HomeMy WebLinkAbout4/26/1988Tuesday, April 26, 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 26, 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; Joseph
Baird, OMB Director; and Virginia Hargreaves, Deputy Clerk.
The Chairman called the meeting to order, and Administrator
Balczun led the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag.
ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA/EMERGENCY ITEMS
Chairman Scurlock informed the Board that a letter has been
received from Attorney Michael O'Haire, acting in behalf of Daryl
Stenger, asking that Item 8B (4) requesting an amendment of the
Comprehensive Land Use Plan be withdrawn from today's agenda.
The Chairman advised that he would like to add an item to
the agenda under his items in reference to the recent Salary
Survey as he felt there is little confusion on the employees'
part as to what we may or may not do, and he would like to make
it clear where we stand on this.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Bird, the Board unanimously added and deleted
agenda items as requested above.
e
APR 2 6 1988
BOOT 72 At 160
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
The Chairman asked if there were any additions or correc-
tions to the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of March 29, 1988.
Commissioner Eggert referred to Page 55, line 4, and asked
that the word "than" be added so that it will read "this branch
had more expensive land than in
ON MOTION by Commissioner Wheeler, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Eggert, the Board unanimously approved the
Minutes of the Regular Meeting of March 29, 1988, as
corrected.
CONSENT AGENDA
Commissioner Wheeler requested that Item 6 be removed from
the Consent Agenda for discussion, and Commissioner Bird asked
that Item 7 be removed also.
1. Approval of Appointment of Deputy SHeriff
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Commis-
sioner Bowman, the Board unanimously approved the
appointment of Deputy Sheriff Richard Dees by. Sheriff
Dobeck.
Reports
The following was received and placed on file in the Office.
of Clerk to the Board:
Report of Convictions, Month of January, 1988.
2
APR 2 6 19&
BOOK
3. Final Plat Approval - Sea Oak's River Homes 11 Subdv.
The Board reviewed memo of Staff Planner John McCoy:
TO:Charles P. Balczun
County Administrator
DIVISIO�Njj HEAD CONCURRENCE:
, 64/
A
Robert M. e CEJECT: PLAT FOR
Community 'Devel•'mentDirector SEA OAK'S RIVER HOMES II
SUBDIVISION
DATE: April 15, 1988 FILE:
THROUGH: Stan Boling
Chief, Current Development
FROM: John W. McCoy pito REFERENCES:
Staff Planner
sea oaks
JOHN
It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal
consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at its regular
meeting of April 26, 1988.
1.
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS:
River Homes II Subdivision is a 14 lot subdivision of a ±3.2 acre
parcel located in the interior of the Sea Oaks West project. The
current zoning is RM -6, (Multi -Family Residential, up to 6 units/
acre) with a land use designation of LD -2 (Low Density Residen-
tial, up to 6 units/acre). At their regular meeting of February
11, 1988, the Planning and Zoning Commission granted preliminary
plat approval to the subdivision. The Board of County
Commissioners granted conceptual PRD approval at its February 23,
1988 meeting. This is the first plat of several for the overall
PRD area. The owner, Sea Oaks Communities, Inc., is now
requesting final plat approval and has submitted:
1. a final plat in conformance with the approved preliminary
plat, and approved conceptual PRD plan.
ANALYSIS:
All required improvements have been constructed and have been
inspected and approved by Public Works and Utilities Department.
All requirements for final plat approval have been satisfied.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners grant
final plat approval to River Homes II Subdivision.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Commis-
sioner Bowman, the Board unanimously granted Final
Plat Approval of Sea Oak's. River Homes 11 Subdivision.
3
APR 2 6 1988
BOOR 72 UCF 162
4. Out -of -County Travel
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Commis-
sioner Bowman, the Board unanimously approved out -of -
County travel for Commissioner Scurlock to attend the
1988 AWWA Annual Conference "Wonderful World of Water"
in Orlando June 19-23.
5. Authorization to Amend Zoning Code Relating to Transportation
System Requirements
The Board reviewed memo of Community Development Director
Keating:
TO: Charles P. Balczun
County Administrator
FROM: Robert M.
Director
Community
DATEpril 18, 1988 FILE:
REQUEST FOR AUTHORIZATION
SUBJECT: TO AMEND SECTION 23, SITE
PLAN REVIEW AND APPROVAL
PROCEDURES, OF THE ZONING
CODE, RELATING TO TRANS-
PORTATION SYSTEM REQtJIRE-
MENTS
Keating, AIC NEFERENCES:
site plan proc.
Development. Department DIS:IBMIRD
It is requested that the information herein presented be given
formal consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at its
regular meeting of April 26, 1988.
DESCRIPTION & CONDITIONS
During discussion of the Boulevard Shoppes site plan request at
the March 10, 1988 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting, one major
traffic issue and potential ordinance conflict arose, leading the
Commission to request that the staff review the traffic require-
ments of the site plan ordinance. The principal concern was
whether all intersections should be considered in the application
of minimum level of service (LOS) standards.( Several other
traffic/LOS issues also have arisen.
The intersection issue arose when it was determined that the
proposed site plan was within a half mile of an intersection that
already operates at LOS E, but will not be adversely impacted by
the project. Although the subject intersection is the junction of
a secondary collector and an arterial, the question arose as to
whether all intersections, including local road/thoroughfare plan
4
APR 2 6 1988
goon 72 F'AGC 163
road intersections, should be considered in the application of LOS
requirements. An additional aspect of the intersection issue is
whether an applicant agreeable to making an improvement which
would enhance the service level of a link or intersection can be
denied development approval because permits for the proposed
improvement are denied by an agency such as FDOT having jurisdic-
tion over the improvement. Finally, the question has arisen as to
how unsignalized intersections should be addressed in a traffic
impact analysis and a LOS determination.
At its March 24, 1988 meeting, the Planning & Zoning Commission
voted unanimously to recommend that the Board of County Commis-
sioners authorize the staff to research, draft, and advertise
public hearings to consider changes in the transportation system
requirements for the site plan section of the Zoning Code.
ALTERNATIVES & ANALYSIS
The staff assessed these issues and determined that concern relat-
ing to these matters was justified. As written, the current
ordinance requires that all intersections within the impact area
of a project meet minimum LOS standards. The ordinance, however,
does not differentiate between signalized .and 'non -signalized
intersections in LOS calculation. Since local roads at inter-
sections with major roads often operate at LOS E because of left
turn movements, those types of intersections will seldom meet LOS
standards. Because improvements to meet LOS standards at these
intersections would impede flow on the thoroughfare plan roads and
because of the limited function of local roads (primarily to
provide property access), the application of LOS standards to
local road/thoroughfare plan road intersections and to.
unsignalized intersections is not desirable.
This issue was researched by the staff, and a possible ordinance
amendment to resolve the problem was identified. To ensure that
LOS standards are applied only to the major road network, several
ordinance amendments should be made. These include limiting the
LOS consideration to major thoroughfare links (all roads on the
thoroughfare plan) and major intersections (the junction of two or
more thoroughfare plan roads); adopting a definition of major
thoroughfare link, preparing a definition of major intersection,
and revising the LOS criteria applicable to unsignalized inter-
sections.
The proposed changes will add necessary clarification to the LOS
requirement in the ordinance. Without these changes there could
be unintended adverse effects on site plan applicants.
RECOMMENDATION
The staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners
authorize staff to proceed with ordinance amendments to clarify
components of the transportation network subject to LOS require-
ments.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Commis-
sioner Bowman, the Board unanimously authorized staff
to proceed with ordinance amendments to clarify
components of the transportation network subject to
LOS requirements.
5
APR 2 6 1988
600 7'2i1Ei4
6. Sheriff's Administration Building - Finat Payment
The Board reviewed the following memo, which recommended
final payment of $8,000:
TO:
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS DATE: APRIL 5, 1988
THRU: CHARLES P. BALCZUN
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
FROM: H. T. "SONNY" DEAN
OWNERS AUTHORIZED : PRESENTATIVE
SUBJECT: INDIAN RIVER COUNTY SHERIFF'S ADMINISTRATION
BUILDING FINAL PAYMENT
Attached is the contractor's request for final. payment on the
subject project.
The only problems experienced have been warranty items.
contractor has responded in an expeditious manner.
Staff recommends Board approval and authorization for the
to execute the Certificate for Payment.
APPLICATION AND CERTIFICATE FOR•PAYMENT AIADOCUMENrc7o2
TO (OWNER): • PROJECT:
Board of County Commissioners Sheriff's Administration
of Indian River County, Fl.
•
FROM (CONTRACTOR): VIA (ARCHITECT): C.E.Block Architect
PWR Corporation
P.O.Box 249 •
coNTRACrFoH3ghland City, F1. 33846
(Instructions on reverse side)
APPUCATION NO:
Sixteen
PERIOD TO: Completion
ARCHITECT'S
PROJECT NO: $528
CONTRACT DATE: • Oct.
and the
Chairman
race osq or facts
Distribution to:
01 OWNER
lh ARCHITECT
Lg CONTRACTOR
0
.
13, 1986
CONTRACTOR'S APPLICATION FOR PAYMENT
CHANGE ORDER SJJMMARY
Change Orders approved In
previous months by Owner
TOTAL
ADDITIONS
452,923.90
DEDUCTIONS
4,058.10
Approved this Month
•
Number
Date Approved
TOTALS
452,923.90
4,058.10
Net change by Change Orders 448,865.80
The undersigned Contractor certif es that to the best of the Contractor's knowledge
information and belief the Work covered by this Application for Payment has been
comptete{I_in accordance with dhe Conttrrac�tt Docyments, that all amounts have been
agi 114 tI Contractor for Work for whlkh re9lous Certificates for Payment were
' pissued and payments received from the Owner, and that current pamshown
herein is now due. (.Note:. Total: tax savings thru f ipal draw •,
coNtgAgroR: i! :•• = S511750.86
Dater p7 i '8 •
ARCHITECT'S CERTIFICATE FOR PAYMENT
to accordance with the Contract Documents, based on on-site observations and the
data comprising the above application, the Architect certifies to the Owner that to the
best of the Architect's knowledge, information and belief the Work hu progressed as
indicated. the quality of the Work Is in accordance with the Contract Documents, and
the Contractor is entitled to payment of the AMOUNT CERTIFIED.
Application is made for Payment, as shown below, In connectionwith the Contract.
Continuation Sheet, AIA Document G703, Is attached.
1. ORIGINAL CONTRACT SUM $ 2,106,155.00
2. Net change by Change Orden $ 448.865.80
3. CONTRACT SUM TO DATE (tine 1 ±2) 2.555 020.80
4. TOTAL COMPLETED & STORED TO DATES 2, 555 20.80
:column G on 6703) Less Amount Paid by
S. RETAINAGE: IRC thru Trans. #155=
a. — % of Completed Work S
(Column D + E on G703)
b. — % of Stored Material S
(Column F on C703)
Total Retainage (Une Sa +Sb or
Total in Column 1 of G703) S -0-
6. TOTAL EARNEDLESSRETAINACE $ 1, 520, UU3. b8
(line 4 Tess Line 5 Total)
7. LESS PREVIOUS CERTIFICATES FOR
• PAYMENT (I ne 6 from grior.Cerlfatq)
8. CURRENT PAYMENT DUE S_ 8.000.00_
9. BALANCE TO FINISH, PWS 1
(tine 3 Tess ne 6)
$
1,035,017.12
1,520,003.68
S; 1,512,0 3.68
State oh ' ; r et, County of: ,.M ep
Subscribed and r to below /m/e� thi�s.cid day of i ..A.(...19 r7 d
Notary Public ` Li�-.c.h.:'
My Commission expires: whit -.,2/, Q/9 g7
AMOUNT CERTIFIED $ `b , 09.-
(Attach
Q(Attach explanation 11 amount certified (Wel from the amount applied foal
ARCV4
- :- " �• • .. �-..._-:
By U\C �lA l"" ""a Date: 3/on/`b�
This CertiRcate Is not negotlable.7ie•ACMOUNT CERTIFIED is payable only to the
Contractor named herein. Isalance'rpatntldtt and.acceptance of payment are without
pre)udice to any rights of tifg Ownee or Contractor under this Contract.
Commissioner Wheeler had questions as to how the amount due
wasarrived at, and this was explained to his satisfaction.
6
APR 261988
BOOK. 72 ,x 165
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Commis-
sioner Bowman, the Board unanimously approved the
request for final payment to PWR Corporation as set
out on the Certificate of Payment.
7. Declare Surplus - John's Island Wastewater Treatment Plant
The Board reviewed memo of Budget Analyst Miller:
TO: Members of the Board
of County Commissioners
THROUGH: Joseph A. Baird
OMB Director
FROM: Leila Miller
Budget Analyst
DATE: April 18, 198
SUBJECT: JOHN'S ISLAND WASTEWATER
TREATMENT PLANT TO BE
DECLARED SURPLUS
CONSENT AGENDA
Description of Conditions
The Utilities Department currently has an unused, ring steel,
wastewater treatment plant at John's Island with a pumping capacity
of 500,000 gallons per day. They do not foresee having a need for
this large a plant anytime in the near future and would like to have
it declared surplus.
Recommendation
Staff feels that since this plant has no future economic value, it
should be declared surplus and sold to the highest bidder.
Commissioner Bird asked if there is any possibility this
plant would suffice for the plant we need at Blue Cypress Lake.
Chairman Scurlock advised that we have already dismantled
and scavenged part of that plant, and what we are declaring
surplus are the parts that are unusable.
Utilities Director Pinto confirmed that consideration was'
given to its use at Blue Cypress, but it was not suitable.
APR 2 6 1988
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by Commis-
sioner Eggert, the Board unanimously declared the
John's Island Wastewater Treatment Plant surplus as
recommended by staff.
7
BOOK 72 usF 166.
8. Release of County Utility Liens - SR60 Water & Sewer
The Board reviewed memo from County Attorney Vitunac:
TO: Board of County Commissioners
FROM:
DATE: April 19, 1988
Charles P. Vitunac,
County Attorney
RE: CONSENT AGENDA - FOR BCC MEETING 4/26/88
RELEASE OF COUNTY UTILITY LIENS
STATE ROAD 60 WATER & SEWER PROJECTS
Lea Keller of this office has processed the following
matters and requests permission for the Chairman to execute
the release forms:
(1) Release of one ERU (ea.) W&S Lot 5,
PINE TREE INDUSTRIAL PARK
Kenneth W. Parent et ux
(2) Release of one ERU Water Map C-4
KINGSWOOD WEST (Lot 21)
John T. Schlitt et ux
(3) Release of one ERU Sewer Lot 115S
REALCOR-VERO BEACH ASSOCIATES
Map #41 - Countryside South
(4) Release of one ERU Sewer Lot 67S
REALCOR-VERO BEACH ASSOCIATES
Map #41 - Countryside South
Back-up information for the above releases is �n file in the
County Attorney's office.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Commis-
sioner Bowman, the Board unanimously approved Release
of County Utility Liens for State Road 60 Water and
Sewer projects as described above.
COPIES OF SAID RELEASES ARE ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF CLERK TO THE
BOARD.
8
APR 261999
Ha'167
9. Road and Bridge - Purchase of Additional Computer
The Board reviewed memo of Budget Analyst Miller:
TO: Members of the Board
of County Commissioners
THROUGH: Joseph A. Baird'
OMB Director
FROM: Leila Miller
Budget Analyst
L
DATE: April 18, 198
SUBJECT: ROAD AND BRIDGE -
PURCHASE OF
ADDITIONAL COMPUTER
CONSENT AGENDA
Description of Conditions
The Road and Bridge Department has a personal computer currently
shared by two people. This situation has created some difficulty in
inputting and accessing the vast amount of data processed each day,
as both users need the equipment most of the time. It is felt that
the purchase of a second, smaller personal computer, for under
$1000.00 would improve work flow inthis area.
Analysis
Purchase of the new personal computer can be funded through one of
two ways:
Alternative One: The personal computer can be purchased with
funds coming from contingencies.
Alternative Two: Existing funds in Road and Bridge's capital
budget can be reallocated to purchase the
personal computer.
Recommendation
Albert van Auken, Superintendent of Road and Bridge,=and staff, feel
that alternative two presents the better choice since the purchase
would not require the expenditure of additional funds above the
budgeted -amount for the. 1987/88 fiscal year.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert,. SECONDED by Com
missUoner Bowman, the Board unanimously authorized
the purchase of a personal computer for the Road &
Bridge Department through the reallocation of
existing funds in the R&B capital budget.
JANUARY 1988. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT APPLICATIONS
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:
9
APR 2 6 1988
tkooK r r 168
VERO BEACH PRESS -JOURNAL
Published Daily
Vero Death. Indian River County. Florida
COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER STATE OF FLORIDA
Before Lha undersigned authority personally appeared J. J. Schumann, Jr. who on oath
+rs 10.1 he us B r.inns Manager of the Vero Beach Press•Journal, a daily newspaper published
it Vero Beach :n Indian Rive, County, Florida; That the attached copy of advertisement. being
in the matter of Mr 1�,r_ l'r T� Lt../
in the - _ _ Court. was pub-
I.shed in said newspaper 0 the Issues of
•
Allrant further says that the said Vero Beach Press -Journal is a newspaper published at
Vero Beach. in card Indian River County. Florida, and that the said newspaper has heretofore
Leen r i ntmuously published in said Indian River County, Florida. each daily and has been
entarnd as second class mail matter al the post off ice in Vero Beach. in said Indian River Comm
Ir. Florida. lora period of one year newt preceding the first publication of the attached copy of
.viverlisen:enl: and alhani further says that he has neither paid nor promised any person. firm
cr corporation any discount. rebate. commission or refund for the purpose of securing this
.mverimement 1m publication 0 the said newspaper.
S:nrn to and subscribed bele me V is 62e
JAP
ay of if AD.19 a
(B !ees Manager/
(Clerk of the Circuit Court, Indian River County. Florida)
APR 261888
iI
NOTICE OF CHANGE
OF LAND USE
Board of County Commissioners of *titian River County, Florida, will consider proposals to change the use of land within the
ated portions of Indian River County as shown in the maps of this advertisement. A public hearing on the proposals will be
held on Tuesday, April 26, 1988, at 9:05 a.m. in the County Commission Chambers of the County Administration Building, located at
040 25th Street, Vero Beach, Florida. 4t this public hearing the Board of County Commissioners will consider authorizing the
•tpnsmittal of these amendments to the C 's Comprehensive Plan to the State Department of Community Affairs for their review.
The proposed amendments are included in proposed ordinance entitled: .
AN ORDINANCE OF INDIAN R COUNTY> FLORIDA, AMENDING THE LAND USE, TRANSPORTATION,
' 4, AND CONSERVATION AND C TAL ZONE MANAGEMENT ELEMENTS OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN,
AS WELL AS CHANGING LAND USE OF PROPERTY LOCATED WITHIN THE UNINCORPORATED
PORTIONS OF INDIAN RIVER C UNTY; TO AMEND THE TEXT OF THE LAND USE ELEMENT BY ENLARGING
THE C.R. 510/U.S. 1 COMMS NODE FROM 120 to 125 ACRES; TO REDESIGNATE THE LAND USE OF
APPROXIMATELY 20 ACRES S ATED EAST OF U.S. HIGHWAY 1 FROM A POINT SOUTH OF INDIAN
Rao' RIVER BOULEVARD TO THE SO RELIEF CANAL; AND AMENDING THE TEXT OF THE LAND USE ELEMENT
OF THE COMPREHENSIVE P REDEFINING THE GEOGRAPHIC DESCRIPTION OF THE U.5.. *1
`"ti' COMMERCIAL CORRIDOR EXCL DING LAND FROM A POINT SOUTH OF THE INDIAN RIVER BOULEVARD
TO THE SOUTH RELIEF CHANGING THE LAND USE DESIGNATION FOR APPROXIMATELY 1.1
ACRES OF LAND SITUA FEET NORTH' OF OSLO RD. AND WEST OF 12th AVE S.W., AND
AMENDING THE TEXT OF LAND USE ELEMENT REDEFINING THE GEOGRAPHIC DESCRIPTION FOR THE
OSLO RD. MUTED USE DI CT EXTENDING THE DEPTH AN ADDITIONAL 150 FEET FOR 1.1 ACRES
SITUATED 560 FEET NO 'OF OSLO RD. AND WEST OF 12TH AVE S.W.; TO AMEND THE
THOROUGHFARE PLAN O THE TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT BY DELETING ALL OF A NORTH/SOUTH
SECONDARY COLLECTOR AD SITUATED IN GOVT. LOT 2 SEC. 15 TWP 315 RGE 39E; AMEND THE
, THOROUGHFARE PLAN B PTING A SUBDMSION COLLECTOR MAP TO INCLUDE; RECLASSIFYING
ALL COLLECTOR ROADS ON, THE NORTH BARRIER ISLAND TO SUBDMSION COLLECTORS, ALL
PORTIONS OF 81ST,77r73RD, 69TH, 61ST, AND 57TH STREETS WHICH UE EAST OF U.S. 1, 30TH
' STREET FROM U.S. 1 TO OU'ITRY CLUB DRIVE, 2ND STREET FROM OLD DIXIE HIGHWAY TO 20TH
AVENUE, 20TH AVENUE S„ . FOM 17TH LANE S.W. TO 25TH STREET S.W., 32ND AVENUE FROM 4TH
STREET TO 1ST STREET S.W., 53RD AVENUE S.W. FROM OSLO ROAD TO 13TH STREET S.W., 63RD
AVENUE FROM 4TH STREET TO•BTH STREET, 99TH STREET FROM U.S. 1 TO BREEZY VILLAGE MHP, 87TH
STREET FROM C.R. 510 TO '5574 AVENUE, 55TH AVENUE FROM C.R. 510 TO 87TH STREET, 64TH AVENUE
FROM 83RD STREET TO 88TH StREET, INDIAN RIVER DRIVE FROM U.S. 1 TO U.S. 1, ROSELAND ROAD
• • FROM U.S. 1 TO INDIAN RIVER DRIVE, OLD DIXIE. HIGHWAY FROM ROSELAND ROAD TO NORTH
SEBASTIAN CITY LIMITS, OLD DIXIE HIGHWAY FROM C.R. 512 TO U.S. 1, 28TH COURT FROM 45TH
STREET TO 49TH STREET, 40TH AVENUE FROM 45TH STREET TO 49TH STREET, 38TH AVENUE FROM 41ST
STREET TO 45TH STREET; TO AMEND THE THOROUGHFARE PLAN OF THE TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT
BY, ADDING 102ND AVENUE FROM S.R. 60 TO 4TH STREET AS A COLLECTOR, ADD 16TH AND 12TH
STREETS BETWEEN 98TH AND 102ND AVENUES AS COLLECTORS; DELETE 101ST AVENUE BETWEEN 87TH
STREET AND C.R. 510, DELETE 61ST STREET EAST OF 58TH AVENUE, RECLASSIFY 31ST AVENUE BETWEEN
41ST STREET AND 45TH STREET FROM COLLECTOR TO SUBDIVISION COLLECTOR AND ADD THIS TO THE
SUBDIVISION COLLECTOR MAP, RECLASSIFY 33RD AVENUE BETWEEN 45TH STREET AND 49TH STREET
FROM COLLECTOR TO SUBDIVISION COLLECTOR AND ADD THIS TO THE SUBDMSION COLLECTOR MAP,
DELETE 33RD AVENUE BETWEEN 49TH STREET AND 53RD STREET; AND TO AMEND THE CAPITOL
IMPROVEMENTS SECTION OF THE TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT TO INCORPORATE ALL AMENDMENTS
TO THIS ELEMENT CONTAINED WITHIN THIS PROPOSED ORDINANCE; AND PROVIDING FOR
CODIFICATION, SEVERABILITY AND EFFECTIVE DATE.
Interested parties may appear and be heard at the public hearing regarding the transmittal of these proposed Comprehensive
Plan Amendments.
The plan amendment application may be Inspected by the public at the Community Development Division.offices located INT the
second floor of the County Administration Budding luded at 1840 25th Street, Vero Beach, Florida, between the hours of 8:30 a.m.
and 5:00 p.m. on weekdays.
Anyone who may wish to appeal any decision which may be made at this meeting will need to ensure that a verbatim record of
the proceeding is made which includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal will be based.
f .
1 • Indian River County
Board of County Commissioners
, RM -6 6 By: -s- Don C. Scurlock, Jr., Chairman
.,
COV 1401 F.
10
TO: Charles P. Balczun
County Administrator
DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE:
DATE: April 13, 1988 FILE:.
JANUARY 1988 COMPREHENSIVE
obe t�M.K- . tin J AICP SUBJECT: PLAN AMENDMENT APPLICATIONS
Community Develo•ment Director
THRU: Gary Schindler
Chief, Long -Range Planning
David Nearing p C�
FROM: Staff Planner, Long-RangEURE FMCES:
y�
It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal
consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their'
regular meeting of April 26, 1988.
DESCRIPTION &CONDITIONS
In January, 1988, the Community Development Department accepted
comprehensive plan amendment applications. Four applications
were submitted including one from the Board of County
Commissioners, two from individuals, and one combination
application consisting of amendments proposed by the Public Works
Department and an individual applicant.
The staff has reviewed these amendment applications and made
recommendations to the Planning and Zoning Commission which,
sitting as the Local Planning Agency, held public hearings on
March 10, 1988, to consider making recommendations on the
proposed amendments to the County's Comprehensive Plan.
The following is a list of amendments to be reviewed:
1. I.R. County/Windsor Polo Club Initiated - Various amendments'
to the Thoroughfare and Thoroughfare Capital Improvements
Plans.
2. I.R. County Initiated - Land Use/Zoning amendment for Vista. --
Royale Gardens Commercial property (Boulevard Shoppes) from
Commercial/CL to MD-2/RM-10.
3. Richard Zorc, Owner/Sam Block, Agent - Extend the Oslo Road
MXD district north to include 1.1 acres of property, and
rezone it from RS -6 to CH.
4. Stenger, et al. Owner/Michael O'Haire, Agent - To enlarge
the C.R. 510/U.S. 1 Node from 120 to 125 acres.
In 1986, the State Legislature revised the local government
Comprehensive Plan amendment procedure. The process now requires
the first public hearing by the Board of County Commissioners to
be held prior to the transmittal of each request to the State
Department of Community Affairs (DCA) for a mandatory ninety -day
review period. At that public hearing, the Board has the
option of transmitting or not transmitting any. or all of the
proposed amendments to the State for review. Failure to
authorize transmittal of any proposed amendment constitutes
denial of that request; however, transmittal of an application
does not indicate Board approval of the request.
APR 2 6 1988
11 BOOK 72 rA;C 17O
•
After all the comments from DCA have been received, the Board of
County Commissioners will schedule a final public hearing to
consider the proposed amendments. At the close of these final
hearings, the Board may adopt all, part of, or none of the
proposed amendments to the Comprehensive Plan. The attached flow
chart illustrates the Comprehensive Plan Amendment process as
amended by the 1986 state planning legislation.
It is necessary for the Board of County Commissioners to vote on
each of the Comprehensive Plan amendment applications in order to
authorize transmittal of the applications to the State for
review. Three affirmative votes are required to authorize
transmittal. Further, it is necessary for the Board to state
their intent to hold a second public hearing concerning those
amendment requests authorized for transmittal.
ALTERNATIVES & ANALYSIS
The Planning Department feels that the best way to authorize the
transmittal of the proposed Comprehensive Plan amendments to the
State for review is through 'the passage of a resolution
authorizing the transmittal. Since a second public hearing must
be held prior to action being taken on each of the amendment
applications, no final decision can be made on the applications
at this time. However, action is needed on the attached
resolution in order to comply with the plan amendment procedure.
RECOMMENDATION
Based on the above analysis, staff recommends approval of the
attached transmittal resolution.
Director Keating advised that this is just an informational
item explaining the process where we only accept such amendments
twice a year. We are now considering amendments that were
accepted in January and the hearing today is simply a considera-
tion of whether or not the Commission wants to transmit these to
the state for the required 90 -day review. No action for
approval can be taken; although, action for denial could.
Chairman Scurlock reaffirmed to those present that no final
decision can be reached today.
Director Keating further noted that the proposed Resolution
authorizing transmittal should not be adopted until after all
the submittals listed have been decided on, except #4, Stenger et
al, which has been withdrawn.
12 Boor` 72 ME 171
SPR 26 1988
JANUARY 1988 AMENDMENTS TO THE TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT OF THE
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
Director Keating advised that these
changes come primarily
from the Public Works Department which works closely with
Planning on the Transportation Element. Basically all the
requests center around changing the designations of certain
roadways, and also an additional roadway classification was added
this last year - that of a subdivision collector road. The
primary purpose is to ensure that subdivision collectors are
there to provide a means of movement of people from local
to the more heavily traveled roads.
following:
He then reviewed the
roads
TO: Mr. Charles P. Balczun
County Administrator
DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE:
ober Kea in
Community Devel
DATE: April 14, 1988 FILE:
SUBJECT: JANUARY 1988 AMENDMENTS
TO THE TRANSPORTATION
ELEMENT OF THE COMP-
REHENSIVE PLAN
'rector
THROUGH: Gary Schindler 4
Chief, Long -Range Planning
FROM: Cheri J. BoudreauxCsigt' REFERENCES:
Staff Planner
r
It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal
consideration .by the Board of County Commissioners at their
regularly scheduled meeting of April 26, 1988.
DESCRIPTIONS & CONDITIONS
The Public Works Department is requesting an amendment to
Transportation Element of the Comprehensive Plan amending
Thoroughfare Plan as follows:
the
the
1. Adding 102nd Avenue as a collector road from S.R. 60 to
4th Street;
2. Adding 16th Street as a collector road from 98th Avenue
to 102nd Avenue;
13 BOR 72 172
ASR 26 1988
3. Adding 12th Street as a collector road from 98th Avenue
to 102nd Avenue;
4. Deleting 61st Street as a collector road east of 58th
Avenue;
5. Reclassifying the north barrier island roads from
collector to subdivision collector roads;
6. Reclassifying 31st Avenue between 41st Street and 45th..
Street from a collector to a subdivision -collector;
7. Reclassifying 33rd Avenue from a collector to a
subdivision collector between 45th Street and 49th
Street;
8. Deleting 33rd Avenue between 49th Street and 53rd
Street;
9. Adding the following roads as subdivision collectors to
the Subdivision Collector Map:
a) 81st Street east of U.S. 1;
b) 77th Street east of U.S. 1;
c) 69th Street east of U.S. 1;
d) 65th Street east of U.S. 1;
e) 61st Street east of U.S. 1;
f) 57th Street east of U.S. 1;
g) 20th Avenue S.W. from .17th Lane S.W. to 25th
Street S.W.;
h) 30th Street from U.S. 1 to Country Club
Drive;
i) 32nd Avenue from 4th Street to 1st Street
S.W.;
j) 33rd Avenue S.W. from Oslo Road to 13th
Street S.W.;
k) 63rd Avenue from 4th Street to 8th Street;
1) 99th Street from U.S. 1 to Breezy Village
M.H.P.;
m) 87th Street from U.S. Hwy #1 to 55th Avenue;
n) 55th Avenue from C.R. 510 to 87th Street;
o) 64th Avenue from 83rd Street to 88th Street;
p) Indian River Drive from U.S. 1 to U.S. 1;
q) Roseland Road from U.S. 1 to Indian River
Drive;
r) Old Dixie Highway from Roseland Road to North
Sebastian City Limits;
s) Old Dixie Highway from C.R. 512 to U.S. 1;
t) 28th Court from 45th Street to 49th Street;
u) 40th Avenue from 45th Street to 49th Street;
v) 38th Avenue from 41st Street to 45th Street.
In addition, the staff has received an application requesting
that the Thoroughfare Plan be amended as follows:
1. Deleting the north/south secondary collector road in •
Government Lot 2, Section 15, Township 31 South, Range
39 East.
The applicant is also requesting that the east/west secondary
collector road in Sections 10 and 15, Township 31 South, Range 39
East be reclassified to a subdivision collector. This request is
part of the staff's amendments.
14
APR 26 1988
BOOK 72 `l, �E l73
The Transportation Planning Committee unanimously approved these
amendments by a 5 to 0 vote at their March 9, 1988 meeting.
At their March 10, 1988 meeting the Planning and Zoning
Commission unanimously approved these amendments to the
Transportation Element of the Comprehensive Plan by a 6 to 0
vote, with a notation that it is the Commission's desire not to
pave any of the historical trails in the County.
ALTERNATIVES & ANALYSIS
The addition of 102nd Avenue from S.R. 60 to 4th Street as a
collector and the addition of 16th and 12th Streets between 98th
to 102nd Avenues as collectors are requested to serve proposed
developments in these areas.
Deletion of 101st Avenue. between 87th Street and C.R. 512 is
requested in order to eliminate the excessive number of collector
roads in the area and to eliminate a major future offset
intersection with 102nd Terrace north of C.R. 512.
The deletion of 61st Street east of 58th Avenue is requested due
to the lack of roadway system interconnections. This situation
resulted from a previous deletion of 43rd Avenue north of 57th
Street which created a dead-end corridor on 61st Street.
The requested reclassification of the north barrier island roads
from collectors to subdivision collectors is the result of short
segment lengths, localized traffic and low anticipated traffic
volumes on these roads.
Also, the reclassification from collectors to subdivision
collectors of 31st Avenue between 41st Street and 45th Street and
33rd Avenue between 45th Street and 49th Street are requested due
to the fact that these roads have localized traffic, low
anticipated traffic volumes and short segment lengths.
The deletion of 33rd Avenue between 49th Street and 53rd street
is requested since it runs through a mobile home park
development.
The addition of numerous roads to the Subdivision Collector Map
is requested because these roads serve as localized collectors
and are not part of the major road network.
An applicant is requesting the Thoroughfare Plan be amended to
delete a north/south secondary collector road on the north
barrier island. This road will no longer be needed since the
individual parcels of land surrounding the collector road will be
developed under one self-contained development. Therefore, the
entire road network of this proposed development eliminates the
need for the north/south collector road.
The staff's proposed amendments to the Thoroughfare Plan Map and
Subdivision Collector Map are depicted in attachments #1 and #2,
respectively.
The applicant's proposed amendments to the Thoroughfare Plan Map
-and Subdivision Collector Map are depicted in attachments #3 and
#4, respectively.
Attachment #5 is the existing Thoroughfare Plan Map and
attachment #6 is the existing Subdivision Collector Map for the
county.
15
APR 26 1988
RooK 7? [ P3i.174
RECOMMENDATION
Based on the above analysis, including the Planning and Zoning
Commission's recommendation and the Transportation Planning
Committee's recommendation, staff recommends approval of these
changes to the Thoroughfare Plan as an amendment to the
Transportation Element of the Comprehensive Plan.
Director Keating advised there is a recognition of the fact
that certain developments have occurred within areas where roads
have been planned in the past, and that's the reason for some
collector roads being eliminated. The request by the Windsor
Polo Club, for instance, relates to the deleting of subdivision
collector roads in the north barrier island that were initially
proposed to ensure that tracts that did not have access to A -1-A
had an alternate access other than Jungle Trail, and staff feels
that is accomplished by the development that is proposed, which
will consolidate all that land.
Commissioner Eggert noted that there have been a lot of
questions as to how this change will affect Jungle Trail.
Director Keating stated that this will have no affect on
Jungle Trail at alt. Just the very top portion of Jungle Trail
was on as a collector road before, and it now will be a
subdivision collector road. The rest of Jungle Trail has no
designation right now; so, it will remain a local road, and it is
an historic scenic road.
Commissioner Bowman inquired what he meant by the top
portion, and Director Keating explained it is the very north part
that goes due west from A -1-A and south and ends just a few
hundred feet down - a little further than the curve in the road.
He emphasized that the purpose of the change is to make sure some
tracts up there that don't have access are provided access to
A -1-A.
The Chairman asked if anyone wished to be heard.
Hazel Crews, 1135 20th Avenue, came before the Board
representing the Historical Society. Mrs. Crews explained that
the problem they have with designating portions of Jungle Trail a
16
APP 2 6 '1988
!' ° p o r. 175
subdivision collector road is that they fear this could divide
the road into different segments and jeopardize its unique
characteristics. They would prefer just to have it designated as
an historic and scenic corridor until such time as a management
committee can come up with management criteria for the entire
length of the trail so there won't be different criteria applying
in different areas. Mrs. Crews stressed the need to consider
the road as a whole in order to preserve its unique qualities.
Chairman Scurlock believed that right now the real
controlling factor is the designation as a historic and scenic
trail, and that is the over-riding factor that we have to look at
first. He asked Director Keating if he felt there is a conflict
between what Mrs. Crews is asking and what we are doing.
Director Keating did not think there is. He did not feel
the county is in a position to deny someone development, and,
therefore, if no road is designated to provide access to those
properties that don't have alternate access, the question is do
you identify where access is going to be provided beforehand and
try to minimize disruption to the Trail as a whole now.
Commissioner Eggert believed that making this part of Jungle
Trail a subdivision collector road is bringing it closer to the
local road designation for the remainder of the Trail and that
actually they are more really alike than they were before.
Mrs. Crews agreed, but emphasized that they still are
concerned about different widths and paving. As she understood
it, the road is designated historic and scenic in the Compre-
hensive Plan but no guidelines have been established, and they
would like to have those established for the entire length before
any major disruption is made to any portion of the road.
Discussion continued with Mrs. Crews stressing that they
just want the Commission to be aware of their concerns.
Commissioner Bowman felt before we consider paving, we must
look into it very carefully as there is wonderful hardwood
hammock on both sides of the road.
17 SOU
APR 261988
2 F :,E 176
Director Keating stated that there is no intent' n of
paving.
It was determined no one else wished to be heard, and the
Chairman declared the public hearing closed.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Wheeler, the Board unanimously approved
submittal of the recommended changes to the Thorough-
fare Plan to the DCA for review and this will be
included in the overall resolution adopted when all
the amendments have been considered for transmittal.
REQUEST TO AMEND LAND USE PLAN TO MXD & REZONE TO CH (R. ZORC)
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:
18
APR 26 1988
Boor 72 [A6 177
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
y4 -r-)
in the Court, was pub -
dished 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 published 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 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 before me t
(SEAL)
rt; irr0ifirifiiver County, Florida)
• g -y1--3
NOTICE - PUBLIC HEARING , =F
i .Notice of hearing to consider the edopdo‘ of
p County.<ordlnance; rezgnin9''lends Iran R>3-
8lnmmerl al Rdstdent& tbi ri �'
C nt%y o cel OlsW is The S. andt e. ora and
senty owned by. Richard S. and llriyn
is located approximately 560,Ft. North of 9th
Street,s.W. ('Qeia Road) and wesl0t 2th
-
• Thenue subject'propettY Is described asf•
The north,1.50feet of Nee south 240,feet
or the:' following'described'Pm A pm-*
cel of land situated in Indian Rives Coun
ty Florida being the East 20 acres lase,,
the West. 10119 ar a.a' Gakt "meq
acres las' 20 �acreS -"
P. of diet
Section 23, township a3 l ath,
39 East, according to„the last' general
plat of lands at the Indian fir Farms
Crompafy Subdivision Need ht Plat Book. �t
�2, Page 2$:. blit Records �i Llq.
County Florida. Conial l �d s
r^ S
A more Cr teSS::t•s%' h ha t {r P
Apubllc hearing at which In nterest_
and citizens shall. have an- rd 01 Com-
heard. will beheld by the Board Florida M the
CountC of 9r1Sd�t_an Ri ham Go f _ - y 1
County Colo fl Bi idi C tocaterl at 1 25
Atreet, trq ., Tuesda ai►Pr
Vero erect — 1 '
2 tt� N 'atr9+'."'a'm. Florida,A'r� ' t it AI �,�tk,
The, Board..pt}, County
grant a less intense zoning!
wet re^q,uestedtipravided it as r��uQ, Jr��.,p"�"/-
W use categ47r .unless de`s ”
read this item ba taken
onthis meeting. d
Anyone who may wheneren�;�
which may be made
eisneuremadethaf, whil veltim
ch rec;t{iordeestimto e�vi
fncludes Ns , •
dance upon which the appealt' ll be based
Indian River CountY. +
Board of.County Commissioners
By -s -Don C Scurlock, Jr..Cha lanai
r
rii8,1988
Staff Planner David Nearing reviewed the following, noting
that staff looked at this as a correction to an existing
situation:
19
APR 2 6 1988
Roo 7 °,F .178
TO: Charles P. Balczun DATE: April 13, 1988 FILE:
County Administrator
DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE:
SUBJECT: RICHARD & ARLYNE ZORC'S
obert M. e i.ng ICP REQUEST TO AMEND THE
Planning & Develo ment Director LAND USE FOR 1.11 ACRES
OF LAND FROM LD -2 TO MXD,
THRU: Gary Schindler AND TO REZONE THIS LAND
Chief, Long -Range Planning FROM RS -6 TO CH
FROM:David C. Nearing • G( REFERENCES:
Staff Planner 0
It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal
consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their
regular meeting of April 26, 1988.
DESCRIPTION & CONDITIONS
Richard and Arlyne Zorc, as represented by Attorney Samuel Block,
have requested an amendment to the Land Use Plan for designation
of 1.11 acres of a 5.6 acre parcel of land. The request is to
redesignate the property from LD -2, Low -Density Residential 2
(allowing up to 6 units/acre) to MXD, Mixed Use District
(allowing up to 6 units/acre), and to rezone this land from RS -6,
Single -Family Residential District (up to 6 units/acre) to CH,
Heavy Commercial. The property included in this request is
situated 600 feet north of Oslo Road on the west side of 12th
Avenue S.W.
This request involves the north 150 feet of the south 240 feet of
a 5.6 acre parcel.- Currently, the south 90 feet of the Zorcs'
property is zoned CH and IL, Light Industrial, and situated in
the Oslo Road MXD area. The current use of this 90 feet of
property is an automobile repair shop. The property involved in
this request, the next 150 feet of the south 240 feet, contains a
single-family structure used as an office for the auto repair
business. The office has apparently been illegally operating for -
at. least the past 10 years.
The applicant intends to bring the office use into conformance
through this request.
On March 10, 1988, the Planning and Zoning Commission unanimously
recommended approval of this request.
ALTERNATIVES & ANALYSIS
In this section, an analysis of the reasonableness of the appli-
cation will be presented. The analysis will include a descrip-
tion of the current and future land uses of the site and sur-
rounding areas, potential impacts on the transportation and
utility systems, and any significant adverse impacts on environ-
mental quality.
Existing *Land Use Pattern
The.150 feet involved in this request currently contains a single
family structure housing an accessory office for the auto shop,
zoned RS -6, and a portion of the shop itself which encroaches
into the RS -6 portion of the property. The property to the north
is the remainder of the Zorc property, also zoned RS -6. Further
to the northwest is the County's reverse osmosis water treatment
plant and well fields. To the east of the property is a single
family subdivision zoned RS -6. This subdivision is not highly
developed.
APR 2 6 1988
20 Baan 72 ''''179 { 179
To the southeast of the subject property are many 'small
commercial/industrial buildings zoned IL, Light Industrial. To
the south of the property is vacant land zoned CH and IL.
Further to the south is an auto body shop zoned IL. To the west
of the subject parcel is a plant nursery currently zoned CH and
RS -6.
Future Land Use Pattern
The Comprehensive Plan designates the south 240 feet of the 5.6
acre parcel as follows:
1. The south 90 feet of the south 240 feet - MXD
2. The north 150 feet of the south 240 feet (subject land)
- LD -2.
All land within 600 feet of Oslo Road and south of the subject
land is designated as the Oslo Road MXD. All land surrounding
the subject land and north of the 600 foot dimension is LD -2.
Analysis
Generally, the staff does not recommend approval of expanding an
MXD. Expansion of an MXD can often lead to commercial/industrial
encroachment into residential districts. Since MXD's were
created specifically for areas of mixed uses, expansion is
usually not consistent with the purpose of the MXD designation.
However, this particular situation is unusual. The existence of
the single-family structure and its use as an office gives this
parcel a mixed use character. This is a situation where a
nonresidential use extended beyond the delineated MXD boundaries.
Various safeguards are currently in place which would mitigate
any adverse effects on the surrounding residential areas: First,
the illegal office would be required to receive site plan
approval for the change of use from residential to office. This
will require that a nonencroachable bufferyard be established and
visual screening be put into place. This action -would actually
improve the existing conditions by decreasing any existing
adverse effects. Second, the County could initiate, or entertain
requests for, rezoning to multi -family for the lands north of
this property and surrounding the County's water plant.
Multi -family zoning would permit variations in site design to
further buffer residential development from the
commercial/industrial uses in this area. Third, the County can
control additional requests for expansion of the MXD through the
land use amendment/rezoning process.
Although this request appears to lend itself to setting a
precedent for additional MXD expansion on adjacent property, the
staff does not feel that this is the case. First, this request
will remedy an existing problem, that being the current operation
of a business on the property included in this request. This is
not the same as a similar amendment request for vacant property.
Second, the 150 feet of additional MXD depth for this portion of
the district is not a major encroachment into a residential area,
and it only includes that portion of the overall 5.6 acre parcel
which has•been operating as a business for at "least 10 years.
Third, the 1.11 acres involved in this request is not a
substantial increase in land with an MXD designation.
Transportation System
The site currently has access to 12th Avenue S.W.) designated as a
local road on the County's Thoroughfare Plan. The increase of
1.11 acres of land zoned CH will not have any substantial impact
on the current traffic situation.
21
APR 2 6 1988
BOOK 72 F►OE 180
Environment
The site is not designated as environmentally sensitive, nor is
it located in a flood prone area.
Utilities
Public water facilities are currently available to this area to
the south along Oslo Road.
Conclusion
Staff feels that, because this property has been in its current
use for at least ten years, this request is not really an
expansion of the MXD land use, but more of a clarification and
correction of the actual land use for this property. Further,
its dimensions and size are not a substantial increase in this
MXD area and will not encourage or legitamize additional similar
requests. This land use/zoning amendment should not have any
substantial adverse impacts on this area and is consistent with
the area's development.
RECOMMENDATION
Based on the analysis performed, staff recommends that the Board
of County Commissioners approve transmittal of this request to
the DCA for a change in the land use designation from LD -2 to MXD
for 1.11 acres.
The Chairman asked if anyone wished to be heard.
Attorney Sam Block came before the Board representing the
Zorcs and advised that they are here to answer any questions.
The Zorcs just bought the property last year, and it has been
used as a Mixed Use since 1975.
It was determined that no one else wished to be heard, and
the Chairman declared the public hearing closed.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Bowman, the Board unanimously approved
transmittal of the above request for a change in
the land use designation to MXD to the DCA for
review.
REQUEST TO AMEND COMP PLAN BY EXPANDING THE CR510/US1 COMMERCIAL
NODE (STENGER)
This item was withdrawn from the agenda at the request of
Attorney O'Haire on behalf of Mr. Stenger.
22
APP 2 6 1988
BOOK 72 F'nE 181
u•
f
LAW Orricice or ,
SMITH. G'HAIUH, QUINN & GARRIR
SHERMAN N. SMITH. JR
MICHAEL O'HAIRE
JEROME D. QUINN
CHARLES E. GARRIS+
MICHAEL J. GARAVAGLIA
DOLORES D. DECAPRIO
. CERTIFIED IN TAXATION
(via hand delivery)
Robert M. Keating, Director
Community Development Division
Indian River County
1840 25th Street
Vero Beach, FL 32960
Dear Bob:
April 25, 1988
Ls'
R�. 4ommP":04
1988
`C.C�tv�( -
C. .0 IV
DeVe1Pment
dit Department e4
40' 0160
RICHARD B CANDLER
SEAN O'HAIRE
REPLY TO
Island
Re: Daryl Stenger, et al. - Rezoning and Amendment of Land Use
Designationof property in Naranja Tract, Shellmound Beach'
Subdivision -.
You will please withdraw my. request in behalf of Mr. Stenger to amend
the Comprehensive Land Use Plan by expanding . the CR 510/U.S. 1 commercial
node from 120 to 125 acres from the County Commission agenda for Tuesday,
April 26th.
REZONING - STENGER/US 1/34TH PARTNERSHIP FROM RM -6 TO CG
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:
23
APR 26'1988
�' ,, F182
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
in the Court, was pub-
lished in said newspaper in the issues of
Affiant further says that the said Vero Beach Press -Journal is a newspaper published at
Vero Beach, in said Indian River County, Florida, and that the said newspaper has heretofore
been continuously published 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; Ind 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.
day of G/A D 19
Sworn to and subscribed-efor:� e th
�►. a_.7 10 .
11117
(SEAL)
ness Manager)
(Clerk of the Circuit Court, Indian River County, Florida)
NOTICE- PUBLIC HEARING:- ,k,---
.
"^`. Notice of hearing to consider_ the adoption Of
a County ordinance rezoning lands from:"RM-6,
Multiple -Family Residential District to CO, Gen-
eral Commerical District. The parcel ,1 is`" pre-
sently owned by U.S. 1/34th Group Partnership,
and parcels 2 and 3 are. presently owned -by
Daryl and Jess • Stenger and is located East, of
U.S. Highway 1 and approximatellf.200;feet
North of 33rd Street'
The subject parcels are described`as
- 'Parcell
Southeast gququartesrofof Mhe Northam quaer
ter of Section 35, Township. 32 South, ,
• Range 39, East, thence ruA Weal 660
feet for point of beginning:lhenee con-•'
ttnue West 847.62 feet to the-EastCdght
of -way -line of U.S: HighwaayyrNo. i ,
'',_thence run North 13°10' :Wast on Bald
Fight -of -way line 543.52 feet` thence run
North 15°20' West 238 feet thence -run
East 625 feet." thence run Southeasterly
10 a point 680 feet West -of the Southeast
corner of. the. Southeast quarter of the :,.
Northeast quarter, said point being the
ppooint of beginning Lying and being In '
Indian':
TO: Charles P. Balczun DATE: April 13, 1988 FILE:
County Administrator
DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE:
Robert M. Kea ing ICP
Planning & D velopment Director
SUBJECT: STENGER/U.S.1/34TH PART-
NERSHIP REQUEST FOR RE-
ZONING OF 9.17 ACRES FROM
RM -6 TO CG
THRU: Gary Schindler .PIAP/
Chief, Long -Range Planning
FROM: David C. Nearing REFERENCES:
Staff Planner
It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal
consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their
regular meeting.of April 26, 1988.
DESCRIPTION & CONDITIONS
This is a combined request to rezone two separate parcels of land
equaling 9.17 acres from RM -6, Multi -Family Residential District
(up to 6 units/acre) to CG, General Commercial. The first parcel
is a 1.34 acre parcel of land situated approximately 800 feet
south of 36th Street and east of a strip of land extending 200
feet east of U.S. 1 lying within the City of Vero Beach. This.
property is owned by Daryl and Jess Stenger. The second parcel
is approximately 7.8 acres in size, lying approximately 1325 feet
south of 36th Street and east of the 200 foot strip of land under
City jurisdiction. This parcel is owned by the U.S. 1/34th
Partnership.
The applicants intend to develop their properties for light
commercial uses.
On March 10, 1988, the Planning and Zoning Commission voted
unanimously to recommend approval of this request.
ALTERNATIVES & ANALYSIS
In this section, an analysis of the reasonableness of the appli-
cation will be presented. The analysis will include a descrip-
tion of the current and future land uses of the site and sur-
rounding areas, potential impacts on the transportation and
utility systems, and any significant adverse impacts on environ-
mental quality.
Existing Land Use Pattern
Parcel 1 is currently vacant and zoned RM -6. The property north,
east, and south of parcel 1 under County jurisdiction is also
vacantand zoned RM -6. Further south of the subject parcel
within County jurisdiction is a vacant parcel currently zoned CG.
This parcel was the subject of a past comprehensive plan/zoning
amendment. which established this property as MXD, Mixed Use
District. To the west of the subject property are several single
family residences within the City and currently zoned C -1B,
General Commercial Trades.
Parcel 2 is also currently vacant and zoned RM -6, as is the land
to the east. The property north of the subject parcel is also
vacant and zoned RM -6. However, this property is also currently
under •consideration for a rezoning .to CG. The property west
within the City is currently zoned C -1B. South of the subject
parcel is the R.D. Carter Subdivision situated within the City of
Vero Beach, containing single family residences and zoned
RM -10/12, Multi -Family Residential District (up to 10-12
units/acre).
25
APR 2 6 1988
• Fae ' ` E.184
Future Land Use Pattern
Both parcels being considered for rezoning are located within an
area where a comprehensive plan amendment was recently approved
redesignating the area from MD -1 to MXD.
Parcel 1 is currently designated by the Comprehensive Plan as
MXD, Mixed Use District (allowing up to 6 units/acre). The land
north is also designated as MXD, and further north approximately
110 feet is the Medical Node. The land immediately south of
parcel 1 is MXD, and the parcel south of that zoned CG is MXD.
The property lying within the City has a Commercial land use
designation.
Parcel 2 and all land east and immediately north is currently
MXD. The land south in the R.D. Carter Subdivision is designated
by the City's Comprehensive Plan as Medium Density. The land
west along U.S. 1 situated within the City has a Commercial land
use designation.
Transportation System
The subject parcels currently have no direct access. However,
access can be gained to U.S. 1 across adjacent parcels situated
within the City, which are under common ownership.
U.S. 1 is classified as an arterial road on the County's
Thoroughfare Plan. Currently, this section of U.S. 1 is operating
at a Level -of -Service (LOS) "C" or better. However, when the
State Department of Community Affairs reviewed the recent comp
plan amendment for this area (changing the land use to MXD), the
DCA did express concern over the status of U.S. 1. The DOT,
through the DCA, recommended that traffic impact studies be
required of any development which occurs in this area.
Currently, County Code requires that any use which generates over
1000 average annual daily trips, or is located in a critical
transportation corridor, can be required to perform an impact
study. The County Traffic Engineer feels that, based on the DOT
comment, this section of U.S. 1 does qualify as -a critical
corridor.
Environment
This area is not considered environmentally sensitive, nor is it
designated as flood prone.
Utilities
This area is currently serviced by City sewer and water
facilities.
RECOMMENDATION
Based on the analysis performed, staff recommends approval.
26
APR 2 6 1988
BOOK 72 0 E 185
4. -
SUBJECT
PROPERTY
'NO my 'ARMs DRAINAGE DIST. LIMITS
•
The Chairman asked if anyone wished to be heard.
Attorney O'Haire appeared representing the applicant and
noted that this was initiated by the Board as a Land Use change
some time ago in order to avoid piecemeal development of the
properties. He noted that he also represents the applicants on
the adjoining parcel, which is the next item on the agenda.
It was determined no one else wished to be heard, and the
Chairman declared the public hearing closed.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bowman, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Eggert, the Board unanimously a`Jopted
Ordinance 88-18 rezoning the subject 9.17 acres to
CG as requested.
APR 2 6 1988
6
27 EOOF 72 yE186
ORDINANCE NO. 88-18
AN ORDINANCE OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, AMENDING
THE ZONING ORDINANCE AND THE ACCOMPANYING ZONING MAP
FOR THE PROPERTY DESCRIBED HEREIN, AND PROVIDING
FOR EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, The Planning and Zoning Commission, sitting as the
local planning agency on such matters, has held a public hearing
and subsequently made a recommendation regarding this rezoning
request; and
WHEREAS, The Board of County Commissioners of Indian River
County, Florida, did publish and send its Notice of Intent to
rezone the hereinafter described property; and
WHEREAS, The Board of County Commissioners has determined
that this rezoning is in conformance with the Land Use Element of
the Comprehensive Plan of Indian River County; and
WHEREAS, The Board of County Commissioners has held a public
hearing pursuant to this rezoning request, at which parties in
interest and citizens were heard;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED, by the Board of County
Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, that the Zoning of
the following described parcels of property situated in Indian
River County, Florida, to -wit:
The subject parcels are described as follows:
Parcel 1:
Begin at the Southeast corner of the Southeast quarter of
the Northeast quarter of Section 35, Township 32 South,
Range 39, East, thence run West 660 feet for point of
beginning; thence continue West 647.52 feet to the East
right-of-way line of U.S. Highway No. 1; thence run North
13°10' West on said right-of-way Iine.543.52 feet; thence
run North 15°20' West 238 feet; thence run East 625 feet;
thence run Southeasterly to a point 660 feet West of the
Southeast corner of the Southeast quarter of the Northeast
quarter, said point being the point of beginning: Lying
and being in Indian River County, Florida; less and except
the Westernmost 200 feet lying within the city limits of
Vero Beach, Florida.
Parcel 2:
Beginning at a point of 660 feet West -of the NE corner of
.the Southeast $ of Section 35, Township 32 -South, Range 39
East, run South 217.16 feet; thence West 990.09 feet;
thence North 58 feet along Dixie Highway; thence East
1011.95 feet, thence South 54.29 feet; being located in
Indian River County, Florida. Less and except the Western-
most 200 feet lying within the City limits of -Ver --e- :Beach,
Florida
APR 2 6 1988
28
i87
Parcel 3:
Begin at a point 108.58 feet South of a point 660 feet
West of the Northeast corner of the Southeast of the
Northeast $ Section 35, Township 32 South, Range 39 East,
thence run South 54.29 feet; thence run West 1011.95 feet
to U.S. Highway #1; thence run Northeasterly along U.S. #1
58 feet; thence run East 1033.81 feet to point of beginning.
Less that part conveyed to L.J. Knight et ux in Official
Record Book 1, Page 98, Public Records of Indian River
County, Florida. Less and except the the Westernmost 200
feet lying within the city limits of Vero Beach, Florida.
Be changed from RM -6, Multiple -Family Residential District to CG,
General Commercial District.
All with the meaning and intent and as set forth and
described in said Zoning Regulations.
Approved and adopted by the Board of County
Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida on this 26th day
of April , 1988.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
By
Don C. Scurlock, Jr. airman
REZONING - 1.71 ACRES US1/S.OF 36TH ST. TO CG (HATALA)
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:
29
APR 26 1988
BOOK. 72 F'd a lSQ
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 NGc.1
in the matter of IE7; ' t 6 1 SW'i.4z)
in the Court, was pub-
lished in said newspaper in the issues of
Iffy
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 published in said Indian River County, Florida, each daily and has been
entered as second class mail matter at th9 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, r9bate, commission or refund for the purpose of securing this
advertisement for publication in the said newspaper.
Sworn to and subscribed bef e me this : v day of� A D 19 d
fr
sc5
(SEAL)
'yy
rj_ it.taisr Z„ 73'1
(Clerk of the Circuit Court, Indian River County, Florida)
siness Manager)
7-8-e
NOTICE - PUBLIC HEARINGI
Notice of hearing to consider the adoption 01
s County ordinance rezoning land from: RM -8,' !
:Multi le -Family Residential District to CG, Oen
:Aral Commerical District he subject propety Is
presently le .presently owned,' by,Ronald and
Sharon•Hatala and is located East of U.S. Hi h-
way 1 and approximately -120D South of 36th.-.
Street ,-r: F sem"
The SubjeCt property fed -Med as
From the intersection otthe South line0f
the J.A.Fisher. property and the Bast line
'of the right'01 way of the Dixie Highway Irr
which point Is established by a;'4 Inch
concrete monument, go„`105 0 feet•
Southeasterly direction on Ids'
line o1 said right of way (or pohit of
beginning-' thence op3 0°et South
thence' easterlygoo die East 588.5ee encs x•
due North 150.0 feet to the South ltne 0f
said' J A '. Fisher property, thence°;'duer`11
,Went 450.0 feet along, said South lineS10
the East line 'Of the Frank A home,
"Tract, thence South 1.00 0 Teat (`along `
"said East line, thence; due West'1547
feet to the point of beginnlrfg Less ams'
excepting the Westemmosl 200
�;ying
within ths''city iimIts of Vero Mach`„,'
da Said tract of lanai being Iodated , ,
In the Northeast ,ti of Section 35 -Town.. ,
ship 32 South' Range 39 East, lndlan i' 7'
River County Florida �� "i`I' G �'�`'
blic'hearing at whtoh
and ' cttlzena than have an,,bpportunhit
'heard,' will be held by the Boardaf CountyrCom-:
. ; tnlssioners of lndiah River County Florida to the
County Commtsslon Chandlers 01 the
Adation7Suild loiatelif at 1840 25
Street, Vero Beach, Fio,lda, on Tuesday, Aprt
1988at mos itd�sa'
•`he Board of County Comfilsstoners ' my
recommend *Iasi zoning diidrict than
district requested provided”'1* is
generat use s i'PlUi` s s b v�
Anyone whowlsh to appeal 'dectslon
which may be' at thls meeting 't need. tom'
ensure that a verbatim record 01the prOnn dings
is made, whichinctudes t8010105y aril ftp
'apon which_the tappeal wwill�be based.
Indian Rvar>County i , > F ', hr
hirr Board of CountyCrommissioners:
By -s -Don C ScurWok, �Ir , C
x;,1888
Staff Planner Nearing made the staff presentation, noting
that this is the identical situation as the preceding agenda
item:
L 1 APR 26 1988
C\
30 BOOK 72 pAGF 189
TO: Charles P. Balczun DATE: April 13, 1988 FILE:
County Administrator
DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE:
AOP.. / l/SUBJECT: RONALD AND SHARON HATALA' S
'obertea 'ng ICP REQUEST TO REZONE 1.71 .
Planning & De elo=T ent Director ACRES FROM RM -6 TO CG
THRU: Gary Schindler'1
Chief, Long -Range Planing
FROM: David C. Nearing obe%n REFERENCES:
Staff Planner
It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal
consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their
regular meeting of April 26, 1988.
DESCRIPTION & CONDITIONS
Ronald and Sharon Hatala, as represented by Attorney Michael
O'Haire, have requested a rezoning for 1.71± acres of land from
RM -6, Multi -Family Residential District (up to 6 units/acre) to
CG, General Commercial. The subject property is situated
approximately 1200 feet south of 36th Street and east of the 200
foot strip of land lying east of U.S. 1 and within the City of
Vero Beach.
The applicants intend to develop the property for light
commercial use.
On March 10, 1988, the Planning and Zoning Commission voted
unanimously to recommend approval of this request..
ALTERNATIVES & ANALYSIS
In this section, an analysis of the reasonableness of the appli-
cation will be presented. The analysis will include a descrip-
tion of the current and future land uses of the site and sur-
rounding areas, potential impacts on the transportation and
utility systems, and any significant adverse impacts on environ-
mental quality.
Existing Land Use Pattern
The subject parcel is currently vacant and zoned RM -6. To the
west of the subject parcel within the City of Vero Beach is an
automobile dealership zoned C -1B, General Commercial Trades.
North of the subject property is vacant land zoned CG. East and
south of the subject property is vacant land zoned RM -6 in the
County and C -1B in the City along U.S. 1. The land to the south
under County jurisdiction is currently involved in a similar
request from RM -6 to CG.
Future Land Use Pattern
This parcel is situated in an area where a comprehensive plan
amendment was recently approved, redesignating the area from MD -1
to MXD. Currently the Comprehensive Plan designates the subject
parcel and all land south and east under County jurisdiction as
MXD, Mixed Use District (allowing up to 6 units/acre). The
property north of the subject property under County jurisdiction
is also MXD, Mixed Use District. All property along U.S. 1 and
situated within the City is Commercial.
31
APR 26 1988
BOOK 72 p u 19O
Transportation System
The subject property currently has no direct access. However,
access can be gained to U.S. 1 across the property situated
within the City, which is under common ownership.
U.S. 1 is classified as an arterial road on the County's
Thoroughfare Plan. Currently, this section of U.S. 1 is
operating at a Level -of -Service (LOS),"C" or better. However,
when the Department of Community Affairs reviewed the recent
Comprehensive Plan amendment for this area (changing the land use
to MXD) they did express concern over the status of U.S. 1. The
DOT, through the DCA, recommended that traffic impact studies be
required of any development which occurs in this area.
Currently, County Code requires that any use which generates over
1000 average annual daily trips, or is located in a critical
transportation corridor, can be required to perform an impact
study. The County Traffic Engineer feels that, based on the DOT
comment, this section of U.S. 1 does qualify as a critical
corridor.
Environment
This area is not considered environmentally sensitive, nor is it
designated as flood prone.
Utilities
This area is currently serviced by City sewer and water
facilities.
RECOMMENDATION
Based on the analysis performed, staff recommends approval.
MED
MED
+M
a
MXD•87-54
RM -6
...IND IIIV'MIMS DRAINAGE DIST. LIMITS
APR 2 6 1988
SUBJECT
PROPERTY
•t T.
h� _ ` I. II IS [IS (lo
I‘"i3 '4 11 2 IT 2 .I'_! i
32
•
Commissioner Eggert asked if this fills in that corner by
the Medical Node now, and Planner Nearing advised that there is
still some property between what is shown on the location map as
being CG and the XX'd line which is the Medical Node. Staff
anticipates these areas will be looked at also.
Question arose as to why we do not County -initiate action on
thoseparcels and bringit all into conformance at one
time.
Director Keating advised that staff can proceed with that if
the Board will so direct them.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Bowman, the Board unanimously directed
staff toinitiate action to bring the adjoining
properties into conformance as discussed above.
The Chairman asked if anyone present wished to be heard in
regard to rezoning the subject 1.71 acres to CG. There were
none, and he thereupon declared the public hearing closed.
APR 2 6 198
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Bird, the Board unanimously adopted
Ordinance 88-19 rezoning 1.71 acres south of 36th
Street and east of U.S.1 to CG as requested by
the Hatalas.
33
B2130 2 [ r 192
ORDINANCE NO. 88- 19
AN ORDINANCE OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, AMENDING
THE ZONING ORDINANCE AND THE ACCOMPANYING ZONING MAP
FOR THE PROPERTY DESCRIBED HEREIN, AND PROVIDING
FOR EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, The Planning and Zoning Commission, sitting as the
local planning agency on such matters, has held a public hearing
and subsequently made a recommendation regarding this rezoning
request; and
WHEREAS, The Board of County Commissioners of Indian River
County, Florida, did publish and send its Notice of Intent to
rezone the hereinafter described property; and
WHEREAS, The Board of County Commissioners has determined
that this rezoning is in conformance with the Land Use Element of
the Comprehensive Plan of Indian River County; and
WHEREAS, The Board of County Commissioners has held a public
hearing pursuant to this rezoning request, at which parties in
interest and citizens were heard;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED, by the Board of County
Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, that the Zoning of
the following described property situated in Indian River County,
Florida, to -wit:
From the intersection of the South line of the J.A. Fisher
property,' as recorded in Deed Book 27, Pg. 501 of the
records of Indian River County, and the East line of the
right of way of the Dixie Highway, which point is
established by a 4 inch concrete monument, go 106.0 feet in
a Southeasterly direction along said East line of said right
of way for the point, of beginning; thence go 53.0 feet
Southeasterly along said rightof way line, thence go due
East 588.5 feet, thence due North 150.0 feet to the South
line of said J.A. Fisher property, thence due West 450.0
feet along said South line to the East line of the Frank
Ayers home Tract, as recorded in Deed Book 14, Pg. 302 of
the records of Indian River County, thence South 100.0 feet
along said East line, thence due West 154.7 feet to the
point of beginning.Less and excepting the Westernmost 200
feet lying within the city limits of Vero Beach, Florida.
Said tract of land being located in the Northeast of
Section 35, Township 32 South, Range 39 East, Indian River
County, Florida.
Be changed from RM -6, Multiple -Family ResidentialDistrict to CG,
General Commercial District.
All with the meaning and intent and as set forth and
described in said Zoning Regulations.
34
APR 26 1988
BOOK 72 Ea;E 193
Approved and adopted by the Board of County
Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida on this
of April , 1988.
26th
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
By
day
Don
, Jr., airman
C. Scuock
APPEAL BY APPLICANT OF A COUNTY -INITIATED REQUEST TO AMEND THE
LAND USE 6 ZONING DESIGNATION FOR 17.9 ACRES AT ENTRANCE TO VISTA
GARDENS
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:
•35 k `'V,E194
APR 26 1988
VERO BEACH PRESS -JOURNAL
Published Daily
Vero Beach, Indian River County, Florida
Oag2i2',��;�y
COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER: STATE OF FLORIDA APR 1988 a
Before the undersigned authority personally appeared J. J. Schum- Jr. v p EI?
says that he Is Business Manager of the Vero Beach Press -Journal, a daily n °•V' paper etv
at Vero Beach In Indian River County, Florida; that the attached copy of a'' '-; isern6 �V,�iUeli mint
• . .1.Depu.u1 ut \4
in the matter of
in the _ Court, was pub-
lished in said newspaper in the issues of i , a, /gii
Affiant further says that the said Vero Beach Press -Journal is a newspaper published at
Vero Beach, in sajd Indian River County, Florida, and that the said newspaper has heretofore
been continuously published 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 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 before this; day of
AD 19 f1
siness Manager)
(Clerk of the Circuit Court,
(SEAL)
APR 26.1988
an River County, Florida)
36
NOTICE OF PUBUC HEARING
Notice of hearing initiated by Indian River
' County to consider the adoption of a County or
dinance rezoning all or a portion of the following
described land from: CL, Limited Commerical
District to RM -10, Multi -Family Residential Dis '•
tract. The subject property is located east of U.S..;
Highway *1 and south of Indian RiverBoule
yard, and is presently owned by Vista Properties
of Vero Beach, Inc.
The subject property is described as:
A PARCEL LYING IN PORTIONS OF
SECTION 18, ,TOWNSHIP 33 SOUTH,
RANGE 40 EAST AND SECTION 13,
• TOWNSHIP 33 SOUTH, RANGE 39
• EAST. MORE PARTICULARLY DE-
SCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING
AT THE WEST QUARTER CORNER OF-;.
SAID SECTION 18 (ALSO BEING THE '
• • EAST QUARTER CORNER OF SAID
SECTION 13) RUN SOUTH 89°53'24"
EAST, ALONG THE QUARTER SECTION
LINE, 274.36 FEET; THENCE SOUTH
05°04'00" WEST, 975.30 FEET TO THE
NORTHERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF ',..
THE SOUTH RELIEF CANAL; THENCE
SOUTH 74°14'36" WEST, ALONG SAID _.
RIGHT-OF-WAY 524.93 FEET TO THE
EASTERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY OF U.S.
HIGHWAY NO. 1 AND TO A POINT ON -
THE CURVE, CONCAVE WESTERLY
HAVING A RADIUS OF 9649.39 FEET
AND THROUGH WHICH A RADIAL LINE -
BEARS SOUTH 73°45'03" WEST ;
THENCE RUN NORTHWESTERLY.'_
1072.61 FEET ALONG THE ARC OF '..
SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL -i
ANGLE OF 6°22'08"; THENCE RUN- •
NORTH 37°32'08" EAST, 107.54 FEET ' \
TO A POINT ON A NONTANGENT
CURVE CONCAVE NORTHERLY, HAV- •
ING A RADIUS OF 647.96 FEET AND •.
THROUGH WHICH A RADIAL LINE
BEARS NORTH 4°01'20" . WEST;
THENCE RUN NORTHEASTERLY
408.28 FEET ALONG THE•ARC OF SAID
CURVE THROUGH • THE CENTRAL
ANGLE OF 9°34'29" TO A POINT ON
THE QUARTER LINE OF SAID SECTION
13, THENCE NORTH 89°47'53" EAST,
ALONG SAID QUARTER SECTION LINE
501.31 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGIN-
' NING.
ALL THE ABOVE SITUATE IN INDIAN
RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, AND SUB •
-
JECT• TO AN ENTRANCE ROAD EASE-
MENT AS RECORDED IN .OFFICIAL ' '
RECORD BOOK 618; PAGE 2244 OF
• THE. PUBLIC RECORDS OF • INDIAN
RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA. •
The Board of County Commissioners will con-
duct a public hearing regarding the appeal by
the applicant of the decision by the Planning, and
Zoning Commission to deny the rezoning re-
quest. The public hearing, at which earnest' in."
terest and citizens shall have an opportunity to
be heard,. will be held by the Board of County'
Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida,
In the County Commissioners Chambers of the
County Administration Building, located at 1840
25th Street, Vero Beach, Florida on Tuesday,
April 26, 1988 at 9:05 a.m: Unless denied, no • '
final action concerning this item will be taken at
this meeting.
Anyone who may wish to appeal any decision
which may be made at this meeting will need to.
ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings
is made, which includes testimony and evidence
upon which the appeal is based.
• Indian River County
Board of County CommisNw+ere
Chairmen C. Scurlock, Jr. -A
April 13, 1988
Etta'GP crnt .. )
County Attorney Vitunac advised that there was a small
problem with the Proof in that the first advertisement of this
public hearing had transposed words saying that the Planning &
Zoning Commission would hear an appeal from a decision of the
Board of County Commissioners, which, of course, is impossible.
This was pointed out by the Planning staff after the deadline had
passed; so, they then ran a corrected ad which was published
April 13th. Attorney Vitunac advised that he felt this hearing
can go forward as long as there was no detriment to anyone who
might have been here and would have been misled by the original
publications. He pointed out that the language that was wrong
was in the fine print; there is'a map; all the proper notices are
in the front; and a corrected notice was advertised.
Attorney Vitunac asked, for the record, that anyone here in
the audience for the Vista Properties item raise their hand, and
he then asked that the record show that virtually everyone in the
audience, probably over 100 people, raised their hands. He asked
if the lawyer for Vista Properties had any objection to that
advertisement.
Michael O'Haire, Attorney for Vista Properties stated that
they do protest the notice of this hearing both under Chapter 125
of the Florida Statutes and as published. They feel it has been
detrimental and prejudicial.
Attorney Vitunac wished to give his opinion that the
applicant's objection -to our notice published in the paper is not
soundly based. However, he does have a letter from Mr. O'Haire
raising a second issue on the advertisement and that was that his
client was not notified by letter from the county as required by
state law. This was just brought to our attention yesterday, and
Attorney Vitunac continued that he asked the Zoning Department
whether the required letter has been sent to all property owners
of the land which will be subject to this rezoning.
Staff Planner Nearing advised that he checked with the
County Commission office which has the standard practice of
37
APR 2 6 1988
Boy 72 W;E 196
sending notification to the property owners 30 days in advance,
and he was informed that this letter was sent on March 22nd to
Vista Properties of Vero Beach, Inc. He further stated that on
April 19th a letter also was sent by Planning to Vista Properties
notifying them of the public hearing and transmitting to them a
copy of the agenda item before the Board.
Chairman Scurlock asked if we have any kind of receipt
indicating the letter was received, and Planner Nearing stated
the letter they sent did not normally call for a return receipt.
The Chairman asked Attorney Vitunac if it would be
reasonable to assume that knowledge of the public hearing is
evidenced by the fact that Mr. O'Haire and his people are here.
Attorney Vitunac confirmed that it would to a point. He
would have had to have reasonable notice; in other words, a 30
day notice so that he would have had time to prepare. Attorney
Vitunac asked the Clerk to the Board if their office actually did
mail that letter.
Deputy Clerk Hargreaves confirmed that the required letter
of notice was put in the mail by the staff of the Office of Clerk
to the Board, and Attorney Vitunac noted that the law says that
once we put it in the mail, we have effected our notice and the
publication in the paper is the additional back-up notice.
Attorney O'Haire submitted for the record an affidavit to
the Clerk bearing a copy of the letter dated April 19th and a
copy of the envelope which was mailed bearing postmark of April
21st, and he asked that the record show that today is the 26th.
The letter was received according to the affidavit on the 22nd.
The 23rd was a Saturday - the 24th was a Sunday; so, there has
been only one working day of notice. Said affidavit is as
follows:
38
APR 261988
BOOK 72 u u 197
AFFIDAVIT
STATE OF FLORIDA
COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER
BEFORE ME, the undersigned authority, duly qualified and acting,
personally appeared WYLIE R. WISELY, to me well known who, after being
by me duly cautioned and sworn, upon oath deposes and says:
That Affiant is employed by Vista Properties of Vero Beach, Inc.
and makes this Affidavit on personal knowledge;
That the letter addressed to Affiant's employer, attached hereto as
Exhibit "A", although dated April 19, 1988, was not received by Vista
Properties of Vero Beach until Friday, April 22, 1988, and was not read by
anyone in a position of responsibility or authority until Monday, April 25,
1988;
That, although the said letter is dated April 19, 1988, the
envelope in which it was received, copy attached hereto as Exhibit "B", was
not postmarked until April 21, 1988.
Further Affiant sayeth not.
Subscribed and sworn to before me
th. C"' day of • ril, 1988.
otary Pubhc, State o Flor
at Large.
My Commission expires:
Telephone: (407) 567-8000
April 19, 1988
EXHIBIT "A"
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS —
1840 25th Street, Vero Beach, Florida 32960
Mr. Robert Gaskill
VISTA -PROPERTIES OF VERO BEACH,
100 Vista Royale Blvd.
Vero Beach, FL 32962
INC.
! 7
APR 2 2 1188
Sudc;or3.Ielaphone.42410 T1—
RE:'-
RE VISTA GARDENS REZONING & COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT
Dear Bob:
This letter is to inform you as a representative of the property
owner, that the aforementioned rezoning and land use amendment
has been scheduled for a public hearing befoke the Board of
County. Commissioners on April 26, 1988,. at 9:05 a.m. Attached
please find a copy of staff's recommendation.
If you have any questions concerning this matter, please don't
hesitate to contact me at 567-8000, ext. X35.
Sincerely,
a/1;f/r Z4.71,a/"
David C. Nearing
Staff Planner
39
APR 2 6 1988
Mr. Robert Gaskill
VISTA PROPERTIES OF VERO BEACH
100 Vista Royale Blvd.
Vero Beach, FL 32962
Discussion ensued in regard to postponing the hearing for
another 30 days, but it was noted that would definitely interfere
with the state's twice a year requirement regarding new Land Use
amendments. Attorney Vitunac noted that we have testimony from
the Clerk's Office that the required letter was mailed, and the
presumption is that the owner did get the letter. The property
owner is here today; his Attorney is here; this identical issue
has been raised in the Planning & Zoning Board hearing, at which
time the property owner's attorney presumably was prepared.
Attorney Vitunac, therefore, felt we have the option to go ahead
with the hearing.
Chairman Scurlock pointed out that there is no final action
today, and there will be another public hearing before final
decision is made.
Attorney Vitunac agreed that while this is a critical step,
it is not the final action.
Chairman Scurlock stated that on the County Attorney's
advice, he would like to go ahead and proceed.
Attorney O'Haire commented that he has noted his protest.
He further noted that never in his experience have there been two
notices, and he can't believe that a notice was sent on April
19th and on March 22nd.
Planning Director Keating advised that the Clerk to the
Board is required to give 30 days' notice (and that is the letter
the applicant says he did not receive), and then the Planning
Department sends an additional letter a week or so ahead of the
agenda item.
Commissioner Bird asked if it was Attorney Vitunac's opinion
that if the first letter was mailed on the 22nd as indicated that
fulfills the requirements under the law, and he confirmed that it
would.
Attorney Vitunac requested that the Clerk who actually sent
out the letter of notice be called in to testify. In the
meantime, question arose as to how a court might rule on the
41
APR 261988
goo .72 f,E 200
technicalities of the notice. Attorney Vitunac did not feel the
court would overturn this action unless the applicant was truly
prejudiced. He pointed out that this lawyer has been with this
project for years; he knows the issue better than anyone in this
room; he presented the same arguments before the Planning &
Zoning Commission; he was fully aware of this appeal coming up;
and Attorney Vitunac felt sure he is ready to go today and that
we will hear a great presentation shortly. He has not been
prejudiced.
Attorney O'Haire, to make the record clear, confirmed that
he has been involved with this property for a considerable period
of time for Leonard Farber & Assoc., Inc., the contract purchaser
of the property, but he has been retained only within the last
week by Vista Properties, Inc.
Assistant County Attorney Collins came into the meeting and
informed the Board that the provisions we have been listening to
so far under Chapter 125 provide for 30 day mailed notice, which
the Clerk has said took place; there is also a question as to
whether the advertisement was proper, and it has been
readvertised. Attorney Collins wished to call the Board's
attention to Chapter 163.3184, Paragraph 15(a) which states that
the notice requirements of Chapter 125, which have to do with
zoning, are superseded by this sub -section as regards trans-
mitting or adopting of comprehensive plan amendments. The notice
requirements of Chapter 163 state that local government shall
hold two public hearings as follows: first at the transmittal
stage (which is this public hearing) which hearing shall be on a
week day approximately 7 days after the first advertisement is
published. The intention to hold and advertise the second public.
hearing shall be announced at the first public hearing, and the
second public hearing shall be held at the adoption stage
approximately 5 days after the second advertisement is published.
Attorney Collins felt the point is that if we have readvertised
within a week of this hearing, then the notice requirements for
42
APR 26 1988
R00F
72 C2O1
the transmittal are accomplished, and any rezoning Tater would be
advertised pursuant to the 30 day notice requirement.
County Attorney Vitunac wished to have Deputy Clerk Angela
Waterhouse testify in regard to mailing the 30 day notice.
Deputy Clerk Waterhouse stated for the record that she is a
Deputy Clerk in the Office of Clerk to the Board; that she
personally mailed the tetter of notice to Vista Properties on
March 22, 1988; and that letter was not returned to the Office of
Clerk to the Board by the Post Office.
It was agreed that the Board would proceed with the public
hearing.
Staff Planner David Nearing made the staff presentation, as
follows:
APR 26 1988
43
Roof 72 f A E 202
TO: Charles P. Balczun
County Administrator
DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE:
R•`:ert M. Keati •. A
Planning & Developme
DATE: April 13, 1988 FILE:
SUBJECT: APPEAL BY APPLICANT OF A
COUNTY INITIATED REQUEST
TO AMEND THE LAND USE
AND ZONING DESIGNATION
FOR UP TO 17.9 ACRES OF
LAND LOCATED AT THE
TRANCE TO VISTA ROYAL
REFERENCEbii,RDENS
Director
THRU: Gary Schindler
FRO"C„h���.ief, Long -Range Planning
David C. Nearing
Staff Planner
It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal
consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their
regular meeting of April 26, 1988.
DESCRIPTION & CONDITIONS
This is an appeal by the Planning Staff of a decision made on
March 10, 1988 by the Planning and Zoning Commission concerning a
request, initiated by the Board of County Commissioners, to
consider amending the land use/zoning designation for up to 17.9
acres of land. This request is to redesignate all or a portion
of the subject property from U.S. 1 Commercial Corridor to MD -2,
Medium Density Residential 2 (allowing up to 10 units/acre), and
to concurrently rezone the affected portion from CL, Limited
Commercial to RM -10, Multi -Family Residential District (up to 10
units/acre). The subject property is situated along U.S. 1 south
of the Indian River Boulevard at the access to Vista Royal
Gardens.
On January 23, 1988, the Board of County Commissioners considered
a request by the residents of Vista Gardens that the County
initiate a downzoning of the subject property. After
considerable discussion, the Board determined that the concerns
of the affected citizens warranted the County to:reexamine the -
status of this property. As a result, the Board directed the
staff to initiate the land use plan amendment/rezoning process
for ten acres of the subject property. Because the Board did not
specify which ten acres to consider and to allow maximum
flexibility in designating an appropriate area, the staff
advertised the entire site as under consideration for action.
On March 10, 1988, the Planning and Zoning Commission voted 4-2
to deny this request. The Commissioners felt that commercial
zoning was appropriate for the entire 17+ acres and should be
retained. The staff has appealed this request in order to permit
the Board of County Commissioners, by whose directive this
action was initiated, a chance to review this request.
Chronology of Past Events
Because of the extensive zoning/land use history of this site,
a brief chronology and follow-up graphic support document has
been included with this item. This material references action
concerning this parcel and adjacent property` back to 1969.
Becauserecords are incomplete prior to this date, no reference
is made to action occurring before 1969. However, as shown in the
chronology, all or part of this property has been zoned
commercial since 1969.
ALTERNATIVES & ANALYSIS
In this section, an analysis of
cation will be presented. The
tion of the current and future
APR 2 6 1988
the reasonableness of the appli-
analysis will include a descrip-
land uses of the site and sur -
BOOK
w E 203
rounding areas, potential impacts on the transportation and
utility systems, and any significant adverse impacts on environ-
mental quality.
Existing Land Use Pattern
The subject parcel is currently vacant land zoned CL. To the
north , across Indian River Boulevard, is a Zippy Mart, radiator
shop and the Wal-Mart zoned CG, General Commercial and to the
south is a commercial plaza zoned CL. To the west is U.S. 1. To
the east are the Vista Garden Villas zoned RM -10.
The subject property was the subject of a site plan approval
request. Submitted initially in July of 1987, the site plan
application proposed uses compatible with the existing CL zoning
of the site. Because of a number of staff concerns and resulting_
plan revisions, no action was taken on the request until March
10, 1988. At their March 10, 1988 meeting, the Planning and
Zoning Commission denied the site plan request. On April 5,
1988, the Board of County Commissioners reviewed an appeal by the
applicants of the site plan. The Board upheld the Planning and
Zoning Commission's decision based on traffic and safety
concerns.
Future Land Use Pattern
The Comprehensive Plan designates the subject property as U.S. 1
Commercial Corridor. The property north across the boulevard
also lies within the corridor. To the south lies the South
Relief Canal with the next 360 feet of property also lying within
the corridor; all land east of the U.S. 1 Commercial.Corridor
is designated MD -2, Medium Density Residential 2 (allowing up to
10 units/acre). The property immediately east of the subject
parcel also lies within the MD -2 district.
Transportation System
The subject parcel currently has frontage on U.S. 1, classified
on the Thoroughfare Plan as an arterial road. The site also has
minimal frontage on Indian River Boulevard, also classified as an
arterial. Located within the north end of this site is the
private access drive to the Vista Royal Gardens development.
Currently, this portion of U.S. 1 is operating at a marginal
Level -of -Service "E" during the peak season. Level -of -Service E
is characterized by lower operating speeds than permissible,
limited freedom to maneuver, with occasional restricted flow.
Critical maneuvers at this level of service, such as left turns,
are often restricted. Reduction or elimination of commercial
property at this location would not substantially improve current
conditions; however, it would limit potential impacts due to new
development.
Even though this site is not suited for larger scale commercial
development due to traffic constraints, it is possible that some
limited commercial development could act as a beneficial buffer
between the adverse traffic impacts of U.S. 1 and the F.E.>C.
Railroad and the residential to the west. Such adverse impacts
as noise and odor could be screened out from the residentialarea
to the east by the structures involved in a commercial develop-
ment.
Environment
The site is not considered to be environmentally sensitive, nor
is it located in a flood prone area.
Utilities
The site currently has access to public water and sewer
facilities.
45
L APR 2 6 1988
BOOK 72 `', E 2O4
Analysis
In reviewing this request, staff considered the historic zoning
activity of the subject parcel, specifically the fact that there
has always been a minimum of 600 feet of commercial zoning at
this location, and the fact that in 1983 the owners successfully
regained their commercial land use designation which had been
lost when the Comprehensive Plan was approved in 1982. When that
land use change was considered in 1983, the staff opposed the
change to commercial. However, at that time, conditions were
much different. Wal-Mart, Royale Gardens Plaza, and Indian River
Boulevard did not exist. In addition, Vista Development had
several other requests for commercial land use changes in the
area under consideration at the time.
In reviewing this request, several factors should be considered.
First, it should be noted that the subject property is surrounded
by commercially zoned lands on two sides - with those sides
having developed commercial uses. Second, the property abutting
the subject parcel on the east side is residential, and the
principal access for that residential property is over an ease-
ment through the subject property. Third, high traffic volumes
on both U.S. 1 and Indian River Boulevard have resulted in an
unacceptable level of service in the area. Allowing a large
traffic generator/attractor in this location could exacerbate
these problems.
Conclusion
Staff feels that amending the land use and zoning for the entire
parcel is not warranted. However, a decrease in the commercial
acreage would be beneficial. A reduction to approximately 10+
acres of commercial zoning/land use at this site would substan-
tially reduce future traffic impacts, allow for additional buffer
of the adjacent residential uses, reduce noise and visual impacts
on a major portion of the Vista Royal Gardens development, yet
maintain commercial zoning on that part of the property that
abuts commercial on two sides.
In order to reduce the commercial land use/zoning to approxi-
mately 10 acres for this site, the depth of the zoning east of
U.S. 1 would have to be decreased from an average of 600 feet to
400 feet. This would decrease the acreage from its current 17.92
acres to 10.5 acres. This reduction to 400 feet would correspond
with the ,commercial plaza to the south which has a depth of 360
feet.
RECOMMENDATION
Based on the analysis performed, and despite the decision of the
Planning and Zoning Commission, staff recommends that the Board
of County Commissioners transmit to the DCA the following:
The land use designation and zoning of the subject
property be retained for the first 400 feet east of
U.S. 1, equaling approximately 10.5 acres, and that the
land -use designation for the remaining easternmost 7.4
acres be changed from Commercial to MD -2, and that this
acreage be rezoned from CL to RM -10.
APR 2 6 1988
46
Boos ` 4 F` % 205
Commissioner Eggert asked how staff's recommendation affects
the desire of some people in the area to protect more of the
Jungle Gardens.
Planner Nearing advised that it would reduce the depth by
200' and some of the denser vegetation is towards the rear. Up
towards U.S.I, there is a large area which is rather vacant.
Director Keating pointed out that the alternate is that the
back property is going to be residential, and he did not think
any substantial amount of vegetation will be protected if it is
developed in any manner.
Commissioner Bowman took issue with the statement that
buildings clean air and stressed that it is trees that clean air.
The Chairman asked if anyone wished to be heard.
Attorney O'Haire came before the Board representing Vista
Properties, owners of the property under discussion, and
reiterated that they are here under protest and feel the notice
was defective and has been prejudicial to them. He continued
that, in the scramble to prepare for today's hearing, they have
been able to obtain the services of Mr. Jim Park of the firm of
Gee & Jensen. He is a land planner who has been involved in both
the private and public sectors.
Mr. O'Haire wished to point out that the property immedi-
ately adjacent to them to the north is also zoned and planned for
commercial, and that is not being considered today even though it
is adjacent, which he felt highlights the prejudicial nature of
considering his client's property in the interests not so much of
fairness, but of political expediency.
Commissioner Wheeler wished to know what property Attorney
O'Haire is referring to and was advised it is the sliver between
them and Indian River Boulevard known as the Schlitt piece.
There was much hooting from the audience, and the Chairman
asked that they refrain from comment until they can be formally
recognized.
47
APR 26•
BooF 72s yr20C
Attorney O'Haire introduced Planner Jim Park, who informed
the Board that he has over 25 years experience as a Planning
Director for cities and also as a planning consultant to
municipalities and to private developments. Mr. Park stated that
during that time he has developed some very deep convictions and
concerns about the efficacy of land use regulation as it is
practiced around the country, and he tries to be a constructive
advisor in how to bring about appropriate equitable land use
regulatory decisions. He would like to talk about what he
considers to be the relevant theory, practice and philosophy of
land use regulation in a growing community such as in Indian
River County. Obviously, you need to tailor your land use,
theory and practice to the conditions you have, and Mr. Park
stated that he is quite familiar with the conditions affecting
Indian River County.
Chairman Scurlock asked Mr. Park what part philosophy plays
in all that.
Mr. Parks stressed that zoning is not a refined science; it
is an art, and you have to blend together some concept of what a
community wants to be. The community usually represents that in
its Comprehensive Plan, and it, in effect, is a philosophy of a
kind of community.
The Chairman believed a big part of Mr. Park's job when he
is working either with a municipal client or a developer would be
to identify the philosophy of his client first and then proceed
to develop a plan.
Mr. Park stated not at all. As he said, it is a blend, and
he believed his first reference to philosophy was the philosophy
of the city. Your public policy making relates only to the
public's interest, and that is protected by the Administration's
rules and regulations. As Administrations change, this philos-
ophy may change accordingly and may result in amending your
Comprehensive Plan. The point is that amendment process has to
be related to new findings of public interest. Zoning must meet
APR 26 198
48
BOOK 72 E' ,F.207
certain tests: "fairness, reasonableness, consistency, and
predictability." Conversely your zoning policy and your
management of land use cannot be the result of a single idea that
it might be a good idea to do it. Mr. Parks noted that he has
heard statements made today by staff that there were neighborhood
concerns about the zoning pattern. There is a proper place for
concern in developing land use regulations, but that concern has
to be backed up by an objective analysis of whether it is a
legitimate concern in the public interest and meets the tests of
reasonableness, consistency, etc. Downzoning by its nature is
fraught with problems, and this is for good reason as downzonings
very rarely meet these criteria: Zoning is not a land use policy
making activity; your Comprehensive Plan is the policy making
activity, and invariably downzoning is an attempt to change the
policy of the city.
Chairman Scurlock asked what happens if you found out that
you were lied to when you made the original decision. You were
given to understand a certain set of facts by the owner of the
property and that later changed.
Mr. Parks advised that would come under the subject he is
going to touch on later - whether or not there has been a change
in conditions or whether an error occurred. He, however, did not
know anything about the history of that.
Mr. Parks continued that he sees that staff now has recom-
mended that only part of the property be downzoned, but that is
an attempt to change. development policy by a zoning map amend-
ment, and he could find no support in the county's body of policy
in the Comprehensive Plan that would say given the circumstances
we have at this intersection on two arterials it is appropriate
to reduce commercial zoning here. Mr. Parks contended that two
conditions should be met - a change of conditions or a prior
error. If he looks at this site as an objective outside planner
without any interest in the property, he can see in his mind the
evolution of the U.S.I corridor and the land use transition that
49
APR2 198
Boor 72 EsUi?08
has occurred. The conditions today are certainly much more urban
than they were when the zoning was initiated. Traffic has
increased, the population in the service area has increased
substantially, and commercial land use has developed in the
surrounding neighborhood. It is the standard practice of the
developer to study these conditions. With regard to the error
mentioned by the Chairman, Mr. Park did not know of any that
occurred, and staff comments contain no indication that any error
was made in the past.
Mr. Park continued that he had looked at the site itself in
relation to its being at
highways. He then cited
out under Traffic System
retail and service uses:
1) Served by an arterial
the intersection of two arterial
the following performance standards set
in the Comprehensive
Plan for commercial
street preferably at a point where it
intersects with other arterials or collector streets. (The site
meets that test.)
2) Traffic ingress and egress should not disrupt through traffic.
Mr. Park felt because you have access to two streets, the traffic
can well be accommodated, and he did not believe anyone has
suggested the traffic from an 18 acre shopping center is somehow
going to be a disaster whereas 'a 10 acre shopping center is going
to be entirely appropriate.
Chairman Scurlock stated that he personally is suggesting
that the lower intensity will be an improvement.
Mr. Park estimated that with the 10 acre commercial center
and then the multiple use in the back, the traffic differential
might be only about 1/2 of 1%. He agreed that he is not a
traffic engineer, but based this estimate on some rules of thumb.
He continued that the final performance standard, is to minimize
auto/pedestrian conflict and he did not see serious potential for
pedestrian conflict in that location.
Mr. Park then noted that if you try to reduce commercial
development, you still are meeting the objective of commercial,
50
APR 26 1988
ih._
ROOK 72 Fm -,E 209
but unfortunately by reducing it, you will have a less desirable
commercial site because land planning practice looks immediately
at the configuration of land, the depth in relation to roadways,
how the access can be provided, and how the buildings, parking
and landscaping can be interrelated on the site. A 600' depth
actually is considered minimum for a commercial site.
Chairman asked if Mr. Parks has been around our community
and looked at the Village Shops, which was the type development
promised in 1980.
Mr. Parks did not think he could effectively address prior
representations. His next point was that the villas developed at
the rear provide transition and 'are a very effective buffer. If
you were to provide a 200' strip adjacent to that, it would lose
its effectiveness, and you would have two slivers running
adjacent to a commercial site when the first set up was adequate
and preferable. He contended that the site can be developed to
preserve vegetation; although, he realized that is not to be
addressed today.
Mr. Parks summarized that he attempted to find some merit in
the downzoning proposed, but as diligently as he looked, he
simply failed to see that the criteria customarily associated
with zoning are met.
Chairman Scurlock asked to hear next from the leaders of any
organized groups.
Attorney Robin Lloyd came before the Board speaking on
behalf of Vista Gardens Property Owners Association. In regard
to consistency'or fairness and reasonableness, he believed that
the Chairman mentioned what had been promised before. Attorney
Lloyd then quoted from Minute Book 54, Page 666, where Vista's
then Attorney, Gordon B. Johnston, asked to havethis property
returned to its previous zoning. Excerpt from those Minutes is
as follows:
51
APR 26 1988
!Dol: 72 pnE2lO
It
SEQ 1ag 3
" GordoniB.,Johnston, Attorney representing Vista
Properties, presented Vista:Properties.request for.
redesignation .+.and"indicated the properties in question on
the map displayedon the wall. His arguments were:
1) Vista plans to establish an attractive neighborhood
type•commercial area much like the Village Shops in
Indian River Shores.
2) As far as the traffic pattern is concerned, Vista
would • have to comply with any requirements of the
Department of Transportation for deceleration lanes
or turning lanes.
3) The South Relief Canal is a natural cut-off point
for strip commercial zoning on U.S. #1.
4) All of the units in this development were sold with
the purchasers being advised that this was a
commercial area and the condominium documents filed
with the State of Florida show this as commercial.
Commissioner Scurlock expected, if this request was
approved, numerous requests would be received all along that
stretch of U.S. 01, possibly right on down to the county
line.
Attorney Lloyd noted the Commissioners questioned Mr.
Keating and others as to whether you could control the property
to the extent to guarantee this representation, and they were
told yes. He believed the Chairman's concern about further
requests being received along that stretch of U.S.! down to the
south county line was a good concern. He also pointed out that
the commercial property just south of the south relief canal is
360' deep and reducing the depth of the existing limited
commercial as proposed would be making it more consistent with
that property.
Attorney Lloyd believed the record shows that misrepresenta-
tions were made in the beginning when the change in zoning was
made; so, the Board today is trying to correct an error, and he
believed that staff's recommendation would represent consistency.
In addition when Gordon Johnston made these misrepresentations in
APR 26 1988
52
Boor 72 . ;,F. 211
1983, we did not have an existing Indian River Boulevard there;
so, there are changes in facts and conditions in addition to the
misrepresentations made back then.
Attorney Lloyd did not believe the planning philosophy in
Fort Lauderdale is necessarily the same as it is in Vero Beach,
and noted that even if we have something like the development to
the south of the south relief canal, we would have smaller shops
and something that is more controllable.
Attorney Bruce Barkett came before the Board representing
the Vista Civic Association. He also was interested in hearing
Mr. Park describe himself as an outsider with no interest in this
whatsoever, and wondered if that was so, why he was here.
Attorney Barkett also spoke of the promise made to have something
like the Village Shops, and noted that now in 1988 this applicant
has come forward with something which does not even resemble what
was promised in 1983. Attorney Barkett informed the Board that
his group is here to support the staff recommendation to amend
the Land Use designation to MD -2 for part of this parcel. He
did agree, however, with Mr. Park's statement that 600' is a
better depth for development of a commercial site, and suggested
that possibly it would be better to divide the property in
question north and south, making the south half the commercial
portion. He felt by making a 400' strip along U.S.1, we would be
more or less saying our philosophy is that we like what is being
done in .Fort Pierce along U.S.1. as you enter from the north.
Attorney Barkett alsosuggested that the PRO District would allow
for more flexibility in site plan, greater preservation of trees
and reduction in traffic intensity. They feel either or both of
these alternatives in conjunction would reduce the congestion at
the intersection of Indian River Boulevard and U:S.I., prevent
co -mingling of traffic, preserve many trees and break up the line
of commercial development on U.S.1.
Harold Putnam appeared representing McKee Jungle Gardens
Preservation Society, Inc. He advised that they now have about
APR 2 6 j9
53
BOOK
72 F [212
200 members without conducting any membership drive at all, and
many are old families in our community who remember it as the
McKee Jungle Gardens. They have made no fund drive as yet, but
checks are pouring in. As to the quality of support they are
receiving, they have letters from Dr. Massey of Indian River
Community College, from Harbor Branch Foundation, from a local
lawyer who is active in the Nature Conservancy, etc. Mr. Putnam
then quoted sentences from recent cases mentioned in the Florida
Bar publication called "Florida Zoning and Land Use Planning" •
stating that an existing ordinance can be amended when so
required by the public interest of the governmental unit, and
that if it can' be shown to be in•the current public need, it will
be upheld. He, therefore, urged the Board not to be afraid of
lawsuits as he believed they would be making an effort to
preserve the public health and safety.
Mr. Putnam then went on to address the question of the value
of this land, noting that he has many years experience with
acquisition of land and his state had a policy of paying fair
market value. He believed we could do that here, and felt that
the fair market value as of June, 1983, before it was rezoned to
commercial is the fair market value that should be paid now.
Chairman Scurlock wished to make it very clear that issue is
not what is under discussion today and we cannot consider that in
our deliberations.
Mr. Putnam urged the Commission not do anything today that
will artificially inflate the price of the land but rather give
their Society at least six months to get their funds and effort
together. They honestly feel this is a "watershed" decision by
the county as to what kind of county we will be in the future and
they are trying to prevent it becoming another Fort Pierce,
Stuart or Orlando.
Ron Ewing, 22 Forest Park Drive, owner of Vista Properties,
wished to clear the record on the. history of the zoning changes
that happened to this property. He stated that in 1983 when
APR 261988
54
BOOK 72. [AGE 213
Vista Properties came before this Commission with Gordon Johnston
representing 'them, they were asking for a 10 acre piece on the
front of McKee Jungle Gardens to be commercial. What they
wanted to do in 1983 was build Village Shops on the 10 acres in
the front and build condos in the back, and he has the court
reporter's transcript of that meeting. They came in to the
Commission that day and were told the small area of commercial
would constitute strip zoning, and that Commission proceeded to
pass a Motion to change the Comprehensive Plan to have all 20
acres commercial. Mr. Ewing stressed that they never wanted 20
acres commercial; they had something entirely different in mind,
and now it is turned around completely and said that they misled
everybody by saying they were going to build Village Shops on the
20 acres, which was not the intent.
Mr. Ewing continued that he is a condo developer, not a
commercial developer; so, when they got the 20 acres commercial,
he had to go out and hunt for a commercial developer over the
next four years. He finally found a group he thought was a good
developer, Leonard Farber, and entered into a contract to sell
him 20 acres of ground and he was to build a shopping center. He
then designed a site plan and spent a lot of money, but now they
don't have site plan approval. At this point he is back where he
was in 1983, and the Board now is telling him you can do what you
wanted to in 1983. In the meantime, however, he has been paying
taxes for five years on commercially zoned property. Mr. Ewing
emphasized that he abides by the county rules; they gave him 20
acres commercial; he moved ahead and proceeded to comply with all
the county ordinance as he always has; and now they won't approve
that. So what do they want him to do?
James Haeger, 1906 33rd Ave., spoke in regard to the effort
to save the Jungle Gardens, and advised that he has been shown
brochures that were sent all over the United States trying to get
people to buy in the Gardens and saying that area will remain
gardens from now to perpetuity.
APP 26 1988
55
Roar 72 p!�E214
The Chairman determined that no one else wished to be heard
and thereupon declared the public hearing closed.
Commissioner Bird agreed with Mr. Ewing's recollection of
the history of how this took place and that it seems we are back
where we were in 1983, but as he looks at it today with the
traffic situation we now have on U.S.1. and the Boulevard, etc.,
he felt the intensity of a 20 acre shopping center at this site
is improper and cannot be mitigated to properly handle the
traffic with the site plan that we saw and had to approve or
disapprove. He, therefore, felt that to reduce the size of the
commercial in this area to a maximum of 400' depth would make a
safer situation.
MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by
Commissioner Eggert, to transmit to the DCA our staff's
recommendation that the land use designation and
zoning of the subject property be retained for the
first 400 feet east of U.S.1, equaling approximately
10.5 acres, and that the land use designation for
the remaining easternmost 7.4 acres be changed from
Commercial to MD -2 and that this acreage be rezoned
from CL to RM -10.
Commissioner Eggert commented that this is a compromise for
her because in 1983 when she was on the Planning & Zoning
Commission and working on the Comprehensive Plan, she really felt
it all should be multi -family. In many ways she would rather
have this go all the way back to multi -family, but the commercial
has been there and now she feels at, least the 10 acres of
commercial should stay there.
Commissioner Wheeler asked if the 400' depth going east
abuts and lines up with the other piece of commercial mentioned
earlier or leaves a vacant piece in between.
56
SPR 26 1988
BOOK 72 Du
Director Keating advised that the other parcel is bordered
by roads on three sides - the road that connects the Boulevard to
the entrance road, and then it also is bordered by the Boulevard
and the entrance road. The 400' probably would come up to the
western edge of that Schlitt parcel and would provide the
opportunity to get a marginal access connection there. He
continued that Attorney Barkett's recommendation of clustering
with a deeper depth was looked into, but one of the disadvantages
is that you have the bridge to the south and less room to move
around with the access points. Unfortunately this situation is
not the best of all worlds, and the canal separating the other
commercial property to the south just exasperates the problem.
Commissioner Bowman believed OCR generates less traffic than
CL and asked why we have not considered OCR.
Director Keating felt that is a good point and advised that
the Board does not have to make that recommendation today; as
long as it is transmitted and the Land Use designation is
changed, the Board can take action on the rezoning however they
wish at the next hearing.
Commissioner Wheeler inquired about the difference in
traffic for 17 acres commercial as opposed to 10 acres commercial
and the remainder multiple family.
Director Keating stated that unless you look at the site
plan and can see the relationship between retail commercial, fast
food, and other uses, etc., you cannot be specific, but he felt
generally you can consider a reduction comparable to the
reduction in size, or about 1/3.
Chairman Scurlock believed we will have to discuss specific
details at great length when this item comes back to us from the
DCA review.
Commissioner Eggert commented that apparently HUD's number
of trips for senior citizens is much lower than those trips in
some other subdivisions and hoped this would be taken into
account also.
57 BOOK 72 ME 216
APR 2 61988
Director Keating confirmed that they are looking into that.
THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION to transmit
staff's recommendation. It was voted on and
carried unanimously.
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING TRANSMITTAL OF CLUP AMENDMENTS
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Commis-
sioner Bowman, the Board unanimously adopted Resolution
88-28 authorizing transmittal of those Comprehensive
Plan amendment applications approved today.
RESOLUTION NO. 88- 28
A RESOLUTION OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, AUTHORIZING
THE TRANSMITTAL OF COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT
APPLICATIONS, STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS, AND THE RECOMMENDATIONS
OF THE LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY TO THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY
AFFAIRS OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOR A MANDATORY NINETY DAY
REVIEW PERIOD.
WHEREAS, Chapter 163 of the Florida Statutes, requires that
local governments prepare and adopt Comprehensive Plans, and
WHEREAS, The Board of County Commissioners has adopted a
Comprehensive Plan pursuant to Florida Statutes, and
WHEREAS, Florida Statutes provide for the amendment of
Comprehensive Plans twice per calandar year, and
WHEREAS, The Planning and Zoning Commission, sitting as the
local planning agency, has held public hearings and ,made
recommendations concerning these amendments, and
WHEREAS, The Board of County Commissioners has held a
preliminary public hearing concerning these amendments, and
APR 26 1988
58
Hale 72 F'' E Z17
WHEREAS, Florida Statutes require that the Board of County
Commissioners pass a resolution authorizing the transmittal of
Comprehensive Plan Amendments to the Department of Community
Affairs of the State of Florida for a mandatory ninety day review
period,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that the enclosed
Comprehensive Plan Amendment applications, staff recommendations,
and the recommendations of the local planning agency are hereby
authorized for transmittal to the Department of Community Affairs
for a mandatory ninety day review period.
The foregoing resolution was offered.by Commissioner
Eggert
who moved its adoption. The motion was seconded
by Commissioner Bowman
vote was as follows:
and, upon being put to a vote, the
Chairman Don C. Scurlock, Jr. Aye
Vice -Chairman Gary Wheeler Aye
Commissioner Carolyn Eggert Aye
Commissioner Margaret C. Bowman Ave
Commissioner Richard Bird Aye
The Chairman thereupon declared Resolution No. 88- 28
adopted and duly passed this 26th day of April , 1988.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
By: c.
DON -C. SCURL
Chairman
CHANGE ORDER IRC 2-5 - JAIL PHASE II
Administrator Balczun reviewed the following memo and went
over the adds and deducts in the Change Order:
APR 26 1988
ih._
59
BOOK
FE 218
TO:
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS DATE: APRIL 5, .1988
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
THRU: CHARLES P. BALCZUN
COUNTY ADMINISTRATO
FROM: H. T. "SONNY" DE 44' II
OWNERS AUTHORIZED RE'RESENTATIVE
SUBJECT: INDIAN RIVER COUNTY JAIL PROJECT - PHASE II
CHANGE ORDER IRC 2-5
Attached is the final Change Order for the subject project. The
total depicts a credit to the County in the amount of $43,311.00
which will be deducted from the contract.
The request for final payment will be brought back to the Board for
action and will reflect the above deduction from the retained funds.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Commis-
sioner Wheeler, the Board unanimously approved Change
Order 5 - Jail Phase 11 w/Schopke Construction repre-
senting a net deduct of $43,311.00.
FRIZZELL ARCHITECTS
CHANGE ORDER
OWNER 0
ARCHITECT 0
CONTRACTOR 0
FIELD 0
OTHER
PROJECT: Indian River County Jail CHANGE ORDER NO: Five (5)
(name, address) Phase II
OWNER: Board of County Commissioners DATE April 5, 1988
TO: (Contractor) 1878
r ARCHITECT'S PROJECT NO:
Schopke Construction & Engineering
1620 Tangerine Street • CONTRACT FOR: General Construction
Melbourne, Florida 32901
L
CONTRACT DATED: May 28, 1986
J •
YOU ARE HEREBY AUTHORIZED TO MAKE THE FOLLOWING CHANGES IN THE SUBJECT JOB:
1. Accept as no cost revisions; Items 2 through 8
inclusive Proposal Request 2 dated March 24, 1987,
per Schopke June 8,1987 letter.
2. Delete carpet pad by request of Owner.
3. Provide electrical revisions as outlined in Proposal
Request five (5) dated June 24, 1987.
4. Provide conduit only for Proposal Requet•four (4).
Items to be installed by others.
APR 2 6 1988
60
$
ADD
- 0 -
- 0.-
$146.00
$419.00
DEDUCT
- 0 -
$289.00
- 0 -
BOOK 72 FYI. 219
S. Revise emergency generator to 75 KW in lieu of 150 KW.
6. Delete monitoring wells and reduce size of emergency
generator fuel tank.
/. Add three electrical feeds to electronic relay cabinet
and tie intoexisting circuit breakers.
SUB TOTAL
S. Add additional cost for tile repairs after 2nd floor
drain installation.
r
9. Liquidated damages; 195 days @ $250.00 per day from
April 28, 1987 (contract date plus ten (10) days N.T.P.
plus 305 contract days plus twenty (20) days C.O.'
extention) to November 9, 1987.
10. Reduce liquidated damages to $15,000_.00 due -to Owner/
Contractor negotiated agreement dated November 9, 1987.$33,750.0
U. Added liquidated damages due to contractor not meeting
November 18, 1987 substantial completion date,
November 18, 1987 through January 14, 1988. (58 days
@ $250/day)
ADD DEDUCT
— 0 -
- 0
$242.00
$5,400.00
$1,119.00
- 0 -
s 807.00
$(6,808.00)
190.00 - 0
- 0 - ($48,750.00)
•
SUB TOTAL
12. Added liquidated damages due to contractor not.
meeting February 15, 1988 final completion date._
February 15, 1988 through March 18', 1988 (32 days @
$250/day) .
The Contract Time wUi be (piei6bbiaj eYeisDB) (unchanged) by Zero
rM
- 0
- 0 - ($14,500.00)
:34,747.00 (70,058.00)
8,000.00`
(78,058.00)
34,747.00
The Date of Substantia( Completion as of the date of this Change Order therefore Is
TOTAL,
( -0-).Days.
Not valid untll signed by both the Owner and Archltect.
Signature of the Contractor Indicates his agreement herewith, Including any adjustment In the Contract Sum 'or Contract Time.
ORIGINAL CONTRACT
FORMER CHANGE ORDERS 1 thru 4
$1.903,286.00
$ 5.426.16
$1,908,712.16
THIS CHANGE ORDER (ADILDEDUCT) s 43,111 _ on
SIGNED:
APR 2 6 1988
REVISED CONTRACT PRICE $1,865,401.16
•
ACCEPTED:
Indian River County Board
of County Commissioners
61
BOOK 72 ilsE 220
CLOSE 14TH AVE. BETWEEN 2ND ST. & 1ST ST. S.W. - JULY 4TH
The Board reviewed memo from the Administrator:
TO: Bd. of County CommissionersDATE: April 15, 1988 FILE:
SUBJECT:
REQUEST TO CLOSE 14TH
AVENUE BETWEEN 2ND
STREET AND 1ST STREET
S.W. FOR 4TH OF JULY
CELEBRATION
Charles P. Balczun Perry M. Pisani to Bd.
FROM: County Administrator REFERENCES: of Co. Comm. 4-14-88
Residents along 14th Avenue between 1st Street S.W. and 2nd Street
have requested permission to close a short section of 14th Avenue
from 12:00 Noon to just after dark for a July 4th celebration.
Staff has no objection to this request, provided that:
1) Proper barricades as permitted by the Traffic Engineering
Department are installed.
2. A block representative be listed as a contact person in
charge of the event in case the road needs to be opened.
3. Access to emergency vehicles be maintained.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Wheeler, SECONDED by Commis-
sioner Eggert, the Board unanimously approved the
closing of 14th Avenue between 1st St. S.W. and 2nd St.
on July 4th as requested above based upon the conditions
listed.
ADDITIONAL SURVEY SERVICES - IND. RIVER BLVD. SOUTH EXTENSION
Administrator Balczun advised that there was an oversight of
a very small sliver of land as explained in the following memo:.
62
APR 26 1988
TO: Charles P. Balczun,
County Administrator
FROM:
SUBJECT:
REF.
James W. Davis, P.E.
Public Works Director
Payment of additional Survey Services
Indian River Boulevard South Extension
LETTER: Edgar Schlitt to Jim Davis dated Apr.
DATE: April 14, 1988
1, 1988
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
A construction easement was necessary for a storm sewer pipe along
Mr. Ed Schlitt's property south of WalMart, as a part of the
Indian River Boulevard Phase II construction project.
This easement resulted in additional survey services by Mr.
Schlitt on his property. The County's consultant, Kimley-Horn
and Associates, was not in error, but staff simply overlooked
securing the easement.
RECOMMENDATIONS AND FUNDING
It is recommended that Mr. Schlitt be paid $1,274.44 for survey
services that he incurred due to the easement. Funding to be from
Fund 304, Indian River Boulevard South Construction.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by Commis-
sioner Wheeler, the Board unanimously authorized
payment of $1,274.44 to Ed Schlitt for survey expenses
as recommended by staff.
I.R.BOULEVARD AT 53RD ST. & U.S.HIGHWAY.1 INTERSECTION
Administrator Bal-czun reviewed the following memo and
attachment, noting that these parcels ,are on either side of the
intersection:
APR 28 19
63
ROOK 72 ,gE 222
TO: Charles A. Balczun
County Administrator
THROUGH: James W. Davis, P.E.
Public Works Director
FROM: Donald G. Finney, SRA
Right -of -Way Acquisition Agent
SUBJECT: Indian River Boulevard
at 53rd Street and U.S.'
Highway 1 intersections
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
April 12, 1988
Additional right-of-way is required on the south side of
53rd Street to accommodate the road intersection of Indian River
Boulevard. Two separate right-of-way parcels are involved which
require an appraisal.
Mr. Armfield is appraising adjoining Boulevard r/w parcels
for the county at this time and will include these two properties
in the original report for an additional fee of $2,000.
RECOMMENDATION AND FUNDING
Staff requests authorization for Mr. Armfield's firm to
appraise the two parcels, fee not to exceed $2,000.
Funding to be from account #309-214-541.
ARMFIELD-WAGNER APPRAISAL & RESEARCH, INC.
APR 26 19
Mr. Donald G. Finney
Right -of -Way Acquisition Agent
1840 25th Street
Vero Beach, Florida 32960
April 4, 1988:
Re: Addition of two parcel to Appraisal. No. 11161 for the
acquisition of the right-of-way corridor for the proposed
Indian River Boulevard, North Phase IV Extension (from
45th Street to 53rd Street). The two additional parcels
are identified as follows:
Parcel # Owner of Record Tax I.D. #
A Martha S. Struever and 23-32-39-00000-3000-00004.0
Harry Erlenborn and
Harry Wyatt and The 1st
National Bank of Peru
J. Luther Groves 23-32-39-00000-3000-00005.0
Each parcel is to be dealt with as a separate report in
conjunction with general area data along with reports
for Parcels #12, #17, #18 and #19.
Dear Mr. Finney:
I have reviewed the above parcels. It is our understanding
that the appraisals entail partial takings and both before and
after the taking methodology will be used to estimate the
Market Value in accordance with the Florida Statute concerning
possible condemnation.
We will be able to complete a full narrative appraisal on these
additional parcels for a fee of $1,500 for Parcel A and $500
for Parcel B. The reports will be included with the four other
parcels of Appraisal No. 11161.
Please let us know if you have any questions or require additional
information.
64
BOOK 72 F AGE 223
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Commis-
sioner Wheeler, the Board unanimously authorized the
firm of Armfield-Wagner to appraise the two parcels at
a fee not to exceed $2,000.
EXECUTION OF AMENDED MUDBOGGING LICENSE AGREEMENT
Administrator Balczun reviewed the following memos and went
over the recommended changes:
TO: Charles P. Balczun,
County Administrator
FROM: James W. Davis, P.E.
Public Works Director
SUBJECT: Execution of Mudbogging
DATE: April 13, 1988
Lease
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
The Parks and Recreation Committee met on March 10, 1988 and
approved the amended Mudbogging License. (attached) During the
Board of County Commissioners Meeting on March 15, 1988 Chairman
Bird reported the results of that meeting.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Staff recommends the execution of the attached license.
TO. James W. Davis, P.E. DATE: April 14, 1988 FILE:
Director of Public Works
SUBJECT: MUDBOGGING LICENSE -
INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS
Charles P. Balczun
FROM: county Administrator REFERENCES:
I have reviewed the proposed mudbogging license. I agree with its
intent and content except for paragraph number 7 which deals with
insurance.
I suggest the.following changes:
1. End second sentence after co-insured.
65
APR 2 1988
13001( "72 224
2. Add:
'Licensee shall furnish the County with two. (2)
copies of a certificate of insurance evidencing
policies required herein. Such certificate shall
specifically indicate that the insurance(s) required
include all extensions of coverage required, and,
that the insurance company or companies issuing such
insurance policies shall give the County not less
than thirty (30) days written notice in the event of
cancellation of, or material change to or in any of
the policies. Material change shall be defined to
include, but not be limited to endorsements to
policies made subsequent to execution of this
License Agreement.'
3. All certificates of insurance must specifically indicate.
reference to this License Agreement.
4. All Certificates of Insurance must be.original documents
or certified true copies thereof.
Please call if you have any questions.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by Commis-
sioner Eggert, the Board unanimously authorized
execution of the amended License Agreement with
Mike Loudermilk, Sr., to conduct mudbogging events
at the County Fairgrounds.
SAID LICENSE AGREEMENT IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF CLERK TO THE
BOARD.
REQUEST FOR PAVING 134TH ST. (BREVARD AVE.) ROSELAND
The Board reviewed memo from Public Works Director Davis
and attached chart:
APR 2 61988
IL
66
BOOK 7
-�,
r
225
TO:
Charles P. Balczun,
County Administrator
FROM: James W. Davis, P.E.
Public Works Directo
SUBJECT: Request for Paving of 134th Street
(Brevard Avenue) in Roseland
REF. LETTER: Michael R. Fisher to Board of County
dated Mar. 23, 1988
DATE: April 15, 1988
Commissioners
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
Approximately three years ago, the. St. Sebastian Catholic Church
was constructed at the south end of 134th Street(a County
maintained marl road). The Sebastian city limit line is along
the north property line of the church property. The church
traffic using 134th Street deteriorates the road conditions,
particularly after a rain. Mr. Fisher has written the County a
letter requesting a forced Special Assessment project be ini-
tiated by the County to pave 134th Street and that the church,
which is in Sebastian, be assessed.
Recently, the church's attorney recommended that the church chain
off the end of 134th Street only on weekdays, since thru traffic
has been going through the church property from 134th Street as a
short cut to US1. A proper barricade with reflectors should be
installed to reduce liability, particularly at night.
ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS
The alternatives are as follows:
1) Approve Mr. Fishers request,
Paving Project, and barricade
2) Deny the request and take no
RECOMMENDATION AND FUNDING
Staff recommends Alternative No. 1
APR 26 1988
n.
a
MAIM
Ern
ELM
BEM
la 44.
u
4(1).
APLE ST.) 79TH AVE.
R MEM
ZITEI
. MOM
•x--2 112110
9EECH ST.)
m
i
• 78TH 'CT
uo'
a
is
m
initiate a Special Assessment
the end of 134th Street.
action.
'i //�/_/\
�/
v
STREET
cult
U
wm:
SNaT SEBASTIAN
G.T•H?L1e. GHUR4H
. s
Low
y N
• j
•
'0,10110(V PIN
tt
1\
1P
:1N
u.J
K �i7a�
K.
I 0
N..1r
ijff
67
Ad
The Chairman noted that the recommendation is to pave by a
forced assessment, and his question is whether the end of 134th
Street will then be closed permanently or open on Sundays. He
understood the request is to pave it and then close it, but we
don't want the parishioners in here all upset if they can't get
to the church on Sunday.
Director Davis advised that staff's position is that if it
is closed, it should be closed in a proper manner with reflector
lights and a fixed barricade.
Discussion continued at length as to whether the desire was
to have it\paved and then barricaded only on weekdays, and
Administrator Balczun suggested'that maybe we can do both - have
a proper end treatment which can be locked during the week and
open on Sundays.
Director Davis pointed out there are several issues. One is
whether we can assess the church because the church is in the
Sebastian City limits and has a very small frontage on that
roadway. He, therefore, was not sure we could assess the church
a major portion unless it was on some basis of traffic impact,
which would require a study.
Chairman Scurlock noted that he got the impression the
church is willing to participate, but that they want the access
on Sundays. He believed this all should be resolved before the
Board gives authorization for any assessment.
Director Davis advised that he has talked with Father Joe,
and he does not want it closed seven days a week.
Commissioner Eggert inquired where the church touches on
134th St., and Director Davis explained that the church owns
Block 53 and the R/W that is cross -hatched, as well as the land
in Block 21 through to U.S.1.
Commissioner Bird believed the church would be assessed for
Block 53, and Director Davis pointed out that actually Block 53
fronts on Short Street.
APR 26 1988
68
NOIC
.227 «
Administrator Balczun believed any assessment would almost
have to be by contract since the church is within the Sebastian
city limits.
Commissioner Bird suggested we have staff meet with the
church.
Barbara Picard informed the Board that she owns property on
134th Street, and this is the first she has heard of this
request. Mrs. Picard stated that they never had any problem with
that street until the Catholic Street was built, and she felt
they should be responsible for the whole paving, or at least,$a
substantial portion of it. She personally felt that if the
street were closed off, the property owners would be very happy
with the dirt road.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Bird, the Board unanimously tabled further
discussion on the above matter until staff can work
on it further.
Director Davis asked if he is supposed to work with the
church and with the residents on the street.
Chairman Scurlock believed we first should go to the church
and see if they are really interested in having the street paved
and paying a substantial portion and then see what Mr. Fisher
will do since he is the one making the request. He believed the
residents themselves don't care about the paving so much, but
just would like to have it blocked off.
Director Davis asked if the Board's basic position is that
if the church does not consent to assist in the paving, then we
probably would barricade the street, and this was confirmed.
AWARD BID #426 - WATER & WASTEWASTER MATERIALS
The Board reviewed memo of Purchasing Manager Ambler:
69
AP 2 1988Boo 72 i sF 228
TO: CHARLES BALCZUN
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
FROM:. ! ��
- iS AMBLER, C.P.M.
PURCHASING MANAGER
DATE: APRIL 14, 1988 FILE:
SUBJECT: AWARD OF IRC BID
#426 WATER & WASTE
WATER MATERIALS
REFERENCES:
1. DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS:
Bids were received Wednesday, April 13, 1988, at 2:OOP.M.
for IRC BID #426.
5 Invitations to Bid were sent out, 3 Bids were received
This bid was advertised in the newspaper 3 times.
2. ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS:
This bid contains seven lots available for award. All seven
lots should be awarded to the lowest bidder. The seven lots
are follows:
A. Lot 1, Gate Valves: The lowest bid was submitted by
Ferguson Underground Supply at $6965.35. They are bidding
valves manufactured by American -Darling and will offer
a 51% Discount on the balance of their valve line. Payment
Terms are Net 30 Days. The prices contained in this Lot
represent a 25% reduction in prices for the Utilities
Department.
B. Lot 2, Bends and Tees: The lowest was submitted by Ferguson
Underground Supply at $2537.52. They are bidding Bends and
Tees manufactured by Tyler and will offer a 46.77 discount
on the balance of their fitting line.
The prices contained in this Lot represent a 107 reduction
in fitting prices for the Utilities Department.
C. Lot 3, Hydrants: This Lot contains options for 2 awards.
One award for American Darling Hydrants and One for Mueller
Hydrants.
The lowest bid for American Darling Hydrants was submitted by
Ferguson Underground at $6213.72. The balance of their hydrant
line is discounted - 47%. The lowest bid for Mueller Hydrants was
submitted by Davis Meter and Supply at $4555.60. The balance
of their Hydrant line is discounted 40%, parts are discounted
15%.
D. Lot 4, Manufactured Brass Goods: This Lot contains options
for 2 awards. One award for Ford Brass Goods and one award
for Brass Goods.
The lowest bid for Ford Brass Goods was submitted by Ferguson
Underground at a discount of 40%. The lowest bid for Mueller
Brass Goods was submitted by Hughes Supply at discount of
33%.
E. Lot 5, Brass Gate Valves: The lowest bid was submitted by
Ferguson Underground at $3087.80. They are bidding NIBCO
Valves and will offer a 41% discount on the balance of their
valve line.
APR 26 1988
L_
70' BOO 72
JE 29
F. Lot 6, Service Pipe: The low bid was submitted by Davis
Meter and Supply at $981.50. They are bidding Orangeburg
pipe and will offer a 48% discount on the balance of their
service pipe line.
G. Lot 7, Service Saddles and Repair Clamps: The low bid was
submitted by Ferguson Underground at $10,049.50. They are
bidding NAPPCO/BAKER materials and will offer a 39% discount
on the balance of their line. The prices contained in
this lot represent a 30% reduction in prices for the
Utilities Department.
3. RECOMMENDATION AND FUNDING:
APR
Staff recommends that we award IRC BID #426, to the vendors
listed. This bid has been discussed with the using staff
members of the Utilities Department and they concur.
Budgetary Funding has been confirmed for expenditure from Utilities
Services, Various Account Numbers.
Staff request authorization to proceed..
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Wheeler, the Board unanimously awarded
Bid #426 for water and wastewater materials as
recommended by staff in the above memo and per the
following Bid Tabulation:
•
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
1840 25th Street
. Vero Beach, Florida 32960t
•
BID TABULATION
-
�V
i IT
�`
c? .36
�j,�L
'V1U
\\•
\
BID NO. 426
DATE OF OPENING
April 13, 1988
•
BID TITLE WASTE & WASTEWATER MATERIALS
ITEM
NO. DESCRIPTION' UNIT PRICE
U CE
UNIT PRICE
v
gs)
UNIT PRI
LOT 1
"N3$
7
Q66
,19.67.
-
. -LOT
7%%c Court/ �cvv • A-4;42,,
A.,
LOT2 02 % O
4 y
-�eL
. z-
t
5632
.
57
-
Ili
c1
i
op
�T
t•
/CG -o✓1 3461.vc_fLM2
/S
a. CLQ) An 5 (..,,,,,.
LOT 3
mr Dl►114-MAA.)�..,
//3 ,,7'
LOT 4c.
6roa.r) ch
in.cualizA)
p 7
)
/
LOT 5
- .LOT 6 Ca/
••
JAZ % lJ 2
#4.00 0 #4.
��d
sa
t
-
/
met
72 P
nE
0 0 VIM) ....
230
RESOLUTION ABOLISHING JAIL "FAST-TRACK" & OVERSIGHT COMMITTEES
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bowman, SECONDED by Commis-
sioner Bird, the Board unanimously adopted Resolution
88-29 abolishing the Jail "Fast -Track" and the Jail
Oversight Committees.
RESOLUTION NO. 88-29
A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY,
FLORIDA, ABOLISHING THE JAIL "FAST-TRACK"
COMMITTEE AND THE JAIL OVERSIGHT
COMMITTEE.
WHEREAS, pursuant to an Order of the Court, the Board
of County Commissioners of Indian River County has
previously created a jail "Fast -Track" Committee and the
Jail Oversight Committee to address the problems of jail
overcrowding at county correctional facilities; and
WHEREAS, on April 5, :=1988, the Board of County
Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, by Resolution
88-21 established a Correctional Planning Committee as
required by Chapter 951.26, Florida Statutes, the purpose of
which is to assess the population status of all correctional
facilities owned by the County and formulate recommendations
-to assure that the authorized capacities of such facilities,
as established by the Department of Corrections, are not
exceeded and to develop a local correctional facilities plan
for future construction needs; and
WHEREAS, the "Fast -Track Committee" and the Jail
Oversight Committee are comprised of essentially the same
persons and for the same purposes as are required for the
County Correctional Planning Committee pursuant to Chapter
951.26, Florida Statutes;
APR 2 6 `988
I._______
72
BOOK 72 FACE 2:J
•
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that the
"Fast -Track Committee" and the Jail Oversight Committee are
hereby abolished and that the County Correctional Planning
Committee shall be designated to address all future matters
concerning jail overcrowding and future jail planning needs.
The foregoing resolution was offered by Commissioner
Bowman who moved its adoption. The
motion was seconded by Commissioner
and,
upon being put to a vote, the vote was as
Chairman Don C. Scurlock, Jr.
Vice - Chairman Gary C. Wheeler
Commissioner Richard N. Bird
Commissioner Margaret C. Bowman
Commissioner Carolyn K. Eggert
follows:
Aye_
Aye__
AyP
Aye__
The chairman thereupon declared the resolution duly
passed and adopted this 26th
day of April
, 1988.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
By ; c_
Don �
C. Scur oc
Chairman
CONTRACT FOR PURCHASE OF NORTH COUNTY LIBRARY SITE
County Attorney Vitunac reviewed the following:
73
APR 26 1988
BOO E:" 232
TO: Board of County Commissioners
FROM:
DATE:
RE:
Charles P. Vitunac, County Attorney
April 19, 1988
CONTRACT FOR PURCHASE OF NORTH
COUNTY LIBRARY SITE
BOARD MEETING - APRIL 26, 1988
The attached contract is presented to the Board of County
Commissioners for approval and execution by the Chairman.
It is the same basic contract which was previously approved
by the Board for the purchase of the North County Library
site from Sebastian Lakes Associates. The contract has been
changed slightly by adding additional property to expand the
land to be purchased to allow better site orientation. The
purchase price has been increased accordingly to $204,187.50
or an increase in the amount of $7,207.50. The survey of
the property has been approved by the County Surveyor,
Charles Cramer, and the Budget, Legal, and Administrative
staffs have approved the execution of the contract. Closing
will be within 21 days of the date of the contract. Funds
will be provided from interfund borrowing until the bond
issue is sold.
Attorney Vitunac pointed out that while the memo says the
purchase price is $204,187.50, there is also a donation of 60% of
that; so, the real purchase price will come to around $81,000.
For the record, the purchase price they want talked about is the
$200,000.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Bird, the Board unanimously approved the
contract with Sebastian Lakes Associates for the land
for the North County Library site and authorized the
signature of the Chairman.
(SAID CONTRACT IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF CLERK TO THE BOARD.)
74
APR 26 19
913 r•pr•[
DISCUSSION OF PERSONNEL CLASSIFICATION AND SALARY SURVEY STUDY
Chairman Scurlock noted that he had added to the agenda
today discussion to clarify the Board's position in regard to the
presentation made on the recent study done re personnel
classification and salaries. He believed after the presentation
made by the consultants that the mood of the Commissioners was
that the blue collar portion of it was somewhat acceptable, but
that there were some significant questions about the study. He
realized there has been a lot of reaction to the proposed plan,
and he just wanted to say that the Board has not accepted this as
the final document as it needs some fine tuning. Commissioner
Eggert believed it may need even more than fine tuning because
she is concerned not only about the philosophy used, but the job
evaluation levels.
Commissioner Bird asked how our contract reads if we start
making significant demands for additional data from the
consultant, and Administrator Balczun stated that he would have
to reread it.
Commissioner Eggert felt they would need to come and clarify
what they have done and why. She did not accept the premise that
has been handed us, which is that all government does it this
way; therefore, it is right.
Chairman Scurlock believed the market survey leaves plenty
of questions, and noted some analysis he has done of comparisons
he obtained by calling around clearly indicates there is a
discrepancy.
Discussion followed about a possible workshop, and Chairman
Scurlock noted that he met yesterday with Administrator Balczun
and Personnel Director Blankenship about some concerns. If you
look just at the white collar workers portion and look at -
positions, not people, he believed there are some glaring
inconsistencies, and he wants them to come here and justify how
they got to that point.
75
APR 2 s 7988
BOOK 72 Fr1UE 234
Commissioner Eggert noted that she was a little confused
between the workshop and talking with Mr. Blankenship afterward
because she was led to believe the consultants did it all and
then she particularly asked about the legal positions and got
from Mr. Blankenship the descriptions written up by the
consultants. Some of those were missing; and, in fact, all of
the legal department was missing, which she found odd, and then
she found that was done "in-house for practice." Mr.
Blankenship told her they had used the Legal Department as kind
of a training program, and she finds some major problems in the
legal area.
Director Blankenship entered the meeting, and the Chairman
informed him that after the workshop, which was the very first
time the Commissioners had an opportunity to see the study, the
general feeling seemed to be that they felt fairly comfortable
with the blue collar evaluation, that there are no glaring
deficiencies. However, after reviewing this over the weekend, it
seems there are significant questions to be answered and the
Board is sending a message to the people in the building that we
have not adopted anything and until these questions are resolved,
will not be making any decisions. The Board wants to get the
consultant back under some format to get their questions
answered.
Director Blankenship noted that the report is just a draft
and they have not even formally recommended it as yet. He noted
that he caught the tail end of Commissioner Eggert's remarks
about Personnel doing some of the job descriptions. He confirmed
that the consultant left a portion of the job descriptions to be
written by the Personnel staff as a training exercise. As a
part of the contract, our staff needed to be trained to maintain
the system. .It probably was not a propitious move on their part
to select that particular segment for training, and he wished
they had selected something easier, possibly something in the
clerical area, but be that as it may, that section was purposely
76
APR 26 198
BOOK 72 ?'r+uC 2 35
omitted for their staff to maintain. With respect to that, the
consultants forgot to bring and are forwarding to us computer
diskettes whereupon all the information on job descriptions is
contained.
Chairman Scurlock stated that one of the things he is very
interested in is the market survey. For instance, he looked at
plumbing inspectors and plans examiners and he checked with St.
Lucie and Palm Bay, etc. The recommendation in the plan is, in
fact, that there be a reduction of $1.50. Chairman Scurlock
felt this is a critical area where you have people making
inspections on homes, and we want to pay an adequate salary and
not put these people in a position where they can be accused of
"being on the take." He wanted more documentation in terms of
the market in this regard..
Director Blankenship noted that you must keep in mind that
we are dealing with raw data and unmanipulated data. He
explained the survey was driven by a composite of 20 "benchmark"
positions, which were a basis for creating a focal point from
which all other prices were driven, and then the point value
scores were another factor superimposed over them. He noted that
staff really hasn't had a chance to even look at that to see if
the culture of this organization can support that.
Chairman Scurlock felt that is where some of the real
questions arise because it looked like the same rules applied to
blue collar workers versus white collar workers in terms of a
hazard situation and those kind of elements, and he is not sure
that all really made sense.
Commissioner Eggert believed there are so-called "physica4"
hazards for a lawyer in terms of responsibility, liability, etc.,
and she did not see anything taking that into consideration in
that particular section. She continued that she had understood
all this was going to be put together and all these factors,
including market were going to be taken into consideration and
hopefully this study would be delivered to us as being complete
77
SPR 26 1988
aoor 72 u E 236
and in a condition for us to be able to adopt it and live with it
successfully in this county, knowing where we were, what we are
surrounded by, what the pressures of the job markets, etc. She
is disappointed that is not what we got.
Director Blankenship stated that he shared her disappoint-
ment. He noted that we are in a unique situation in our labor
market - we have a tough time recruiting.
Commissioner Eggert felt that should be part of the initial
philosophy going in.
Director Blankenship did not believe that was communicated.
He stated, however, that if this study would have been given to a
normal organization and a normal -job market, it could have been
implemented as delivered.
Commissioner Eggert commented if that "normal" one exists
some place.
Commissioner Bird commented that possibly the study made
somebody happy, but he certainly hasn't run into them.
The Chairman believed the Board has sent its message.
NORTH COUNTY FIRE
The Chairman announced that immediately upon adjournment,
the Board will reconvene acting as the District Board of Fire
Commissioners of the North Indian River County Fire District.
There being no further business, on Motion duly made,
seconded and carried, the Board adjourned at 11:18 o'clock A.M.
ATTEST:
Clerk
APR 2 C 1988
78
Chairman
NOY