOSIS PLANT
IMPROVEMENTS "WELL CONSTRUCTION"
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY PROJECT #UW8802WC
BACKGROUND
Four bids were received for the aforementioned contract. The
bidders are:
a. Alsay Inc., Ft. Pierce, Florida
b. Diversified Drilling Corporation, Tampa, Florida
c. Meredith Corporation, Orlando, Florida
d. Southwest Water Wells, Inc., Ft. Myers, Florida
ANALYSIS
The bids were compared on an item by item basis following the bid
price tabulations, which are attached.
RECOMMENDATION
The Department of Utility Services recommends that the Board of
County Commissioners approve and authorize the awarding of this
contract to the low bidder, Alsay Inc., of Ft. Pierce, Florida for a
totalump sum contract price of $51,500.00.
APR 5 1988
62
BOOK 71 oGE 492
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Wheeler, the Board unanimously awarded
Contract #2 to the low bidder, Alsay, Inc., of Ft.
Pierce, for a total lump sum contract price of $51,500.
(CONTRACT ON FILE IN OFFICE OF CLERK TO THE BOARD -
PART II - "WELL CONSTRUCTION")
RIVER'S EDGE SUBDIVISION WATER SYSTEM
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 3/16/88:
TO:
THRU:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
CHARLES P. BALCZUN
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
TERRANCE G. PINT
DIRECTOR OF UTILI'LY`• ICES
JOHN FREDERICK LAN Lk-,
ENVIRONMENTAL SPECIA IST
RIVER'S EDGE SUBDIVIION
WATER SYSTEM
DATE: MARCH 16, 1988
BACKGROUND
River's Edge Subdivision was de -annexed from the City of Sebastian in
order that Indian River County Utilities could take over the
subdivision's utility. The existing system will not meet Department of
Environmental Regulation or Environmental Protection Agency drinking
water standards. The Department of Utility Services contracted
laboratory consultants and engineering consultants, Envirometrics and
Camp, Dresser & McKee, Inc. respectively, working in tandem, who have
determined that a new well and treatment methodology is necessary. The
new well is to be an artesian well and the treatment plant is to be a
reverse osmosis facility. In order to fast-track this project, the
Department has developed construction specifications for the well and
has bid out the construction contract. The Department of Environmental
Regulation has granted us two extensions but expects a construction
permit soon for the water plant, exclusive. We are currently
negotiating for our third extension.
ANALYSIS
An installed well is necessary as water quality data from the well is
used in the final design of the reverse osmosis treatment plant. The
existing treatment plant at River's Edge will be scraped. Some items
that can be salvaged will be refurbished to be used elsewhere if
needed. The low bid for the potable water well was from Perry &
Leighty, Inc. at a price of $12,300.00.
RECOMMENDATION
The Department of Utility Services recommends that the Board award the
well contract to Perry & Leighty, Inc., at the price of $12,300.00, the
lowest bidder who can meet all the contract specifications.
APR 51988
63
BOOK 1 FACE 4 J3
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously awarded the
well contract to Perry & Leighty, Inc., the lowest
bidder who can meet all the contract specifications,
the price of $12,300, as recommended by staff.
CONTRACT IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD
COUNTY CORRECTIONAL PLANNING COMMITTEE
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 3/31/88:
at
TO: County Commissioners DATE: March 31, 1988
FROM
• ▪ Alice E. White
Administrative Aide I
SUBJECT
FILE:
• ▪ County Correctional
Planning Committee
REFERENCES:
The State of Florida has decreed that the County form a County
Correctional Planning Committee. The following_ representatives
are to serve on this Committee:
Chairman of County Commission or his designee
Chief Circuit Judge or his designee
Chief County Judge or his designee
State Attorney or his designee
Public Defender or his designee
Superintendent of County Jail.
Probation Office representative
RECOMMENDATION
(Gary C. Wheeler)
(Charles E. Smith)
(Daniel Kilbride)
(Bruce Colton)
(Henry Whitton)
(M. Lo Bob Reese)
(Don Cureton)
It is recommended that the Board of County Commissioners approve
the above representatives to the County Correctional Planning
Committee..
APR 51988
64 ' BOOK 71 FACE 494
Commissioner Wheeler reported that it has been brought,to
our attention that State law requires that we establish a Correc-
tional Planning Committee to meet monthly to work at alleviating
the overcrowding of the jail and being in excess of our allowable
number of prisoners. This committee will be very, similar to the
Fast Track Committee and the Jail Oversight Committee, and
hopefully, we can incorporate all three committees into one, or
combine this committee with the Jail Oversight Committee.
However, the same people will serve on both committees, which
will serve the same function.
Commissioner Bird asked how long this law has been in
effect, and Attorney Vitunac stated that Section 951.26 has been
around for some time, but it was just brought to our attention by
the Sheriff's Department. He advised that the law requires that
the Chairman of the Board of County Commissioners be on this
committee, but in his opinion, he felt the Board could appoint
someone other than the Chairman since every other person on the
committee is allowed to have a designee from the same rank.
Chairman Scurlock advised that Commissioner Wheeler has
agreed to serve on this committee.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously adopted
Resolution 88-21, creating a County Correctional
Planning Committee pursuant to Chapter 951.26, Florida
Statutes.
APR 5198E
65
800 71 ME 495
APR 51988
RESOLUTION NO. 88-21
A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY FLORIDA,
CREATING A COUNTY CORRECTIONAL PLANNING
COMMITTEE PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 951.26, FLORIDA
STATUTES.
WHEREAS, Indian River County is required to establish a
Correctional Planning Committee pursuant to Chapter 951.26,
Florida Statutes; and
WHEREAS, the law requires. that the following persons
be appointed to the committee: the state attorney or his
designated assistant state attorney, the public defender or
his designated assistant public defender, the chief circuit
judge or another circuit judge as his designee, the chief
county .judge or his designee, the chief correctional
officer, the chairman of the board of county commissioners,
and the director of the county probation program.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that:
The Indian River County Correctional Planning Committee
is hereby established for the purposes set out in Chapter
951.26, Florida Statutes.
The foregoing resolution was offered by Commissioner`
Eggert who moved its adoption. The motion was
seconded by Commissioner Bird and,
upon being put to a vote, the vote was as follows:
Chairman Don C. Scurlock, Jr.
Vice -Chairman Gary C. Wheeler
Commissioner Richard N. Bird
Commissioner Margaret C: Bowman
Commissioner Carolyn K. Eggert
Aye
Aye
Aye
Aye
Ave
The Chairman thereupon declared the resolution passed
and adopted this 5th day of April
, 1988.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
BY
on c`urfoc.,,
Chairman
66
BOOK 71 FACE 496
OLD JAIL SITE FOR CITY/COUNTY RECREATIONAL OFFICES
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 4/4/88:
TO:
County Commissioners
Charles Balczun
Charles Vitunac
FROM:
DATE: FILE:
April 4, 1988
SUBJECT:
Old Jail Site
Carolyn K. Eggert e" REFERENCES:
County Commissioner
During a conversation on Friday with Pat Callahan, head of the
Vero Beach and County recreation programs, she remarked that the
Recreation Department needed larger offices and a building to use
as a warehouse. She felt the old jail site would be a perfect
location for it and the old jail, a perfect warehouse. I agree
with her, especially if we are moving toward a County -wide
recreation system.
We talked with Mayor Ken Macht, who also felt Mrs. Callahan's
suggestion was an excellent one. He thought that the downtown
warehouse area could be used for more downtown parking if the
Recreation Department moved to the old jail site. I believe funds
are available for an office building or repairs if the other
buildings are not suitable. It was also thought that an
arrangement with the County on the old jail site for recreation
offices might be helpful in resolving the current library y.
building situation.
I would like to know the attitude of the Board of County
Commissioners toward talking with the City about moving Pat
Callahan and her offices to the old jail site.
Administrator Balczun advised that if the Board reflects on
this positively, we could take the City officials on a tour of
the site to check out the feasibility of using this for recre-
ational offices, and then come back at some later date to the
Board of County Commissioners and the Vero Beach City Council.
Commissioner Wheeler suggested approving this conceptually
today and then turn it over to staff to iron it out.
Commissioner Bird felt this could work out, and he would
like to take a tour of the old jail also.
Administrator Balczun recalled the last time we discussed
this site, which was before the Board elected not to use it as a
67
APR 51988
BOOK 71 f'AGE 497
library site, the Board discussed having staff do certain things
to clear up the parcel. We obviously will not touch the old
concrete jail structure and the offices in the front, but staff
would like to proceed on the Board's original directions with
respect to fuel tanks, towers, and the two wooden frame
structures which are going to have to come down in any case.
Commissioner Bird did not feel we should proceed with
anything right now, because he felt the Recreation Dept. may have
use of those fuel tanks, etc., and because we are only talking 90
days or so.
Commissioner Eggert felt there is a great desire on the part
of the City to have a workshop with the County on several
matters.
SOUTH COUNTY FIRE DISTRICT
The Chairman announced that immediately upon adjournment the
Board of County Commissioners would reconvene acting as the
District Board of Fire Commissioners of the South Indian River
County Fire District. Those Minutes are being prepared
separately.
There being no further business, on Motion duly made,
seconded and carried; the Board adjourned at 11:45 o'clock A.M.
ATTEST;
APR b 1988
Clerk Chairman
68
BOOK 71 PACE 498