HomeMy WebLinkAbout7/25/1989July 25, 1989
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, July
25, 1989, at 9:00 o'clock A.M. Present were Gary C. Wheeler,
Chairman; Carolyn K. Eggert, Vice Chairman; Richard N. Bird;
Margaret C. Bowman; and Don C. Scurlock, Jr. Also present were
James C. Chandler, County Administrator; Charles P. Vitunac,
Attorney to the Board of.County Commissioners; and Barbara
Bonnah, Deputy Clerk.
The Chairman called the meeting to order, and Commissioner
Eggert led the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag.
ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA/EMERGENCY ITEMS
There were none.
PRESENTATION OF RETIREMENT AWARD TO WILLIAM N. GARRETT OF THE
ROAD 8 BRIDGE DEPARTMENT
Chairman Wheeler presented the following Retirement Award to
William N. Garrett of the Road & Bridge Department:
BOOK 77 F GE 33
sQ, t ��y r!C i 17Na 1ec—a +,I413 A&a
. , ;stiff + ;• a? ' t' ` `...ra <<►
lit)tu11 �Mur�
�c7! Ilia to to ICC#tfU 111tlt
' j:
� lliQ?rt `1V.
Garrdt'+;
. � • ig tjerebLr }tre�ented #Ijt�a � ,. , ,"'` . � � ,.;;
rr !• :•: far otitotunbtng perforinilnce uulb fujtljfnl
' ` orrntce ill } f
+N " `� •`' ' 1: ,' a .i . S �i' I� '�
'•, ? 1 t V
y; ° 1an zvcr C011111t? r`'
IL
fltr ., 12_ S I gellrB of Berutce°
41.
e un tJjto` !21 ltlU
�•i.1 ��,� • 1,t. .I ,. � r �,'I, .. 1. 11 .,I�,r �./firth•})���,/
4„
WILLIAM N. GARRETT RETIREMENT
William N. Garrett anounced his retirement from Indian River
County effective July 21, 1989, and we wish to express our
appreciation for his outstanding performance on behalf of
local government.
William N. Garrett, originally from Birmingham, Alabama,
mored to the Vero Beach area in 1968.
William N. Garrett has been with Indian River County Refuse
since October 1976, and transferred to the Road and Bridge
Department in September, 1987, as a Maintenance Worker.
William N. Garrett has been a very devoted employee and has
always been willing to do what is asked of him whether or not
it was his job and will be missed very much by the Road and
Bridge Department.
The Board of County Commissioners expresses its deep appreciation
for the services William N. Garrett has performed on behalf of
Indian River County.
2
CONSENT AGENDA
A. Approval of Minutes of Special Meeting of 7/6/89
The Chairman asked if there were any additions or
corrections to the Minutes of the Special Meeting of July 6,
1989. There were none.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously approved
the Minutes of the Special Meeting of 7/6/89, as
written.
B. Report
`—deceived and placed on file in the Office of the Clerk to
the Board:
Traffic Violation Bureau, Special Trust Fund
Month of June, 1989 - $47,190.19
C. Report
eceived and placed on file in the Office of the Clerk to
the Board:
Report on Audit of IRC District School Board
for FY ended 6/30/88
D. Report
'The —ffoard reviewed the following memo dated 7/12/89:
MEMORANDUM
TO: Board of County Commissioners
FROM: Gene E. Morris, Tax Collector
SUBJECT: Occupational Licenses
DATE: July 12, 1989
Pursuant to Indian River County Ordinance No. 86-59, please be
informed that $2,674.25 was collected in occupational license taxes
during the month of June, representing the issuance of 114 licenses.
�tL �
Gene E. Morris, Tax Collector
17
3
JUL 2 5 199
Fr-
JUL 2 5199
BOOK /7 PAGE 386
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously accepted
the Report of Occupational License Taxes collected
during Month of.June, 1989.
E. IRC Bid 89-75, Thermoplastic Grinder
(Deleted prior to meeting)
F. IRC Bid 89-76, Traffic Signal Equipment
(Deleted prior to meeting
G. Release of County Liens
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 7/18/89:
TO: Board of County Commissioners
.0
FROM: .klea R. Keller, County Attorney's Office
DATE: July 18, 1989
RE: CONSENT AGENDA - BCC MEETING 7/25/89
RELEASE COUNTY LIENS
I have prepared the following lien releases and request the
Board authorize the Chairman to execute them:
Lot 214 of COUNTRYSIDE SOUTH, which is owned by
REALCOR-VERO BEACH ASSOCIATES
Lot 211 of COUNTRYSIDE SOUTH, which is owned by
REALCOR-VERO BEACH ASSOCIATES
Lot 9 of BREEZEWOOD PARK SUBDIVISION, in the
name of WALLACE A. SMITH
Lot 10 8 11 of BREEZEWOOD PARK SUBDIVISION, in the
name of MARGIE E. STEINHAUER
U.S.#1 (S. of Oslo Road), Tax I.D.
#30-33-40-00000-3000-00010.0, in the name of
PETER J. MENTEN
U.S.#1 (S. of Oslo Road), Tax I.D.
#30-33-40-00000-5000-00009.0, In the name of
PETER J. MENTEN
Lots 24 of DIXIE GARDENS SUBDIVISION, in the
name of JAMES T. VOCELLE, 111, et ox
4
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously authorized
the Chairman to execute the Releases listed above.
RELEASES ARE ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD
H. Release of Prepaid Asse.ssments - North County Sewer Project
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 7/18/89:
TO:_ Board of County Commissioners
FROM: ea Keller, County Attorney's Office
DATE: July 18, 1989
RE: CONSENT AGENDA - BCC MEETING 7/25/89
RELEASE OF PREPAID ASSESSMENTS
NORTH COUNTY SEWER PROJECT
This office has processed the following matters and requests
permission for the Chairman to execute the standard release
forms:
RELEASE OF 1
RELEASE OF 2
RELEASE OF 1
RELEASE OF 3
RELEASE OF 1
RELEASE OF 1
RELEASE OF 1
RELEASE OF 1
RELEASE OF
RELEASE OF
RELEASE OF
RELEASE OF
RELEASE OF
RELEASE OF
RELEASE OF
RELEASE OF
RELEASE OF
RELEASE OF
RELEASE OF
RELEASE OF
RELEASE OF
RELEASE OF
RELEASE OF
ERU
RUTH ROUNTREE MILLER
ERU's
GEORGE E 8 HAZEL V BECKWITH
ERU
WILLIAM A COLLINS
ERU's
FREDERICK 8 SUSAN P SMITH
ERU
CLINE H TUCKER & BETTY T WHITE
ERU
RICHARD E McNAMARA
ERU
RONALD 8 ISABEL LEWIS
ERU
MARGARET BENEDETTO 8
THEODORE E & MYRL THOREN
ERU
WILLIS A 8 MARY RITA WITTMAN
ERU
SHANG Y & SUN CHIN -MEN MA
ERU
MARION E 8 VIRGINIA M BOND
ERU
DONALD H 8 JEAN S S LUSHER
ERU
VIRGINIA W BLEITZ
ERU
DONALD S 8 ALICE C VICKERS
ERU's
CHARLES D 8 VERNIE SEMBLER
ERU
EMILY SKOK
ERU
DOROTHY H MILLER
ERU
HANS E TOENSFELDT
ERU
RALPHAEL 8 EMELDA BECHARD
ERU
JOSEPH E DOROTHY N FUCHS JR
ERU
WILLIAM J 8 JANET C CROSS
ERU
STANLEY 8 MILDRED SYREK
ERU
SAM 8 JOSEPHINE ROMANO 8
JOSEPH K 8 JANET ROMANO
5 �OC1K 17 PACc J37
J U L 2 b 1989
RELEASE
OF
1
ERU
BRUCE E s LOIS E BONNELL
RELEASE
OF
1
ERU
WILLIAN s EMILY DEGRAFF
RELEASE
OF
1
ERU
KEITH Q PUGH
RELEASE
OF
1
ERU
GEORGE W s FRANCES C POWER
RELEASE
OF
1
ERU
ELEANOR C SHERER
RELEASE
OF
1
ERU
JOHN s DORIS MAHALICK
RELEASE
OF
1
ERU
MADONNA YATES
RELEASE
OF
1
ERU
D H s FRANCES DANSARD
RELEASE
OF
1
ERU
LEWIS R s MARY ANGIE
RELEASE
OF
1
ERU
JOHN J s HELEN SCHUELER
RELEASE
OF
1
ERU
OMER L s ANITA C RICHEY
RELEASE
OF
1
ERU
JOHN E s NELIA D MONTAGNE
RELEASE
OF
1
ERU
ROBERT s HELEN HOWSER
RELEASE
OF
1
ERU
ELLSWORTH C s BETTY THOMPSON.
RELEASE
OF
2
ERU's
HARRY GITELES
RELEASE
OF
1
ERU
WILLIAM E s RUTH E EYRE JR
RELEASE
OF
1
ERU
R s W CONSTRUCTION CO INC
RELEASE
OF
1
ERU
ALEXANDER J s MARY PREVELIGE
RELEASE
OF
1
ERU
DAVID J s JOYCE V THERRIEN
RELEASE
OF
1
ERU
MILDRED RUTH s NORMAN LOCHREN
RELEASE
OF
1
ERU
FREDERICK J s CAROLINE SEWELL
RELEASE
OF
1
ERU
ROBERT F s BARBARA SKILTON
RELEASE
OF
1
ERU
JAMES C HOXSEY
RELEASE
OF
1
ERU
DON A s FLORENCE E MACLEAN
RELEASE
OF
1
ERU
RUSSELL C s ELEANOR ANDERSON
RELEASE
OF
1
ERU
REATA S BALLINGER s
SANDRA PETERSON
RELEASE
OF
1
ERU
PAUL D s BARBARA A KRINSKY
RELEASE
OF
1
ERU
JOHN L s MARY C MCLELLAN
RELEASE
OF
1
ERU
GRANT s RUTH ORNDORFF
RELEASE
OF
1
ERU
ANTHONY M CHINNICI
RELEASE
OF
2
ERU's
EUGENE s SHIRELY MAHALICK
RELEASE
OF
1
ERU
CHARLES s EILEEN TUCH
RELEASE
OF
2
ERU's
A MOMENTS NOTICE HEALTH CARE
RELEASE
OF
1
ERU
EDITH KLEMENS
RELEASE
OF
1
ERU
ROBERT LEE SIBLEY
RELEASE
OF
1
ERU
STELLA GARDNER
RELEASE
OF
2
ERU's
HARRY GITELES
RELEASE
OF
1
ERU
JANET ESTELLE WARRINGTON
RELEASE
OF
1
ERU
JOSEPH BURD s EVELYNA KUNTZ
RELEASE
OF
1
ERU
JESSE STENGER
RELEASE
OF
13
ERU's
EDWARD s EMMA MAY STRNAD
RELEASE
OF
1
ERU
RENO B s MARION B LONG
RELEASE
OF
1
ERU
WABASSO WOMANS CLUB INC
RELEASE
OF
1
ERU
EUGENE G s BERNICE M GUNDERSON
RELEASE
OF
1
ERU
HENRY s MARY STEINMETZ
RELEASE
OF
1
ERU
HAROLD R s MARY M MASTERS
RELEASE
OF
1
ERU
GERTRUDE D WORTH
RELEASE
OF
1
ERU
EDWARD CHOLEWINSKI
RELEASE
OF
5
ERU's
THOMAS V DAILY
RELEASE
OF
30
ERU's
ROGER M s WAUNETA B SKILLMAN
RELEASE
OF
1
ERU
DOUBLE M PROPERTIES
RELEASE
OF
1
ERU
LAWRENCE s WINIFRED M BUILOCK
RELEASE
OF
1
ERU
EDWIN B s RUBY WHITNEY
RELEASE
OF
4
ERU's
MAGDALEN STORCH
RELEASE
OF
1
ERU
DOROTHY C s HARRY F FISHER JR
RELEASE
OF
1
ERU
GERALDINE s JOSEPH G BROCK JR
RELEASE
OF
1
ERU
FLA FED SAVINGS s LOAN ASSOC
� 6 a
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously authorized
the Chairman to execute the Releases listed above.
RELEASES ARE ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD
INTRODUCTION OF DISTRICT FORESTER
The Board reviewed the following letter dated 7/21/89:
� p p
�9
STATE OF FLORIDA 060 FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE E CONSUMER SERVICES
tb
041?
DOYLE CONNER, COMMISSIONER * 3125 CONNER BLVD. TALLAHASSEE 32399-1650 J 7 q
1720
June 21, 1989
Mr. James E. Chandler
Indian River County Administrator
Indian River County Courthouse
P.O. Box 1028
Vero Beach, FL. 32960
Dear Mr. Chandler:
I would like to be placed on the next agenda of the Indian River
County Commission.
As the new District Forester for the area, I would like to reintroduce
myself to the County Commissioners.
I had served Indian River County and City of Vero Beach as the Urban
Forester from March 1980 to October 1984.
I look forward to working with the County again and to increase the
quantity and quality of service we provide.
Please contact me with any questions.
Sincerely,
Paul Palmiotto, District Forester
Florida Division of Forestry
813/763-2191
7 Rcc� 77 [aArE jJ
JUL 0651989
J U L 2 5 1989 ROOK 7 f,1 E 96
Paul Palmiotto, former Urban Forester for Indian River
County and the City of Vero Beach, expressed his pleasure in
returning to this area as the District Forester and offered his
assistance in any way possible.
Commissioner Bowman felt everyone was interested in the
smoke management program.
GRAND HARBOR BEACH CLUB MEMBERSHIP RESTRICTIONS
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 7/21/89:
TO: James E. Chandler
County Administrator
DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE:
Robert M. Keating, AICP
Community -Development Director
THROUGH: Stan Boli$ AICP
Chief, Current Development
FROM: Stan Boling, AICP
Chief, Current Development
DATE: July 21, 1989
SUBJECT: GRAND HARBOR BEACH CLUB MEMBERSHIP RESTRICTIONS
It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal
consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at its regular
meeting of July 25, 1989.
BACKGROUND:
On December 8, 1987, the Board of County Commissioners granted
conditional special exception approval for the Grand Harbor Beach
Club facility with one of the conditions involving the
establishment of recorded covenants restricting membership and use
of the club facilities (see attachment #2). Said covenants are to
be approved and recorded prior to issuance of a Certificate of
Occupancy for the project. The project is now essentially
complete.
The developer has submitted covenant and restriction documents in
order to meet the condition placed upon the project approval.
Planning and Attorney's Office staff have reviewed the proposed
restrictions (see attachment #3) and have not approved what is
being proposed. The proposed covenants and restrictions do not
comply with the stated intentions of the initial beach club
developer. It appears to staff that the Board's decision to
approve the project conditionally may have been based upon state-
ments made by the initial developer which are not incorporated
into the restrictions now proposed by the current project develop -
8
Therefore, the Board needs to determine if, in fact, the re-
strictions inow proposed by the developer (see attachment #4) meet
the intent
on of the Board's discussion and motion to approve the
project and restrict membership and facility use.
ANALYSIS:
Staff reviewed an initial set of covenants and restrictions and
responded to this proposal with a discrepancy letter from both the
Attorney's Office and the Planning Department. (see attachment
#3). Subsequently, the restrictions were -revised (see attachment
#4 received by staff on July 19th) and reviewed by staff. The
major issue involved goes to the heart of the Board's concerns
about the use of the facility by the general public: a public
"commercial -like" use versus a use deemed to be accessory to The
Shores, Baytree, and Grand Harbor residential projects.
The developer is proposing annual memberships available to persons
not residing in any of the residential projects for the period of
time until the projects are built -out. A "cap" of 2,475
memberships (2,400 memberships plus 75 "founder", gratis member-
ships) is proposed.
In the opinion of planning staff, the issue of prohibiting "tran-
sient" memberships is addressed by the proposed restrictions
requirement that beach club members must also be Grand Harbor Club
or River Club members. The proposed 2,475 memberships is in
accordance with comments made and discussed at the Board meeting
at which the project was conditionally approved. Allowing (prior
to project build out) annual memberships to non -project residents
does not practically affect the project's use or impact: a
maximum of 2,475 non -project members would have no significantly
greater impact than a maximum of 2,475 resident members, since the
Beach Club site is not located within any of the residential
projects.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners make a
determination as to whether or not the condition, relating to
membership restriction, attached to the Grand Harbor Beach Club
special exception use approval allows for non -project resident
memberships prior to buildout of residential projects.
Assistant County Attorney William Collins recalled that when
the Board granted conditional special exception approval for the
Beach Club facility last December, one of the conditions was that
membership restrictions be developed to insure that it would
function as an accessory to a residential project rather than a
commercial -type facility. In reviewing the membership
restrictions drafted by the applicant, he didn't feel that he
could sign off, because his understanding in reading through the
Minutes of that meeting was that it was the intent that the club
would be for the use of the residents of Grand Harbor, Bay Tree
and The Shores.
� �
X999 9 BO�.
JULL 2 bOK F',°:; .�:��
I
J U L
25- `1989
ma
77 f'., E .. 2
However,
it has been brought up that the actual Motion
limited
the club to the total number of owners in Grand Harbor, Bay Tree
and The Shores. The applicant feels that the Motion is open to
interpretation and is asking the Board for some consideration
that annual memberships be allowed to non-residents until such
time as the project is built. They also are asking for 75
founder memberships, or gratuitous memberships, that they can
give to non-residents. Attorney Collins stated that he doesn't
feel comfortable recording membership restrictions that allow
non-residents to use the club, and asked the Board for an
interpretation on this matter after they have heard from the
applicant.
Attorney Gary Brandenburg, representing Grand Harbor,
recalled that when the Board granted the special exception for
the beach club facility last December, they wanted to make sure
that the club facility would never in the future have the
potential to turn into what the Board viewed as a commercial
establishment. He advised that they have set forth a series of
deed restrictions that they believe accomplishes that and is
consistent with the Board's original desire. First, it is very
clear in the deed restrictions that the club is for private use
only. Secondly, there is no such thing as a separate beach club
membership. The only people who can use the beach club are
members of the Grand Harbor Club or the River Club, and they have
to go through the full application process to become a member, of
those clubs. Initially, the Board gave approval for memberships
in the amount of approved units in the project, which was 3400.
However, the developer has indicated in the interim that he
probably will not build that many units in Grand Harbor, and has
agreed to limit the number of memberships that would be allowable
for the beach club facility to 2475, or the actual number of
actual units built in those 3 communities, plus the 75 founder
memberships. In addition, it is clear from the definition of the
memberships that there are no transient memberships allowed.
10
Memberships are given out on the basis of a membership year, and
that is clearly defined in the deed restrictions.
Attorney Brandenburg felt the only area of interpretation
here is how do you phase in a development like this, and how do
you get a club going to begin with. In order to do that most
clubs around the country offer membership to non-residents during
the period of time that the club facilities are built but the
actual units are not sold out. So, as more units are sold and
more people buy into equity memberships, the annual memberships
eventually fade off when all the units are sold. This gives the
ability to offer services to the existing residents and it
provides an opportunity for the residents of the community to
enjoy the club activities before the phase-in period. That is
the basis for the request today, and they feel it is in keeping
with the Board's initial approval. Attorney Brandenburg
emphasized that his clients feel that the project needs this type
of an annual membership to be successful, and they respectfully
request the Board to consider it and allow them to proceed with
their plans.
Commissioner Scurlock felt that from the beginning this
Commission wanted this project to be successful because it is an
upscale community and would be a great economic benefit to this
area. He noted that this project has paid significant
transportation impact fees, which will help fund the cost of the
extension of Indian River Boulevard. In addition, a lot of what
happened in the $9.2 -million bond issue on the Gifford project is
really the result of Grand Harbor paying their water and sewer
impact fees up front. From that standpoint alone, he has a
receptive attitude to do what we can to try to help this project
continue to be successful.
Commissioner Eggert asked if there is a limit in mind as to
the number of non -owner memberships during the first few years,
and Commissioner Scurlock asked if it is true that the hotel
complex is now out of the plan.
�r
P.0Cl 17GAur i��JeB
11
U U L 2 5 1989
L
J U L 2 5 M9 !BOOK 77 r {, .391
John Fleming, chief executive officer of River Harbor, Inc.,
spoke from his seat in the audience and advised that Grand Harbor
wants it out of the plan, but at this moment, it is still in.
Commissioner Scurlock felt that in terms of a transient
nature, the hotel would have more of an impact than any other
element.
Chairman Wheeler noted that the Minutes of that meeting show
that the developer was talking about 2200 units including the
hotel or motel.
Commissioner Bird understood the need for interim
memberships, and pointed out that the annual memberships will
have to go through the standard application approval process. He
felt this would be acceptable as long as they are handled in such
a way that it does provide a private membership and that it is
not one of these shams where you walk up to the door as a
stranger and for $1.00 they sell you a membership card.
Commissioner Bird noted another limiting factor is that the Beach
Club dining room is being designed with a maximum seating
capacity of 75, which is relatively small.
Attorney Brandenburg felt it is fair to say that the project
has gone through some troubled times, but it is now under new
management and they want very much to be good neighbors to the
county. They are going to have to come back to the county in the
future, and he could guarantee that they are not going to do
anything with this membership package that would interfere with
their relationship with the county.
Mr. Fleming explained that there is a full golf/tennis
membership, which is about $1,500 a year; a sportsman's
membership, which allows golf and tennis at certain times; and a
social membership which is approximately $350 and you can't do
anything else but eat.
12
V
Chairman Wheeler felt the substantial fee for the social
membership is a safeguard against people coming in and paying a
nominal membership fee for beach club privileges.
Mr. Fleming emphasized that a nominal membership fee of that
type would only hurt the project.
Attorney Collins explained that the Motion made in the
December meeting limited the membership to the number of unit
owners in the 3 projects, and the developers have reduced that to
2475 units. He just needed an interpretation of when the Board
said total number of unit owners, they didn't mean to preclude
non-residents up until the time there were 2400 unit owners. If,
in fact, it was the Board's intention that only residents can use
the Beach Club, then he felt that what they have submitted
providing for annual memberships is not appropriate and that we
would have to go back through a special exception hearing to
modify that condition.' The Motion itself is open to
interpretation.
Commissioner Scurlock asked how the Motion should be worded
to accomplish the purpose, and Attorney Collins suggested the
wording used by Commissioner Scurlock in the following Motion.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by
Commissioner Eggert, the Board unanimously accepted the
Declaration of Deed Restrictions as submitted by Grand
Harbor providing for non-resident memberships until
such time as the project is built out.
PUBLIC HEARING - ORDINANCE CLARIFYING THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION
CRITERIA RELATING TO USED CAR DEALERSHIPS
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:
FF,- I
AL 2 5 1999 POOK 77
1'
VERO BEACH PRESS-JOUkNAL
Published Daily
Vero Beach, Indian River Codnty, Florida
COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER: STATE OF FLORIDA
Beforb 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 BBeaacch in Indian River County. Florida; that,the attached copy of advertisement, being
in the matter of'l
_ 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; and affiant further says that he has neither paid nor promised any person, firm
or corporation any discount, rebate. commission or refund for he purpose of securing this
advertisement for publication in the said newspaper..
Sworn to and subscribed before me thisr6lP of D. 19
(Business Manager)
-(r Ter ..t i donly.
(SEAL) Florida)_
(
wow 9_*"7ijurrA ,1998
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING V
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Board of
County Commissioners of Indian River County,
Florida, shall hold a public hearing at which par-
ties in Interest and citizens shall have an oppor-
tunity to be heard, in the County Commission
Chambers at the County Administration Build -
Ing, located at 1840 25th Street, Vero Beach,
Florida, on Tuesday, July 25, 1989 at 9:05 a.m.
to consider the adoption of an Ordinance enti-
tled:
AN ORDINANCE OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY,
FLORIDA, AMENDING SECTION 25.1, REGULA-
TIONS FOR SPECIFIC LAND USES, OF APPEN-
DIX A, ZONING OF THE CODE OF LAWS AND
ORDINANCES; AMENDING SECTION 25.1 (v)
TO CLARIFY THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION C I-
TERIA RELATING TO USED CAR DEALER-
SHIPS, AND PROVIDING FOR THE REPEAL OF
CONFLICTING PROVISIONS, CODIFICATION
DATE, SEVERABILITY AND EFFECTIVE DATE.
A copy of the proposed Ordinance will be
available at the Planning Department office on
the second floor of the County Administration
Building after July 5,1989.
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 evi-
dence upon which the appeal will be based.
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
BY -s- GARY WHEELER, CHAIRMAN
June 30,1989
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 6/26/89:
TO: James E. Chandler
County Administrator
DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE:
R ert M. a t:rqgf P
Community Developme Director
,
THROUGH: Stan Boling, AICP
Chief, Current D elopment
FROM: John W. McCoy
Staff Planner, Current Development
DATE: June 26, 1989
SUBJECT: JOHN TANASEIS REQUEST TO AMEND SECTION 25.1 OF THE
ZONING CODE (SPECIFIC LAND USE REGULATIONS FOR USED CAR
DEALERSHIPS)
It is 'requested
consideration by
meeting of July
that the data herein presented be given formal
the Board of County Commissioners at its regular
25, 1989.
14
M M
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS:
Carter and Associates, as agents for John C. Tanase, recently made
application for special exception and site plan approval for a
used car dealership to be located at 1205 South U.S. #1, between
U.S. #1 and the FEC railroad. The Planning and Zoning Commission
recommended approval of the used car dealership to the Board of
County Commissioners with the condition that an ordinance amend-
ment be passed. Subsequently, on June 27, 1989, the Board of
County Commissioners approved the special exception use and
project design subject to the revised ordinance as proposed.
During the project review process there were some differing
viewpoints among staff over how certain special exception criteria
should be applied._ It was the opinion of the Assistant County
Attorney that the Tanase site plan application did not specifical-
ly meet all of the special exception criteria as literally
set -forth in the code. Yet, the Planning staff felt this applica-
tion was in keeping with the intent of the special exception
criteria.
Subsequently, the applicant has followed-up his conditionally
approved site plan with this request to amend the special excep-
tion criteria regarding used car sales. This amendment would
permit the design submitted by the applicant and approved subject
to the adoption of this proposed ordinance.
The Planning and Zoning Commission voted 6 to 1 to recommend
approval of the proposed ordinance, with safety being cited as the
reason for the negative vote (See Attachment #2).
ANALYSIS:
The proposed amendment would change the administrative permit
(CH -zoning district) and the special exception (CG -zoning dis-
trict) criteria by:
1. Allowing used car sales offices to be located as close
as 10' from the FEC right of way (average FEC
right-of-way width is 100'), and
2. allowing vehicular display areas (cars for sale) to come
within 10' of a property line.
Presently the ordinance uses the terms "vehicular sales and
off-street parking areas", "vehicular sales area or structure",
"vehicular sales areas", and "designated sales area". The terms
tend to overlap which creates confusion in sorting -out which
criterion applies to which term. This confusion was a fundamental
cause of the differing viewpoints among staff.
This ordinance amendment will clarify the intent and application
of the ordinance by simplifying and coordinating the terms used
and explicitly defining the meaning of the terms in the body of
the ordinance.
The changes can be seen in the following comparison of the exist-
ing and proposed criteria.
EXISTING: 2. All vehicular sales and off-street parking areas
shall have paved surfaces which meet the
standards of Section 24 (f) (1) or (2).
�J U L 2 ., 15
BOOK 7 ffi
Fr- I
,JUL 2 b 1989
Boor
PROPOSED: 2. All vehicular display areas and off-street parking
areas shall have paved surfaces which meet the
standards of Section 24 (f) (1) or (2). For the
purpose of this ordinance, vehicular display areas
shall be paved areas where vehicles for sale are on
display. Off-street parking areas shall be paved
areas maintained for customer and employee parking._
EXISTING: 3. No vehicular sales area or structure shall be
located closer than twenty-five (25) feet to any
property line.
PROPOSED: 3. No vehicular sales office (building) shall be
located closer than twenty-five (25) feet to any
property line except any property line that is
abutting a railroad right-of-way in which case the
structure shall not be located closer than ten (10)
feet. Also, no vehicular display areas shall be
located closer than ten (10) feet to any property
EXISTING: 4. The site shall provide for separation of vehicular
sales areas and off-street parking areas.
PROPOSED: 4. The site shall provide for separation of vehicular
display areas and off-street parking areas.
EXISTING: 5. All designated sales'areas shall provide for a
minimum of three hundred (300) square feet per
vehicle. Drives and maneuvering areas shall be
designed to permit convenient on-site maneuvering
of the vehicles.
PROPOSED: 5. All designated vehicular display areas* shall
provide for a minimum of three hundred (300) square
feet per vehicle. Drives and maneuvering areas
shall be designed to permit convenient on-site
maneuvering of the vehicles.
*(Paved areas where vehicles are displayed.)
The major substantive changes occur in the proposed #3 criterion.
The intent of the existing #3 criterion was to buffer the used car
dealership from uses on adjacent properties and road
rights-of-way, but not as a setback from the :..railroad
right-of-way. The staff feels there would be no problem with
allowing a car sales office to be constructed within 10' of the
railroad right-of-way. In the CH (Heavy Commercial) and IL (Light
Industrial) districts there is no setback along the FEC railroad
right-of-way.
The other substantive change would allow vehicular display areas
to come within 10' of any property line. It could be interpreted
from the existing criterion that no paving could be located within
25' of any property line. The proposed change is less restrictive
than the "blanket" existing 25' setback criterion but is also
slightly more restrictive than the criteria for standard commer-
cial or residential parking lot designs. All parking lots are
required to have a 10 foot landscape strip between a right-of-way
and the parking lot, and a 4' landscape strip between a parking
lot and an adjoining property line. This revised criterion would
create a 10' landscape strip for display areas abutting a property
line. The staff feels the 10' setback from any property line to a
display area is an adequate separation distance.
16
- W M
In conclusion, this ordinance amendment will clarify the applica-
tion of the ordinance for all staff members and applicants. The
proposed changes to the administrative permit (CH) and special
exception (CG) criteria uphold the purpose and intent of making
these uses subject to conditional approval and thereby preventing
a proliferation of"fly-by-night" used car dealerships from setting
up business on "postage stamp" lots along U.S. #1, while enabling
applicants whose property borders the FEC railroad to better use
their land.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners approve
the attached ordinance amendments.
Chairman Wheeler opened the Public Hearing, and asked if
anyone wished to be heard in this matter.
Dean Luethje of Carter & Associates, engineers of the site
plan for the used car dealership to be located on south U.S. #1
between U.S. #1 and the FEC railroad, stated he would be glad to
answer any questions the Board may have on this matter. There
were none.
There being no others who wished to be heard in this matter,
the Chairman closed the Public Hearing.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by
Commissioner Eggert, the Board unanimously adopted
Ordinance 89-22, modifying the special exception
criteria for used car dealerships.
77�
17 EUOK FAGr. a�f�E,
JUL
Ordinance 89- 22
BOOK 77 F,U QQ
AN ORDINANCE OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA AMENDING SECTION
25.1 REGULATIONS FOR SPECIFIC LAND USES, OF APPENDIX A, ZONING, OF
THE CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES; AMENDING SECTION 25.1(V)(3) TO
MODIFY THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION CRITERIA FOR USED CAR DEALERSHIPS,
AND PROVIDING FOR THE REPEAL OF CONFLICTING PROVISIONS, CODIFICA-
TION DATE SEVERABILITY AND EFFECTIVE DATE.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMIS-
SIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, THAT:
PART 1
Section 25.1(v)(3) regulations for specific land uses, of
Appendix A, zoning, of the code of laws and ordinances of Indian
River County is hereby amended as follows:
(3) Used vehicle sales (Administrative Permit and Special
Exception).
a. Districts requiring administrative permit: Used
vehicle sales shall be allowed within a CH District
upon approval of an administrative permit as
provided in Section 25.2 and after meeting the
requirements defined below.
b. Districts requiring special exception: Used
vehicle sales may be allowed within a CG District
upon receiving approval as a special exception as
provided in Section 25.3 and after meeting the
requirements defined below.
C. Additional information requirements: A site plan
meeting all of the requirements of Section 23 which
shows the approximate location and maximum number
of automobiles to be accommodated on the site.
d. Criteria for used vehicle sales:
1. no such establishment shall be permitted on a
lot of record having less than ten thousand
(10,000) square feet in a CG District or
fifteen thousand (15,000) square feet in a CH
District.
XXX/k, AAAAAAf//slaAlelslAW/0fff09t009/&tAQk,4//alrlela/s,//Ovey1</XAt0
0 At 0 91 / A/ikkAAAA/ *AWg4V Af9r9l / f X 0 / AAA11,40,0/ AV 1V9V-':V9fV / 10 X f r X Z
WWI
2. All outdoor vehicular display areas and off-street parking
areas shall have paved surfaces which meet the standards of
Section 24 (f)(1) or (2)N For the purpose of this ordinance,
vehicular display areas shall be paved areas where vehicles
for sale are on display. Off-street parking _areas shall be
paved areas maintained for customer and employee parking.
3. No vehicular sales office (building) shall be located closer
than twenty- five (25) _feet to any property line _except any
property_ line_ that is abutting railroad right-of-way in which
case the _structure _shall not be located closer than ten (10)
feet.—_Also, no vehicular display areas shall be located
closer than ten (10) feet to any property line.
CODING: Words in W160XiYXt094X type are deletions from existing
law; words underlined are additions.
18
Ordinance 89- 22
/MON /AA16AtA;EtAAIMr1,kkkV,6AAbh-//$0X¢0
4. The site —shall provide for_ separation_ of vehicular display
areas and—off-street parking areas. --
//AXX/AA;h�//Vq(YV,4/, .&,bAA//qVYIV:V/k)fj6A AAI/flqlij/A/AyW /of
X)WOI AYWcYilWcY/AAAAd//V411,(Y9(/ff/efeA//L6At//YW:VdYdI/1,b*AkkA//01491
1491401AY0tI pig/ /1YVq11YVI/S faW/)6h//d9rVYslV(9rdImc/Ii6ht ul/¢014Y014101(y
5. All designated outdoor vehicular display areas* shallprovide
for a minimum of three hundred (300) square feet per vehicle.
Drives and maneuvering areas shall be designed to permit
convenient on-site maneuvering of the vehicles.
*(Paved areas where vehicles are displayed.)
PART 2
REPEAL OF CONFLICTING PROVISIONS
All previous ordinances, resolutions, or motions of the Board
of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, which
conflict with the provision of this ordinance are hereby repealed
to the extent of such conflict. All Special Acts of the legisla-
ture applying only to the unincorporated portion of Indian River
County and which conflict with the provision of this ordinance are
hereby repealed to the extent of such conflict.
PART 3
CODIFICATION
The provisions of this ordinance shall be incorporated into
the County code and the word "Ordinance" may be changed to "sec-
tion", "article", or other appropriate word, and the sections of
this.ordinance may be renumbered or relettered to accomplish such
intentions.
PART 4
SEVERABILITY
If any section, part of a sentence, paragraph, phrase or word
of this ordinance is for any reason held to be unconstitutional,
inoperative or void, such holdings shall not affect the remaining
portions hereof and it shall be construed to have been the legis-
lative intent to pass this ordinance without such unconstitution-
al, invalid or inoperative part.
PART 5
EFFECTIVE DATE
The provisions of this ordinance shall become effective upon
receipt from the Florida Secretary of State of official acknowl-
edgement that this ordinance has been filed with the Department of
State.
CODING: Words in type are deletions from existing
law; words underlined are additions.
JUL 2 5 1989 19 RUCK 17 F'a c 401
L_
i U L ) � �
Approved
Indian River
1989.
P-' A 67)
BOOK �7 P"GE ` 06s�
Ordinance 89- 22
and adopted by the Board of County Commissioners of
County of this N 25th _ day of yJuly ,
This ordinance was advertised in the Vero Beach Press -Journal
on the 30th day of __June__—, 1989 for a public hearing to
be held on the _25_th_ _ day of ___jUlx_ _ 1989, at
which time it was woved for adoption by Commissioner
Scurlock , and seconded by Commissioner
-Egger and adopted by the following vote:
Chairman Gary C. Wheeler Aye
Vice Chairman Carolyn K. Eggert _Aye_
Commissioner Richard N. Bird Aye
Commissioner Margaret C. Bowman Aye
Commissioner Don C. Scurlock, Jr.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
B Y
Gary c eeler, Chairman
ATTEST BY _ _ e_0
eK B rto , C erk
PUBLIC HEARING - INDIAN RIVER BEND CORPORATION'S REQUEST FOR
CONCEPTUAL PRD APPROVAL FOR "MOON RIVER", A PLANNED RESIDENTIAL
DEVELOPMENT
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:
20
VE90 BEACH PRESS4011.11WAL
Published Daily
Vero Beach, Indian River Codnty, 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 &e
in the _—_ — _ .__— Court, was pub -
OV
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; 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 this _3&__(stay f A.9N z
>. 1,r (Business Manager)
(CI ian RiMCounty,-Florida)-
(SEAL)
N-ary "111. Awa of Find®
Mr a I Wbm Jiutrs ao, Heats
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
Notice of hearing to consider the granting of
specialexception approval for a Planned Resi-
dential Development. The subject property, Is
present y owned by Indian River Bend Corpora-
tion and is located at 9025 State Road A -1-A.
The subject property Isng in portions of Gov-
ernment lots 4,5,6 and V of Section 26, Town-
ship 31 South, Range 39 East, Indian River
County, Florida.
A public hearing at which parties In interest
and citizens shall have an opportunity to be
heard, will be held by the Board of County Com-
missioners in the County Commission Chambers
1Administration Building,
5th the County
Vero Beach. FloridaF oon locatedat
day. July 25, 1989 at 9:05 a.m.
Anyone who me y wish to appeal any decision
which may be made at this meeting will need to
ensure that a verbatim record of the proceed-
ings Is made, which Includes testimony and evi-
dence upon which the appeal is based.
INDIAN RIVgR COUNTY
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 'I
BY -s -GARY WHEELER, CHAIRMAN
June 30,1989
Stan Boling, Chief of Current Development, reviewed the
following staff recommendation for approval with 7 conditions:
TO: James E. Chandler
County Administrator
DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE:
Robert M. Keat g, CP
Community Development Director
4_�
THROUGH: Stan Boling,`AICP
Chief, Current Development
FROM: John W. McCoy1I�►
Staff Planner,/CurrInt Development
DATE: June 29, 1989
SUBJECT: INDIAN RIVER BEND CORPORATION'S REQUEST FOR CONCEPTUAL
PRD APPROVAL FOR "MOON RIVER", A PLANNED RESIDENTIAL
DEVELOPMENT
It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal
consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at its regular
meeting of July 25, 1989.
JUL 2 `98-
ROG �1 F'A,`r. W
J U L 2 5 189 {(
PrK �� Fil3�
,�40
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT AND LOCATION:
Mouriz, Salazar and Associates Inc. has submitted an application
on behalf of the Indian River Bend Corporation to receive concep-
tual PRD approval for "Moon River", a 442 unit planned residential
development. [The applicant has also submitted and staff is in
the process of reviewing a preliminary PRD plan covering most of
the project. However, only the conceptual plan is to be con-
sidered at this time]. The development was previously known as
the Coralstone Club and is located just north of Sea Oaks between
A.I.A. and the Indian River at 9025 S.R. A.I.A.
At its June 22, 1989 meeting, the Planning and Zoning Commission
voted unanimously to recommend the Board of County Commissioners
conditionally approve the PRD special exception use (See Attach-
ment W.
The approval steps in the PRD process are as follows:
Approval Needed Reviewing Body
1. Concept Plan/Special Exception P&ZC and B.C.C.
2. Preliminary PRD P&ZC
3. Land Development Permits Staff
4. Final PRD (plat) B.C.C.
Presently, there are 69 condominium units which were built in
conjunction with the Coralstone Club development. This built
"first phase" is incorporated into the overall Moon River plan.
Aside from the existing 69 units, the applicant is proposing
development of 205 patio homes and 168 condo's on the remaining
portions of the site. The condominiums would be developed as six
3 -story buildings in the western part of the project, while the
205 patio homes would be constructed throughout the central and
remaining portions of the site. The applicant is now seeking
conceptual approval of the plan.
ANALYSIS:
1. Size of Development Area: 73.74 acres
2. Zoning classification: RM -6
3. Land Use Designation: LD -2
4. Number of Units:
Existing Condo's:
69
units
Tract A (Existing)
Proposed Condo's
168
units
Tract D (Phase I)
Proposed Patio Homes:
205
units
Tract B, C (Phase I & II)*
Total:
442
units
*Phase II consists of tract B comprising of 82 units
5. Density: 5.99 units/acre
6. Building area: 16.69 acres or 22.60
7. Impervious Area: 28.8 acres or 39.06%
8. Open Space Provided: 46.91 acres or 63.6%
Required: 36.87 acres or 50%
22
9. Traffic Circulation: The project
driveway at A.I.A. for the project's
The portion of the project west of
is proposed to be accessed directly
will utilize the existing
residential area access.
Jungle Trail, "Tract E",
off of Jungle Trail.
The traffic impact analysis, prepared in conjunction with the
review of the Coralstone project, indicated that there would
be a level of service problem in the future at the S.R.
A.I.A./C.R. 510 intersection. The Public. Works department
has determined that the existing intersection is adequate to
handle Phase I (Tracts C and D) traffic, given the proposed
construction schedule. The Public Works director has recom-
mended that no construction proceed in Phase II (Tract B)
until the improvements at the C.R. 510/S.R. A.I.A. inter-
section are under -contract or constructed. The C.R. 510/S.R.
A.I.A. intersection improvements are currently being de-
signed.
As proposed, the 442 unit development has only one access
point - at A.I.A. Because of the size of the project and to
enhance safety, another access point is required. Instead of
accessing Jungle Trail, the project will need to provide an
emergency access to the North Beach Water Plant access road,
10. Off -Street Parking Required: 880 spaces
Provided: 901 spaces
In accordance with section 25q(3), the applicant has provided
17 recreational vehicle (RV) parking spaces to serve the 168
proposed condo's. RV parking will be prohibited in 69
existing condo's and the patio home section of the develop-
ment and therefore is not required for these phases.
11. Stormwater Management: A conceptual stormwater plan has been
approved, and a type "B" stormwater permit and a cut an4fill
waiver will be required, prior to issuance of a land develop-
ment permit.
12. Recreation Area Required: 5.3 acres
Provided: 6.1 acres
13. Utilities: The project will receive County water from the
North Beach water plant and sewer from the Sea Oaks fran-
chised package sewer plant. The county Utilities department
has conceptually approved these provisions for water and
sewer service.
The previous owner had a franchise with the County, and there
are still franchise fees which are delinquent. The utilities
department has indicated that the delinquent franchise fees
will need to be paid prior to approval of any construction
permits.
14. Landscape Plan: The landscape plan will be reviewed at the
time of preliminary PRD review. A 25' Type "B" buffer will
be planted and provided around the project perimeter. The
plan will have to meet or exceed all Jungle Trail Management
Plan standards.
15. Waivers: Through the PRD process, the applicant can request
waivers from some of the normal zoning code standards. The
applicant has requested the following waivers:
J U L 2 5 1999 23 nor ,17 F'Avr. 405
L
J U L 2 5 1999
'A Y rl'A16 SOS
—_a:_.__ tot size: A reduction in lot size from 7000 square feet
(RM -6 Single Family lot) to 4,500 square feet (section
10(a) Appendix A of the Zoning Code).
b. Minimum Lot Width: A reduction from 70' feet to 50'
feet with 15' frontage on the cul-de-sacs, (section
10(A) Appendix A of the Zoning Code)
C, Minimum Yard: Code Proposed
Front: 25' 15'
Side: 10' 0'
Rear: 25' 10'
(Section 10(A) Appendix A of the Zoning Code)
d. Maximum Lot Coverage: An increase from 30% to 40% for
single family homes (section 10(A) Appendix A of the
Zoning Code)
e. Minimum R/W Width: A reduction from 50' to 40' of
right-of-way for local roads. (Section 10c(2)(f)
Appendix B of the Subdivision Code)
f. Minimum cul-de-sac Radius: A reduction from 45' to 42.5
for cul-de-sac radii (Section 10(c)(4) Appendix B of
the Subdivision Code)
g. Swimming Pool Setbacks: A reduction to 5' setbacks on
the side yards (Section 25(b)(6) Appendix A of the
Zoning Code).
h. Minimum Pavement Width: A reduction from 22' to '20'
with 2' valley curbs. (section 23.3(d)(10)(e) Appendix
A of the Zoning Code).
In the opinion of Public Works and Planning, these waivers
are acceptable based upon the proposed design. The staff
feels that these waivers would not pose any compatibility
problems with the surrounding multiple family zoned areas.
16. Jungle Trail Concerns:
The proposed development has frontage on both sides of Jungle
Trail. While this is a conceptual plan, staff has some
concerns which need to be addressed along with the conceptual
plan.
a. Buffering from Development East of the Trail.
The applicant is proposing 3 story condominiums on the east
side of Jungle Trail. These buildings will be located a
minimum of 35' off of the Jungle Trail right-of-way. The
buildings and R/V storage area abutting Jungle Trail will be
screened by a landscape planting scheme which meets the
Jungle Trail management plan. All activity in the buffer
area will need to meet or exceed the standards set forth in
the Jungle Trail Management Plan. Provisions for these
buffers should be required as part of any conceptual plan
approval.
b. Buffering along west side of the Trail.
24
On the west side of Jungle Trail is "tract E", which the
applicant is proposing to develop as a recreation complex.
Due to the location of this parcel, its lack of access, size,
and significant area of developable uplands, Jungle Trail
access to the tract is logical. While many of the residents
will get to the recreation facilities via a pedestrian
cross -walk, a curb cut on the Jungle Trail will be necessary
to provide vehicular access to this parcel. Buffering along
this side of the Trail will also need to meet or exceed the
Management Plan standards.
17. Tract E: The concept plan presently depicts a clubhouse,
croquet courts, parking lot, and boat docks lined along the
parcel's Indian River Lagoon frontage. Recreation uses which
require intense land clearing and development, (i.e. croquet
courts, tennis courts, etc.) and can be accommodated away
from the river on other portions of the project should not be
allowed. Passive and riverine recreation such as boating,
fishing, boardwalks through the undeveloped portion of Tract
E, a separate fishing pier, and bird nesting boxes or nesting
platforms would all be uses most appropriate for Tract E when
its environmental constraints and potential development
impacts on Jungle Trail are considered. Any conceptual plan
approval should include a condition to limit the development
of recreation facilities directly related to the river
environment.
While the riverine uses such as boating, and docks are
permitted in the Jungle Trail buffer, staff's opinion is that
the applicant should re -design the docks that are within the
Jungle Trail buffer, clustering the docks away from the Trail
rather than spreading them along the Jungle Trail frontage.
The applicant has proposed a parking lot on tract E to
accommodate vehicular traffic to the recreational facilities.
The applicant has agreed to make some spaces available to the
public, as well as public access to the water. Controlled
public access and parking spaces are encouraged in the Jungle
Trail Management Plan. Provision for access and spaces would
be required as part of any conceptual plan approval.
The applicant must provide an environmental survey of Tract E
to verify the location of any environmentally sensitive
lands. Tract E appears to contain low areas subject to
periodic inundation. Tract E also appears to contain middens
scattered along the shoreline. The applicant will need to
provide written verification from the State Department of
Archives as to the location of any archeological sites on
Tract E. Any sites located will need to be depicted on the
preliminary PRD plan for Tract E, and the design of Tract E
must be done in such way as to preserve all archeological
sites.
18. Shoreline Stabilization: The applicant has assumed all
obligations of the previous developers (Florida Land &
Coralstone) to fund or provide stabilization of the shoreline
along Jungle Trail.
In summary, this conceptual PRD contains several issues such as
traffic, utilities, Jungle Trail protection, environmental, and
archeological concerns which will need to be addressed as con-
ditions of this conceptual PRD.
JUL 2 � 1989 25 `7
J U L 2 5,° 989
RECOMMENDATION:
BOOK 9 �Jkr
F,�GE 408
Based on the above analysis, staff recommends that the—Board of
County Commissioners approve the special exception use and -concep-
tual plan with the following conditions:
1. Prior to the release of Phase II (Tract B), the intersection
improvements at C.R. 510/S.R. A.I.A. must be under contract
or constructed.
2. Prior to the issuance of any land development permit, a cut
and fill waiver must be obtained.
3. The approval of Tract E as a recreation tract, does not
approve the conceptual design proposed. The uses on Tract E
shall be limited to riverine and passive recreational uses;
other recreational use (i.e. croquet courts, tennis courts,
etc.) must be located elsewhere in the project if the devel-
oper desires to provide such facilities within the overall
project;
4. All construction and landscaping in the Jungle Trail buffer
will adhere to the Jungle Trail Management Plan. The docks
proposed within the Jungle Trail buffer shall be "redesigned"
to limit the impact on Jungle Trail.
5. All structures east of Jungle Trail shall be a minimum of 35'
from the Jungle Trail right-of-way.
6. The applicant must verify the location of any archeological
sites on Tract E, and the proposed design must locate and
preserve any archeological sites found.
7. Any proposed Tract E development shall adequately address
environmental issues.
Chairman Wheeler advised that the Board received letters of
opposition to this request from the following persons:
Mr. S Mrs. Richard M. Suter of East Moriches, New York; Mr. &
Mrs. Stephen Basil, residents of Sea Oaks; and Daniel I. Preuss,
Barbara B. Lynch, and Wayne C. Sommers, owners of the 712 feet
immediately west of Tract "E", the Moon River project on the west
side of Jungle Trail. (LETTERS ARE ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE
CLERK TO THE BOARD)
Commissioner Bird asked what restrictions are proposed for
the western tract, and Mr. Boling explained that the applicant
had shown on the plan the desire to put in some parking places
and docks west of Jungle Trail, plus a croquet court, but it is
staff's position, as it has been with previous applicants, that
croquet courts, tennis courts, or things of that sort don't have
to be located along the river west of Jungle Trail. Due to the
development constraints there, it is staff's opinion that those
26
type of uses could go on the east side of Jungle Trail and away
from the environmentally sensitive areas. Staff would be looking
at restricting the recreational use of the western side to docks
and the actual use of the river. Condition #3 would restrict and
basically prohibit croquet courts and tennis court type of
facilities there, and he understood the applicant had raised no
objection to any of these conditions at the Planning & Zoning
Commission hearing.
Commissioner Bird asked the size of the usable land in the
western tract, and Mr. Boling explained that the total tract
itself is approximately 4 acres, but an environmental survey has
not been done to show the exact amount of uplands area.
Commissioner Bowman had a real problem with the waivers that
have been requested here. It seemed to her that they are trying
to pack in as many people as possible in this area, which she
believed is completely contrary to the spirit of the Hutchinson
Island Management Plan.
Robert Keating, Director of Community Development, explained
that this is a PRD and they are going through and getting some
benefits from the County by some waivers, and this is when you
can make trade-offs.
Mr. Boling explained that if the developer had come in for
site plan approval on a multi -family project, they could have got
the same densities. The reason these waivers are applied is
because they are platting it and trying to make the units
resemble shrunken -down single family residences.
Commissioner Scurlock understood then that these densities
are no greater than what has been approved on the plan under
previous developers, and Mr. Boling stated that is correct.
These densities are just under 6 units per acre or 5.99.
Director Keating noted that because they are platting, they
have to actually plat right-of-way and then we have minimum
right-of-way requirements. However, if they were just a typical
JUL '689
27
f., .40
JUL 2 5 689
BOOK ll F'AGE 410
multi -family project, they could have driveway isles and they
wouldn't have to have right-of-way outside of their paved drive.
A lot of these waivers would not be required if they had gone
strictly multi -family, and this gives the County a little more
control over how they develop.
Commissioner Scurlock felt that some people understood that
this project was exceeding the allowable densities, but as staff
has pointed out, that is not the case.
Commissioner Bowman asked about the buffer along Jungle
Trail, and Mr. Boling explained that they would have a 35 -ft.
setback along the Trail, and of course, will have to comply with
the Jungle Trail Management Plan when they come in with their
management plan which is under review right now.
Commissioner Bird had hoped that somehow the County could
have acquired the western tract, because in looking at the map in
the Jungle Trail Management Plan, we are going to be in desperate
need of some public parking areas throughout the Trail if the
public is really going to enjoy it and have the use of it. This
would be a very likely place to do that, but unfortunately, that
may be just hindsight at this point.
Chairman Wheeler opened the Public Hearing, and asked if
anyone wished to be heard in this matter.
Attorney Michael O'Haire, representing the owners of the
property just to the west of the western portion of the
applicant's property, explained that his clients own some 700
feet of waterfront, which is zoned RS -1. He felt we have a real
anomaly here, and wondered how in the world RM -6 zoning got to
jump Jungle Trail to become adjacent to RS -1 and Agricultural.
He has watched this property go through any number of
permutations over the years, but what is now being proposed
adjacent to his clients' property is basically a parking lot and
docks. His clients are not at all happy with that because it is
a deviation from the common rule, and it should not be. His
clients have been through a 2 -year process of obtaining permits
28
for a single-family home site, which is all that is permitted to
go on their property under the Zoning Code, the DER and the Corps
of Engineers. The problem his clients have with the application
for conceptual approval of this PRD lies wholly with what is
westerly of Jungle Trail.
Attorney O'Haire noted that his clients also own a 50 -ft.
ingress and egress easement over the northerly 50 feet of the
applicant's property, which has been used in the computation of
green and open space for the conceptual review of the project.
He emphasized that at the Planning 6 Zoning hearing on this
matter, the applicant's consultant stated that they shared the
same concerns that staff has on Tract E, which is the piece west
of Jungle Trail, and would not be submitting the PRD on that
section for quite some time.
Attorney O'Haire stated that they would have no real problem
with the Board granting conceptual approval to that part of the
project lying between Jungle Trail and AIA, but would ask that
the Board drop from conceptual approval of the PRD the area lying
westerly of Jungle Trail until it can be revisited or redesigned.
His clients have spoken with the current developers of the
project and have not had any response from them on whether there
is any flexibility with the proposed parking lot and dock
complex. Frankly, they would like to have some time to -see if
there isn't some way it can be worked out, because an RM -6 zoning
or any non-residential use is not good planning or good zoning,
and they feel it certainly would have a terrible effect on the
value of their property.
Commissioner Eggert understood that Condition #3 of staff's
recommendation stipulates that the westerly tract would only be
approved as a recreational tract and that no conceptual design
would be approved at this time.
JUL 2 5 1989 29 �11'
11
PIOCIK
J U L 2 5 1989
BOOK. '77 F"'A
Mr. Boling confirmed that to be the case, and pointed out
that if we took that tract out of the PRD, we would have less
control over what would go on that piece of property.
Chairman Wheeler asked if there was any special reason why
they would put RS -1 up against RIM -6, and Mr. Boling felt it was
because Florida Land Company owned that entire land parcel
assemblage and the entire project site was zoned multi -family.
The Comp Plan that was adopted back in 1982 shows this tract as
LD -2, which is 6 upa.
Director Keating added that the RS -1 is consistent with the
environmentally sensitive designation, and explained that staff
worked extensively with Mr. Preuss in getting the one unit on
there.
Attorney O'Haire felt that it is going to be a very
intensive use whether it is to be a dock/marina, parking facility
for 442 units or whether it is to be used by the public. He
emphasized that if you have seen the Sea Oaks' docks and what is
going on along the river, you can see that it is quite an
intensive use of the most narrow stretch of the Intercoastal. In
fact, that stretch is called "the narrows."
Commissioner Scurlock believed that when that land was
designated as LD -2, there was a serious question as to whether
the adjacent property could ever be developed for anything.
Commissioner Bird still preferred to work with the developer
to acquire the westerly tract for the use of the public and
perhaps allow them to transfer the allowable densities off of
that property to the area east of Jungle Trail so that we would
have a parking area, but Planner Boling explained that they
already have transferred the densities on the east side of Jungle
Trail.
Commissioner Bird envisioned that area as a very passive
area where the public could park on a shell base, fish, or just
walk along the shoreline as long as the bank is stabilized.
There wouldn't be any facilities, of course.
30
s
Director Keating suggested that the Board make it part of
the Motion to authorize staff to discuss with the applicant the
possibility of a purchase.
Chairman Wheeler opened the Public Hearing, and asked if
anyone wished to be heard in this matter.
Jeannette Lier, One Michael Creek Drive, asked that if the
Board decides to have parking on the west side of the Trail, to
have it as shell not asphalt.
Director Keating advised that very tight constraints on
run-off going into the river would settle that issue.
There being no others who wished to be heard, the Chairman
closed the Public Hearing.
MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by
Commissioner Eggert, that the Board approve staff's
recommendation with the conditions set out in the
above memo.
Under discussion, Commissioner Bird said that he would vote
for this, but would request that we talk to the developer about
providing some space for public access there.
Mr. Boling reported that the developer seems amenable to
providing some public spaces there.
Commissioner Bowman asked where this leaves Attorney
O'Haire's client, Mr. Preuss. Are we saying there must be a
buffer between his property and this project?
Mr. Boling advised that would be something that would be
looked at when they came back with their site plan.
Commissioner Bird stated that, in all fairness to Mr.
Preuss, he didn't know what more we could do to create any more
of a passive situation on that property than what we are
proposing other than leaving it vacant.
Attorney O'Haire noted that his client is just not
comfortable with a
"trust me" position
on the part of
the
J9 UL
b -1989
31
JUL 2 1989 T1 414
developer because the subject property has always been intended
and proposed to be used to the absolute maximum permitted under
the law. He felt it is going to have to be stringently monitored
all the way through the process.
Chairman Wheeler asked Attorney O'Haire what he would
suggest other than the PRD, but it seemed to him that the PRD is
the best solution to the problem.
Attorney O'Haire replied that he would suggest single family
residential, the same as his client's property.
Chairman Wheeler felt it is too late to do that, but
Attorney'O'Haire maintained that it is never too late to change
the zoning because zoning is never cast in stone.
THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION. The Motion
was voted on and carried unanimously.
PUBLIC HEARING - ORDINANCE TO ALLOW RADIO, TV AND MICROWAVE
TRANSMISSION TOWERS OVER 140 FEET IN THE LIGHT INDUSTRIAL AND
GENERAL INDUSTRIAL ZONING DISTRICTS
The hour of 9:05 o'clock A.M. having passed, the Deputy
Clerk read the following Notice with Proof of Publication
attached, to wit:
VERO BEACH PRESS401.111INAL
Published Deny
Vero Bdach, Indian River Cednty, Florida
COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER: STATE OF FLORIDA
Belorb 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 dally newspaper Published
at Vero Beach In Indian River Counly. Florida: thal,lhe attached copy of advertisement, be"
a y1��J
M the matter of�
In theVt�
__ ._ _... Court, was Iwb•
Ilshed in sold newspaper In the Issues ol_
Alllant further says that the Sold Vero Beach PreSo_Jourmd Ig a newspaper published at
Vero Beach, In sold Indian River County. Florida. amt that the said newspaper has heretofore
been eonllnuously, published In sold Indian River County. Florida. each dally and has been
entered as second class mall matter of the pant office In Vero Beach, in said Indian River Conn.
IT, Florida, for a period of one year nest preceding the first publicalton of the olinrhed copy of
advertisement; and affiant further says that he has neither paid nor promised env person, firm
of corporation any discount, rebels. commission or island lot the purpose of securing this
advertisement for publication In the sold newspaper. rip
Sworn to arra subserlbed before me this 38 0l D. 19 Lr,L-
�IBusine a Maruagarl�
(Clara of "to CtMult R er County. Florida!
ISEAU ys0 iblu,Af•eoA*I•
.w. p4�M.a MetsM�a•>. AA 14r!
32
.. NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
NOTICE IS HEREBY,GIVEN that the Board of
County Commissioners of Indian River County,
Florida, shall hold a public hearing at which par-
ties In Interest and citizens shall have an oppor-
tunny to be heard, In the County Commisltitxt
Chambers at the County Administration. Build -
Ing, located at 1840 25th Street, Vero Beach.
Florida, on Tuesday. July 25, 1989 at 9:05 a.m.
to consider the adoption of an Ordinance enti-
fled:
AN ORDINANCE OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY,
FLORIDA, AMENDING SECTION 25, GENERAL
PROVISIONS, AND SECTION 25.1 REGULA-
TIONS FOR SPECIFIC LAND USES, OF APPEN-
DIX A, ZONING, OF THE CODE OF LAWS AND
ORDINANCES; AMENDING SECTION 25 (a) (1)
AND SECTION 25.1 (a) (3) TO ALLOW RADIO,
TV AND MICROWAVE (TRANSMISSION
TOWER) OVER 140' IN THE IL SECTION 21 AND
1G SECTION 22.A ZONING DISTRICTS, OF AP-
PENDIX A, ZONING, OF THE CODE OF LAWS
AND ORDINANCES AND PROVIDING FOR THE
REPEAL OF CONFLICTING PROVISIONS, CODI-
FICATION DATE, SEVERABILITY AND EFFEC-
TIVE DATE.
A copy of the proposed Ordinance will be
available at the Planning Department office on
the second Floor of the County Administration
Building after July 5, 1989. a
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 proceed-
ings is made, which Includes testimony and evi-
dence upon which the appeal is based.
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
BY -s- GARY WHEELER, CHAIRMAN
June 30, 1989
Stan Boling, Chief of Current Development, presented staff's
recommendation for approval of the proposed ordinance amendments:
TO: James E. Chandler
County Administrator
DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE:
t
Robert M. Kea i ', AI
Community Dewe o men irector
THROUGH: Stan Boling;" CP
Chief, Current Development
FROM: John W. McCoy Afk
Staff Planner,'Current Development
DATE: June 26, 1989
SUBJECT: FPL'S REQUEST TO AMEND THE IL (LIGHT INDUSTRIAL) ZONING
DISTRICT TO ALLOW RADIO TRANSMISSION TOWERS OVER 140'
FEET IN HEIGHT
It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal
consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at its regular
meeting of July 25, 1989.
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS:
This item was originally discussed at the May. 25th Planning and
Zoning Commission meeting; at that meeting it was determined a
workshop was needed. A workshop was held on June 12, 1989, and
comments received at that workshop have been incorporated into
staff's analysis and the proposed ordinance. The item was then
discussed at the June 22nd meeting, with the Planning and Zoning
Commission voting unanimously to recommend approval of the ordi-
nance with some changes to be made by staff subsequent to Board of
County Commission consideration. Pursuant to the Commission's
directions, staff has made the requested changes, which are
reflected in the proposed ordinance attached at the end of this
report. (See Attachment #2)
Presently, radio towers over 140' feet in height are allowed only
as a special exception use in the A-1 (Agricultural) zoning
district. Several business, however, have indicated that this
requirement is overly restrictive. One such business is FPL.
FPL desires to build a service center on IL zoned property off of
55th Avenue in Wabasso. An integral facet of the service center
is the ability to communicate with the trucks in the field. FPL
has determined it would take a 240' foot transmission tower to
effectively communicate with vehicles throughout the service area.
However, towers over 140' in the IL zoning district are prohibited
by Section 25(a) and Section 25.1(s)(3) of the zoning code (see
attachment #1). FPL has proposed an ordinance amendment to permit
radio transmission towers over 140' in height in the IL zoning
district as a special exception use.
JL 2 b 1989
33
r- i J U L
2,,
Mr.. / PA;E416
ANALYSIS
Staff has reviewed the applicant's request and feels that radio
transmission towers should be made special exception uses in the
IL and IG (general industrial) zoning districts. Since radio
transmission towers are facilities which are accessory and custom-
ary to a wide variety of uses which would be permitted uses in the
IL and IG zoning districts, it makes sense for these uses to have
their own on-site radio transmission capabilities.
Due to the increased height and potential for high voltage,
however, criteria are necessary to control the location and
appearance of radio towers in order to protect the health, safety,
and welfare of the general public and ensure compatibility with
other permitted uses in the zoning districts where they are
allowed. In particular, transmission tower location, construction
and use are characteristics which can be regulated . For example,
transmission towers would ,not be appropriate on many of the
smaller subdivided lots zoned IL and IG, but they would be
appropriate on large industrial tracts where the radio tower would
be contained within an industrial complex or compound. These
criteria can best be addressed through making transmission towers
special exception uses.
Presently, Section 25.1(s)(3) provides for special exception
approval to locate radio transmission towers in the A-1 (agricul-
tural) zoning district. The special exception criteria which
apply to the location and construction of these towers would
adequately regulate towers in the IL and IG zoning districts with
only minor modifications to the criteria.
The minor changes would set forth more specific criteria for the
"fall radius" waiver which is presently incorporated into the
Code. The current waiver language allows accommodation of tower
fall radii less than 1100 of the total tower height. New more
specific criteria would ensure that in no case would the design
fall radius of a tower encroach on an existing residential struc-
ture or residentially zoned property. The second change would
delete the A-1 district prohibition of vehicle storage and equip-
ment -,storage, since these are permitted uses on IL and IG zoned
property.
During the tower workshop, most discussion centered on three
topics; the regulatory requirements (FAA, FCC, local authorities);
the need for tight, yet flexible criteria for transmission towers,
and aesthetic criteria that apply when towers are proposed in
developed or developing parts of the County.
The participants indicated that FCC and FAA regulations as well as
engineering placement criteria will substantially reduce the
allowable sites suitable for tower locations in a given service
area. It was noted that expanding communications technology and
its corresponding demand in Indian River County will necessitate
additional transmission towers to provide these communication
services. Workshop participants expressed the need for tight yet
flexible local regulations that would allow businesses to meet
the demand for new communication technologies despite the reduced
number of feasible tower locations approvable by the Federal
agencies
The added waiver criteria should provide the flexibility needed to
accommodate the location of future towers and provide for the
health and safety of any nearby residents. The new criteria would
permit applicants to tailor the engineering of the tower to a
specific site. For example, if an applicant had a thousand acres
34
M M M
M M M
he could go with an inexpensively designed and constructed tower
which uses the 110% fall radius; on a site where property was at a
premium, the applicant could spend more on the design and con-
struction of the tower and certify that the tower would collapse
in a fall radius as depicted on the plans, maybe 30 - 50% the
height of the tower.
While these towers can be obtrusive, there are some steps which
can be taken to minimize the visual impact in the immediate and
surrounding areas. The steps taken can be addressed on a case by
case basis through the special exception process. A tower in the
St. John's marsh should not need the same degree of landscape
buffering as a tower in an industrial area along Rt. 60 or U.S.
#1. It was suggested at the workshop that towers in urban or
urbanizing areas should be required to create a "parkland -like
setting", through intensive landscaping, to minimize the immediate
ground level obtrusiveness of a transmission tower.
Besides the tower, itself, lighting is a concern. The FAA, for
example, regulates tower lighting strictly for air safety. In an
urban or urbanizing area, the lighting scheme could present a
potential nuisance for residents in the surrounding area. One
remedy to this problem is to install louvers or shields which
would prevent the light from shining down.
The ordinance only proposes general criteria to address the
lighting plan or additional landscape requirements. Staff feels
these items need to be considered with each special exception
application on a case by case basis.
The Planning and Zoning Commission made minor changes to the body
of the ordinance and recommended two additional criteria which are
now incorporated into the proposed ordinance. The two criteria
stem from the Planning and Zoning Commission's concerns for the
compatibility of towers with surrounding residential development.
The first criterion would increase the surrounding property
owners notice to 600' from the project site (increasing the normal
300' notice radius)) and the second is a general criterion
concerning the impact of proposed towers on nearby residential
neighborhoods. The effect of these criteria is to increase input
of nearby property owners and allow the County to specifically
consider impacts on residential neighborhoods.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners approve
the attached ordinance amendments.
Commissioner Bowman was concerned about the birds hitting
the guy wires and also about the strobe lights.
Chairman Wheeler opened the Public Hearing, and asked if
anyone wished to be heard in this matter.
JUL 22 5, 1989 35 Rocs F,j 417
Molly Beard, 1555 30th Avenue, stated that she has followed
this particular ordinance revision through the process of public
workshops and the hearing before the P 8 Z Commission, and as a
broadcaster in this area, is very satisfied with the conclusion
because she believes it serves all the purposes necessary for the
business but takes into consideration the environment and the
impact on residential.
Ronald Crider, 1768 Coral Way North, advised that he is in
the business of building and leasing tower space and would like
to build a tower in Vero Beach. As a resident of Indian River
County, it is not his intent to trash up our skyline. He felt
staff was sensitive at the workshops to several things that are
not readily apparent, such as FCC and FAA regulations and
restrictions, and came up with what he feels is a really good
negotiated settlement. Mr. Crider felt that this ordinance
provides for future communication users and protects the people
living near the tower. He wished to point out that all towers
are designed today to fall within 300 of their height.
There being no others who wished to be heard, the Chairman
closed the Public Hearing.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by
Commissioner Eggert, the Board unanimously adopted
Ordinance 89-23, allowing radio, TV and Microwave
transmission towers over 140' in the IL and IG Zoning
Districts.
36
ORDINANCE 89- 23
AN ORDINANCE OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA AMENDING SECTION
25. 1, REGULATIONS FOR SPECIFIC LAND USES, OF APPENDIX A, ZONING,
OF THE CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES; AMENDING SECTION 25.1 (s)(3)
SPECIAL EXCEPTION CRITERIA FOR RADIO, TV AND MICROWAVE
TRANSMISSION TOWERS; AMENDING SECTION 21(d)(3) AND SECTION
22 (A) (d) (4) OF APPENDIX A ZONING OF THE CODE OF LAWS AND
ORDINANCES OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY TO ALLOW RADIO, TV, AND
MICROWAVE TRANSMISSION TOWERS AS SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS IN THE IL,
LIGHT INDUSTIRAL, AND IG, GENERAL INDUSTRIAL ZONING DISTRICTS AND
PROVIDING FOR THE REPEAL OF CONFLICTING PROVISIONS, CODIFICATION
DATE, SEVERABILITY AND EFFECTIVE DATE.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMIS-
SIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, THAT:
PART 1
Section 21(d) the Light Industrial Zoning District (IL) of Appen-
dix A, zoning of the code of Law and Ordinances of Indian River
County is hereby amended as follows:
(d) Special Exception Uses. The following uses may be
permitted within the IL, Light Industrial District,
subject to the specific use criteria established in
section 25.1 "regulations for specific land uses" and
review procedures established in section 25.3, "regu-
lation of special exception uses."
1.. General merchandise sales (Sec. 25.1(j)):
Auction facilities.
Flea markets.
2. Transportation uses (Sec.25.1(r)):
Airports and airstrips.
Heliports and helipads.
3. Utility uses (Sec.25.1(s))
Public and private utilities, major.
Transmission Towers: Microwave, radio, T.V., etc.
4. Adult entertainment
Adult bookstore.
Adult arcade.
Adult dancing establishments.
Adult motion picture theater or drive-in.
Adult mini -motion picture theater.
Adult personal service business.
Adult theatre.
PART 2
Section 22(A)(d) the General Industrial zoning district (IG) of
Appendix A, zoning of the code of Law and ordinances of Indian
River County is hereby amended as follows:
(d) Special exception uses. The following uses may be
permitted within the IG, General Industrial District,
subject to the specific use criteria established in
section 25.1 "regulations for specific land uses" and
review procedures established in section 25.3, "regu-
lation of special exception uses."
CODING: Words in WiA094W6,A49 type are deletions from existing
law; words underlined are additions.
� 37
198 9�a,� 1
ri r 420
mori -
ORDINANCE 89- 23
1. Vehicular sales, service and storage (Sec.25.1(v)):
Gasoline service station.
2. Very heavy industrial uses (Sec. 25.1(u)):
Ammunition, armaments and accessories
manufacturing.
Explosives manufacturing.
Junk and salvage yards.
Petroleum and natural gas refining and related
industries.
3. Transportation uses (Sec. 25.1 (r)):
Airport and airstrips.
4. Utility uses (Sec. 25.1(s)):
Public and private utilities, major.
Transmission Towers: (Radio, TV, Microwave, etc).
5. Adult entertainment:
a. Adult entertainment businesses (Sec.25.1(w)):
Adult bookstore.
Adult arcade.
Adult dancing establishments.
Adult motion picture theater or drive-in.
Adult mini -motion picture theater.
Adult personal services business.
Adult theater.
PART 3
Section 25.1(s)(3) regulations for specific land uses, of appendix
A, zoning, of the code and ordinances of Indian River County is
hereby amended as follows:
(3) Transmission towers (radio, TV and microwave) (Special
Exception).
a. Districts requiring special exception: Transmission
towers may be allowed in the A-1, IL, IG Zoning Dis-
tricts upon receiving approval as a special exception as
provided in Section 25.3 and after meeting the require-
ments defined below.
b. Additional information requirements:
1. Applicant shall present documentation of the
possession of any required license by any federal,
state of local agency.
2. A site plan, pursuant to the requirements of
Section 23.
C. Criteria for transmission towers:
1. All towers shall have setbacks from all property
lines equal to one hundred ten (110) per cent of
the height of the proposed structure. This pro-
vision may be waived or modified upon a recommenda-
CODING: Words in 0fhA0X4W0,A4X type are deletions from existing
law; words underlined are additions.
38
- M M
M M
ORDINANCE 89-
tion by the director of public works, based upon
the following criteria:
a. The designed fall radius of the tower is
depicted on the site plan and does not impact
adiacent uses.
b.
A certified, signed and sealed statement from
a Florida Registered Professional Engineer
states that the tower would collapse within
1-hP designed and specified fall radius
2. In no case shall the fall radius (110% of height or
other approved design fall radius) encroach upon
existing off-site structures or residentially zoned
property.
3. The distance of any guy anchorage or similar device
shall be at least ten (10) feet from any property
line.
4. Suitable protective anti -climb fencing and a
landscape planting screening shall be provided and
maintained around the structure and accessory
attachments. Where the first 50' of a tower is
visible to the public, the applicant shall provide
one canopy tree oak, pine, etc. per 3,000 square
feet of the designated fall radius. The trees
shall be planted in a pattern which will obscure
the base area of the tower, without conflicting
with the guy wires or the tower.
5. All accessory structures shall be subject to the
height restrictions provided in Section 25(a),
height exceptions.
6. If more than two hundred twenty (220) voltage is
necessary for the operation of the facility and is
present in a ground grid or in the tower, signs
located every twenty (20) feet and attached to the
fence or wall shall display in large bold letters
the following: "HIGH VOLTAGE - DANGER."
7. No equipment, mobile or immobile, which is not used
in direct support of the transmission or relay
facility shall be stored or parked on the site
unless repairs to the facility are being made.
(Applies only on A-1 zoned property.)
8. No tower shall be permitted to encroach into or
through any established public or private airport
approach plan as provided in the airport height
limitations of Section 25(p).
9. All towers shall submit a conceptual tower lightin
plan. Louvers or shields may be required as neces-
sary to keep light from shining down on surrounding
properties. Strobe lights must be used unless
prohibited by other agencies.
10. The reviewing body shall consider the impact of the
proposed tower on residential subdivisions near the
project site.
11. All property owners within 600' of the property
boundary shall receive written notice.
CODING: Words intype are deletions from existing
law; words underlined are additions.
39
JUL 1989
JUL 2 � ISO
ORDINANCE 89- 23
PART 4
REPEAL OF CONFLICTING PROVISIONS
All previous ordinances, resolutions, or motions of the Board
of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, which
conflict with the provision of this ordinance are hereby repealed
to the extent of such conflict: All Special Acts of the legisla-
ture applying only to the unincorporated portion of Indian River
County and which conflict with the provision of this ordinance are
hereby repealed to the extent of such conflict.
PART 5
CODIFICATION
The provisions of this ordinance shall be incorporated into
the County Code and the word "Ordinance" may be changed to "sec-
tion", "article", or other appropriate word, and the sections of
this ordinance may be renumbered or relettered to accomplish such
intentions.
PART 6
SEVERABILITY
If any section, part of a sentence, paragraph, phrase or word
of this ordinance is for any reason held to be unconstitutional,
inoperative or void, such holdings shall not affect the remaining
portions hereof and it shall be construed to have been the legis-
lative intent to pass this ordinance without such unconstitution-
al, invalid or inoperative part.
PART 7
EFFECTIVE DATE
The provisions of this ordinance shall be come effective upon
receipt from the Florida Secretary of State of official acknowl-
edgement that this ordinance has been filed with the Department of
State.
Approved and adopted by the Board of County Commissioners of
Indian River County of this 25th day of July ,
1989.
This ordinance was advertised in the Vero Beach Press -Journal
on the 30th day of June , 1989 for a public
hearing to be held on the 25th day of July .
1989, at which time it was moved for adoption by Commissioner
Scurlock , and seconded by Commissioner
Eggert and adopted by the following vote:
Chairman Gary C. Wheeler Aye
Vice Chairman Carolyn K. Eggert Aye
Commissioner Richard N. Bird Aye
Commissioner Margaret C. Bowman Aye
Commissioner Don C. Scurlock, Jr. Aye
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
Gary C dwheeler, Chairman
40
REQUEST FOR CONCEPTUAL SPECIAL EXCEPTION PRD APPROVAL FOR
COPELAND'S LANDING RIVERSIDE PHASE
The hour of 9:05 o'clock A.M. having passed, the Deputy
Clerk read the following Notice with Proof of Publication
attached, to wit:
VERO BEACH PRESS -JOURNAL
Published Daily
Vero Beach, Indian River Codnty, 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 _ 1 Court, was pub-
lished in said newspaper in the issues of/!Z�/
v
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 polished 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 this L) day oA.D. 19
r•
(Business Manager)
(C ort-+rrisiarr River County Florida►
(SEAL) In,;,., ""jix. r# J
/c:+nraf:kcfryit t+tDkrvt Mrrv!'�1, )
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
Notice of hearing to consider the granting of .
special exception approval for a Planned Real -
dental Development (PRD). The subject prop-
erty Is presently owned by Copeland's Landing
The subject properly Iles In Section 3,
Township 32S, Range -39E and Is lo-
cated In the easterly portion of Govern- `
ment Lot 2 being just north of 73rd
StreeL
A public hearing at which parties In Interest
and citizens shall have an opportunity to be
heard, will be held by the Board of County Com-
missioners of Indian River County, In the County
Commission Chambers at the County Adminis-
tration Building, located at 1840 25th Street,
Vero Beach, Florida on Tuesday, July 25,1989 at
9:05 a.m.
Anyone who may wish to appeal arty 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 I
upon which the appeal Is based. J
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY i
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
BY -s -GARY WHEELER, CHAIRMAN
June 30,1989
J U L 2 51999 41 % ,,., r,. I
POCK f,AUE 4 2c�J
J U L
BUCK 97
FA,- 4Z4 -
The Board
reviewed the following memo dated 6/28/89:
TO: James E. Chandler
County Administrator
DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE:
Robert 9ea i g, CP
Community Deve opm t Director
THROUGH: Stan Boling YICP
Chief, Current Development
FROM: John W. McCoy
Staff Planner; Current Development
DATE: June 28, 1989
SUBJECT: COPELAND'S LANDING REQUEST FOR CONCEPTUAL SPECIAL
EXCEPTION PRD APPROVAL FOR COPELAND'S LANDING RIVERSIDE
PHASE
It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal
consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at its regular
meeting of July 25, 1989.
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT AND LOCATION:
Carter and Associates has submitted an application for conceptual
special exception PRD approval for a 4 lot single family subdivi-
sion, and a 16 slip boat dock to serve the overall Copeland's
Landing subdivision. The property is located at 3300 73rd Street,
and the proposed lots will have frontage on the Indian River
Lagoon.
At its June 22, 1989 meeting, the Planning and Zoning Commission
voted 4 to 3 to recommend that the Board of County Commissioners
conditionally approve the PRD special exception use (See Attach-
ment W.
.
The approval steps in the PRD process are as follows:
Approval Needed Reviewing Bod
1. Concept Plan/Special Exception P&ZC and B.C.C.
2. Preliminary PRD P&ZC
3. Land Development Permits Staff
4. Final PRD (plat) B.C.C.
Presently, Copeland's Landing is developing two separate commu-
nities, a 28 unit PRD at the intersection of 73rd Street and U.S.
#1, and a single family residential subdivision further east on
73rd Street. The owner has obtained land development permits on
the 28 unit PRD and Phase I of the single family subdivision;
these developments are presently under construction.
Phase II of the single family subdivision has received preliminary
plat approval, borders the mosquito impoundment, and is -,located to
the east of Phase I. Phase II also borders the proposed riverside
phase to the east, and does contain some wetlands, most of which
a P ocated towards the riverside phase.
42
� � r
For the subject application, Copeland's Riverside Phase, the
applicant is proposing to provide access to and expand some
isolated uplands along the river's edge in order to plat the four
single family lots.
ANALYSIS;
1. Size of Development Area: 22.9 acres or 997,524 square feet
total
Existing Wetlands: 21.7 acres or.947,866 square feet
Existing Uplands: 1.18 acres or 51,401 square feet
Area to be Filled: 1.26 acres or 55,321 square feet
Wetlands to Remain: 21.1 acres or 922,601 square feet*
(Figures for Riverside PRD area only)
*includes wetlands to be created
2. Zoning Classification: RS -1
3. Land Use Designation: Environmentally sensitive
4. Overall Density: 0.17 units/acre (4 lots on 22.9 acres)
5. Total Impervious Area: 9,130 square feet (not including
single family homes)
6. Open Space Required: 50%
Provided: 90%
7. Traffic Circulation: The project will connect to and utilize
local roads platted with Copeland's Landing Subdivision for
access to 73rd Street.
8. Stormwater Management: The Public Works Department has
approved a conceptual stormwater plan. A Type "B" permit and
a cut and fill waiver will be required with the land develop-
ment permit.
9. Utilities: The lots will receive sewer and water from
package water and sewer plants located further west in the
other project phase. These plants must be approved by the
County Utilities department and the Department of Environ-
mental Regulation.
10. Waivers: Through the PRD process the applicant can request
waivers from some of the normal zoning code standards. The
applicant has requested the following waivers:
a. Lot Size: A reduction in lot size from 40,000 square
feet (RS -1) to 15,000 square feet (section 5(A) Appendix
A - Zoning Code).
b. Minimum Lot Width: A reduction from 125' to 85' foot
lot width (section 5(A) Appendix A - Zoning Code).
C. Right -of -Way Width: The applicant is requesting a 60'
drainage and access easement be approved to access the
subdivision and a 40' wide access and drainage easement
be approved for access to the individual lots (section
10(c)(2)(f) Appendix B - Subdivision Code).
d. Minimum Pavement Width: Decrease pavement width from a
22' width to a 20' width (section 10(c)(2)(f) Appendix B
- Subdivision Code).
J U L b 989 43 Mor 77 `.i,,1'.42/5-
JUL Kb 289
k Fc.
PG�G�
,.;r_
In staff's opinion, granting these waivers would lessen the impact
of the development on the environmentally sensitive lands. It is
also staff's opinion that the requested reductions in normal size
and dimension standards are adequately mitigated by the low
density of the project and extent of open common area around the
proposed lots.
ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS:
The subject property is comprised of 947,866 square feet of
wetlands and 51,401 square feet of uplands. The applicant pro-
poses to fill 55,321 square feet of wetlands contiguous to the
existing upland to create the four lots and access road. There
would be 922,601 square feet of wetlands remaining; that includes
created wetlands.
The proposed 4 lots are located within a mosquito impoundment.
The wetland vegetation which exists within this impoundment is in
generally good condition. The vegetation consists of mixed
mangroves, high salt marsh vegetation and some exotics, mostly
peppers.
In accordance with section 2 3. 3 (F) (1) (a) and (b), the applicant
must demonstrate that these are impacted, non-viable and
non-functional wetlands. The applicant must meet the following
criteria set out in section 23.3 (F) (1) (b) of the Zoning Code in
order to receive a waiver from the Board of County Commissioners
and be permitted to develop these four lots.
b. "... Applicants for site plan review shall have an
opportunity to demonstrate that any areas which are
designated as wetlands within the confines of their
property no longer function as wetlands. Areas iden-
tified as wetlands using the criteria in "a" above, may
receive a waiver from the Board of County Commissioners
regarding designation provided that the applicant
furnishes competent evidence indicating that a majority
of the following factors preclude the area(s) from
functioning as a viable wetland area:
(i) Inadequate size;
(ii) Isolation from similar or complementary habitats;
(iii) Proximity to adjacent urban land uses;
(iv) Disturbance or invasion of exotic species;
(v) Lack of species diversity;
(vi) Reduced frequency and length of inundation; and/or
(vii) Reduced salinity levels and tidal influence.
Any applicant who receives a waiver by the Board of
County Commissioners allowing the alteration of nonvia-
ble wetland areas shall be required to provide viable
wetland areas through mitigation. Mitigation may be
accomplished by the creation of entirely new wetland
areas, which should be designed, constructed and main-
tained in a manner to mimic natural areas. Mitigation
may also be accomplished through the restoration of
areas that were historically wetlands or through the
enhancement of the functioning of existing areas which
may have been previously disturbed or which may have the
ability to provide additional or improved functions.
44
C
L.1
The applicant's biologist states that the impoundment wetland area
is impacted as a whole and is non-viable for several reasons.
Such a determination would make development possible subject to a
mitigation plan.
The reasons given to support the determination that the wetlands
area is non-viable and, therefore, developable subject to mitiga-
tion are:
a. isolation from the tidal influence from the Indian River
Lagoon;
b. the disturbance caused by mosquito control ditching,
C. a low diversity of wildlife,
d. low salinity levels due to a lack of tidal connection;
salinity levels are more related to rain fall. (see
attachment #4 question #16 for details)
The applicant is proposing two types of mitigation for the overall
Copeland's project; this includes Phase II of the subdivision and
these four lots. (see attachment 6 for mitigation liability for
Phase II vs. the 4 lots). The applicant proposes to create 1.49
acres of wetlands to partially offset the 4.23 acres (for the
overall development) of fill, and he proposes to implement a
Rotational Impoundment Management plan (RIM plan). The RIM plan
will provide increased tidal connection and salinity levels which
will help eliminate exotics, increase animal population and
diversity, and provide for better mosquito control over the entire
56 acre impoundment. (Please see attachment #5 for a draft of the
mitigation proposal)
The applicant must also receive approval from the St. Johns Water
Management District, DER, DNR, Army Corp, and the Governors
Sub -Committee on Managed Marshes. The applicant will need ap-
provals from all of the above agencies and committees prior to
construction. The applicant has had preliminary meetings with all
jurisdictional agencies, including the Governors Sub -Committee on
Managed Marshes.
These approvals will require a detailed rotation impoundment
management plan for the marsh area. The management plan will
include the creation of new wetlands, improved tidal connection to
the existing impounded wetlands, and a new tidal connection to the
isolated brackish lake and associated wetlands. The mosquito
impoundments will be platted as conservation easements.
CONCLUSION:
In summary, The Environmental Planning staff and the applicant's
consultant have agreed that the mitigation plan constitutes a
greater than 1:1 mitigation for the 4 lots involved. The proposed
mitigation for the 1.26 acres of fill will decrease exotics,
increase wildlife population and diversity, enhance mosquito
control by providing better water control, provide permanent legal
access and plat a conservation easement over the enhanced
wetlands.
J U L 2 5 1989
45
nor i `4 t 4� d'
Based on the above analysis, staff recommends that the Board of
County Commissioners approve this application for conceptual
special exception with the following conditions:
1. That a formal mitigation plan be approved by the County
Environmental Planning staff and all jurisdictional
agencies and that a management plan be approved by the
Governor's subcommittee, prior to issuance of a land
development permit.
2. Littoral zone plans must be approved by the County's
Environmental Planning staff prior to the issuance of a
land development permit.
3. A cut and fill waiver must be obtained prior to the
issuance of a land development permit.
4. A conservation easement must be granted on the final
plat, for the area depicted on the conceptual plan.
Chairman Wheeler understood that basically we are looking at
4 houses on 23 acres, and Mr. Boling stated that is correct
because a lot of that acreage is impoundment.
Commissioner Bowman wondered how that lake ever got there,
and Roland DeBlois, Chief of Environmental Planning, explained
that it is an old borrow pit which is about 15-17 feet deep.
Dean Luethje of Carter & Associates, engineers on the
project, advised that the material from that mine pit was used to
build U.S. #1.
Robert Keating, Director of Planning 6 Development,
explained that this is an example of some of the mitigation we
have been working with in a lot of these projects that have
environmental sensitive areas. The main benefit here is the
restoration of the mosquito impoundment with its connection to
the river. He noted that the Mosquito Control District has been
very supportive of this project.
Chairman Wheeler opened the Public Hearing, and asked if
anyone wished to be heard in this matter.
Bruce Barkett, attorney representing the applicant, advised
that the engineers and the environmental consultants on this
project are here this morning to answer any questions the Board
may have.
b
- 46
,ROOK 17
'9 c
RECOMMENDATION:
Based on the above analysis, staff recommends that the Board of
County Commissioners approve this application for conceptual
special exception with the following conditions:
1. That a formal mitigation plan be approved by the County
Environmental Planning staff and all jurisdictional
agencies and that a management plan be approved by the
Governor's subcommittee, prior to issuance of a land
development permit.
2. Littoral zone plans must be approved by the County's
Environmental Planning staff prior to the issuance of a
land development permit.
3. A cut and fill waiver must be obtained prior to the
issuance of a land development permit.
4. A conservation easement must be granted on the final
plat, for the area depicted on the conceptual plan.
Chairman Wheeler understood that basically we are looking at
4 houses on 23 acres, and Mr. Boling stated that is correct
because a lot of that acreage is impoundment.
Commissioner Bowman wondered how that lake ever got there,
and Roland DeBlois, Chief of Environmental Planning, explained
that it is an old borrow pit which is about 15-17 feet deep.
Dean Luethje of Carter & Associates, engineers on the
project, advised that the material from that mine pit was used to
build U.S. #1.
Robert Keating, Director of Planning 6 Development,
explained that this is an example of some of the mitigation we
have been working with in a lot of these projects that have
environmental sensitive areas. The main benefit here is the
restoration of the mosquito impoundment with its connection to
the river. He noted that the Mosquito Control District has been
very supportive of this project.
Chairman Wheeler opened the Public Hearing, and asked if
anyone wished to be heard in this matter.
Bruce Barkett, attorney representing the applicant, advised
that the engineers and the environmental consultants on this
project are here this morning to answer any questions the Board
may have.
b
- 46
There being no others who wished to be heard, Chairman
Wheeler closed the Public Hearing.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously
approved the application for conceptual special
exception for Copeland's Landing Riverside Phase,
with the conditions as set out in staff's
recommendation.
TURN LANE ALONG BARBER AVENUE AT MEDICAL SERVICE
SUBDIVISION/INDIAN RIVER MEMORIAL HOSPITAL
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 7/17/89:
------------------------ ----------------------------------------
TO: James Chandler
County Administrator
FROM: James W. Davis, P.E.
Public Works Director
SUBJECT: Turn Lane Along Barber Avenue at
Medical Service Subdivision/Indian
River Memorial Hospital
REF MEMO: Proposal from D.L. Smith dated 7-7-89
DATE: July 17, 1989
-----------------------------------------------------------------
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
On April 25, 1989, the Board of County Commissioners approved a
developers agreement and budget amendment for the construction of
a left turn lane along 37th Street (Barber Avenue) at the Indian
River Memorial Hospital. In the agreement the County was to
formally bid the work.
The developer of the Medical Service Subdivision, Paul Koehler,is
now requesting that his contractor, Dennis L. Smith, Inc.,
perform the work and the County compensate the contractor for 500
of the cost (50% of $24,153.90 or $12,076.95). Mr. Koehler is
proceeding quickly on finalizing construction of the subdivision
and desires to expedite the construction.
ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS
Staff has reviewed the contractor's proposal and is of the
opinion that the price is competitive and reasonable. Since the
contractor is already mobilized a+ the site constructing the
subdivision, the contractor has bid almost $6,000.00 below
staff's estimate.
JUL2, b `d
47 ���f Fq�r 429
I�UU�
I
JUL 6 � �2 9
RECOMMENDATION & FUNDING
BOOK I P, �r. .,�
Staff recommends that Mr. Koehler's request be approved and that
the County participate in funding the county's share ($12,076.95)
of the cost. Formal bidding is recommended to be waived due to
the need to expedite the work so that final plat approval is not
delayed.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bowman, SECONDED by
Commissioner Scurlock, the Board unanimously approved
staff's recommendation as set out in the above memo.
PETITION FOR ROSELAND ROAD STREET LIGHTING DISTRICT
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 7/14/89:
TO: James E. Chandler,
County Administrator
FROM: James W. Davis, P.E.,
Public Works Director
SUBJECT: Petition for Roseland Road Street Light District
DATE: July 14, 1989
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
The Public Works Department recently received a petition signed
by 111 residents of the Roseland area for street lighting along
Roseland Road. The residents are requesting that a street light
district (MSTU) be established to fund the annual cost of 18
street lights (approx. $1,728/yr at $8/month/light).
ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS
It has been estimated that approximately 580 parcels of land
would be included within the Roseland Street Light District.
Yearly assessment to each parcel would be approximately $3/year
plus administrative costs (Property Appraiser and Tax Collector
fees) .
RECOMMENDATION AND FUNDING
It is recommended that the Board authorize staff to proceed in
establishing the requested street light district. No funding is
applicable at this time.
48
� � r
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously approved
staff's recommendation as set out in the above memo.
PETITIONS ARE ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD
CHANNEL "H" DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS EAST OF OLD DIXIE HIGHWAY,
SOUTH OF 12TH STREET
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 7/17/89:
--------------------------- -----------------------------------
TO: James Chandler
County Administrato:°\
FROM: James W. Davis, P.E.
Public Works Director
SUBJECT: Channel "H" Drainage Improvements
East of Old Dixie Highway, South of
12th Street
DATE: July 17, 1989
-----------------------------------------------------------------
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
On January 15, 1986, the Board authorized staff to implement the
construction of Channel "H", a drainage ditch located along the
west side of the F.E.C. Railroad south of 12th Street. This
drainage channel was recommended in the 1982 Master Drainage Plan
prepared by Reynolds Smith, and Hills, Engineers, to relieve
flooding in the area. Funding for the project was to be by
special assessment from benefitted owners within the 150 acre
watershed.
While awaiting permits for the project, staff recognized the
opportunity to implement the project in conjunction with new
development within the area at minimal cost to the County (labor
and equipment to install pipes beneath 8th Street). At this
time, construction of the channel is 90% complete. The remaining
tasks include placement of two (2) 361' drainage pipes beneath a
railroad spur at the site of the former Gulf Stream Lumber
Company. Since removal of the railroad tracks is involved, the
F.E.C. Railroad permits only pre -qualified railroad contractors
to perform the work. The F.E.C. Railroad has given the County a
list of these contractors. Staff has contacted the contractors
and requested a proposal from each contractor for performance of
the work.
ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS
The following proposals have been received:
R. W. Summers Railroad Contractor, Inc.
Bartow, Florida Bid $ 5,325.00
C. J. Bridges Railroad Contractor, Inc.
Mulberry, Florida Bid $ 16,000.00
W. J. Sapp and Son, Inc.
Jacksonville, Florida NO BID
J U L e2'5 1989
`7
k,•
BUOK � F 32 -
Formal bidding was not advertised since only pre -qualified F.E.C.
Railroad contractors located outside of the County are involved.
The low price was submitted by R. W. Summers, Inc. The
appropriate insurance certificate has also been supplied to the
County.
RECOMMENDATION AND FUNDING
It is recommended that the Board waive formal bidding procedures
and award the construction to R. W. Summers Railroad Contractor,
Inc. for $5,325.00 as presented in the proposal dated June 13,
1989. Funding to be from Road & Bridge Division fund
111-214-541-035.39 (balance on 6/30/89 $52,157.00).
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously approved
staff's recommendation as set out in the above memo.
R. W. SUMMERS RAILROAD CONTRACTOR, INC.
Railroad Construction and Maintenance
P. O. BOX 1456
BARTOW, FLORIDA 33830
(813) 533-8107
June 13, 1989
Mr. Fritz Scharfschwerdt
Indian River County
Road & Bridge Division
4625 41st Street
Vero Beach, Florida 32967
RE: Culvert Installation Under Railroad Track
Dear Mr. Scharfschwerdt:
We are pleased to submit the following proposal to install
culverts under railroad tracks at Vero Beach, Florida.
FURNISH MATERIALS:
12 each new 6" X 8" X 816" hardwood cross ties
New 9/16' X 5-1/2" track -spikes
New No.,4 limerock ballast
Labor and equipment to remove approximately
24 L.F. of existing track, install 2 each
36 inch X 100 L.F. culverts and reinstall track.
LUMP SUM ------------------- $5,325.00
CLARIFICATIONS AND EXCEPTIONS:
All culvert pipe to be furnished by others at no cost to
R.W. Summers.
50
All water to be removed from existing ditch by others at no
cost to R.W. Summers.
When required all paving and utilities relocation, to be
furnished by others at no cost to R.W. SUMMERS.
PAYMENT TERMS: Net 15 days. Eighteen (18) percent annual
interest (1-1/2% per month) will be charged on all past due
invoices. Collection service and/or attorney fees, if necessary,
to be paid by customer.
Our proposal is based on provision of insurance coverage and
limits per attached Exhibit "A".
We are prepared to commence work within fourteen (14)
calendar days after receipt of a fully executed contract or
purchase order.
. After July 13, 1989, this proposal is subject to seller
confirmation.
We appreciate your business and look forward to serving you.
Sincerely,
Charles D. Merritt
Executive'Vice President
FDOT COMPUTER SERVICES AGREEMENT FOR CONSULTANT ENGINEER'S USE
FOR INDIAN RIVER BOULEVARD
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 7/19/89:
-----------------------------------------------------------------
TO: James Chandler
County Administrator
THROUGH: James W. Davis, P.E.
Public Works Director
lw�'
FROM: James D. White, P.E. ��
County Engineer
SUBJECT: FDOT Computer Services Agreement for
Consultants Use for Indian River Boulevard
Phase IV Design
DATE: July 19, 1989
-----------------------------------------------------------------
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
The Engineering Consultant has requested approval to use the FDOT
Computer Services Center to complete parts of the design of
Indian River Boulevard, Phase IV.
9 51 �UC'P d GArr. 0
JUL 2 5 189
L—
J U L 2 5 1989
L
ROOK T1 i -,.,r. 34
The FDOT requires users be agents of a Florida political
subdivision so Indian River County will be principals to the
agreement, with the consultant using -and paying directly the cost
of the services.
RECOMMENDATION
The only alternative presented is staff recommendation for Board
authorization for the chairman to execute.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by
Commissioner Eggert, the Board unanimously approved
staff's recommendation as set out in the above memo.
PARTIALLY EXECUTED AGREEMENT IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE
CLERK TO THE BOARD
LICENSE AGREEMENT FOR ENVIRONMENTAL LEARNING CENTER TO CONSTRUCT -
/OPERATE A BOAT DOCK AND PARKING AREA BENEATH THE WEST APPROACH
OF THE WABASSO CAUSEWAY HIGH LEVEL BRIDGE
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 7/14/89:
TO: James E. Chandler,
County Administrator
FROM: James W. Davis, P.E.,
Public Works Director
SUBJECT: Request from Environmental Learning Center(ELC) for a
License Agreement to Construct/Operate a Boat Dock and
Parking Area Beneath the West Approach of the Wabasso
Causeway High Level Bridge
REF.LETTER: George P. Bunnell, ELC Campaign Chairman to Jim
Davis dated 5-15-89 and 7-12-89
DATE: July 14, 1989
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
The Environmental Learning Center has requested use of the County
owned right-of-way area beneath the west approach of the Wabasso
high level bridge to construct/operate a boat dock and parking
facilities to accommodate river educational tours. A large 65'
paddlewheel type boat, which will transport as many as 150
persons, is proposed to be docked at the proposed area. Free
weekly morning river tours will be given by the ELC, and the boat
owner will also use the boat for commercial cruises, with a
portion of the proceeds going to the ELC as a donation. Mr.
Bunnell's July 12, letter adequately describes -the program.
52
ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS
Consistent with the County's policy on concessions at County
owned land, a license agreement is agreeable to staff and the ELC
to address site plan issues, insurance provisions, a minimal
license fee, maintenance, etc. In addition, a similar license
agreement may be advisable between the County and the private
entity that will operate the boat for commercial tours. The
attached back-up information addresses many of staff's concerns.
A copy of the preliminary site plan for the improvements is also
attached.
RECOMMENDATIONS AND FUNDING
It is recommended that staff be authorized to prepare license
agreements between the County and all parties desiring use of the
west causeway area for future board consideration. No funding is
applicable at this time.
Commissioner Bird felt that would be an excellent place to
dock a boat, but the drawing that was prepared showed that space
to be a little tight to allow adequate parking for public
purposes.
George Bunnell, campaign chairman for the Environmental
Learning Center, advised that Darrell McQueen & Associates
prepared the drawing for them and the Learning Center actually
took some out of there that they felt could be worked in if more
parking became necessary. They also own the tract next to the
subject property, and parking can be arranged on it if necessary.
JUL 2 b A8
53 E OOK 7 7 FA;c. 3
J
i�UL 2 t,'6
ROOK
F 9
4 3 G
Commissioner Bird
always had thought the river
along
the
road going in there was relatively deep and had envisioned that a
dock would be built there someday.
Mr. Bunnell explained that their original plan was to have
the dock at the foot of their driveway, but they found that the
water is very shallow there and continues to be shallow quite a
distance from shore.
MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by
Commissioner Eggert, that the Board approve staff's
recommendation as set out in the above memo.
Jeannette Lier, One Michael Creek Drive, was concerned that
this use would keep the public from using that spot for fishing,
picnics, parking, etc, but the Commissioners assured her that it
would not.
Commissioner Bird agreed that it needs to be understood that
whatever parking is created there is going to be available to the
public and that it would not be for the exclusive use of any
business venture such as this paddle wheel boat, and Mr. Bunnell
explained that staff insisted, along with a number of things they
have to adhere to, that the public would continue to have the
right to fish and camp there.
THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION. The Motion was
voted on and carried unanimously.
CONSTRUCTION OF OFFICE BUILDING FOR ROAD & BRIDGE DEPT.
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 7/19/89:
54
TO: James E. Chandler,
County Administrator
FROM: James W. Davis, P.E.,:
Public Works Director--*
SUBJECT: Road & Bridge
DATE: July 19, 1989
Division Office Building
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
The low bidder for the Road and Bridge Division office building
has not been able to finalize contract execution with the County.
As a result, the low bidder, Rocheford-Baer Construction Corp. is
forfeiting his bid bond in the amount of $2,463.35.
Staff is recommending that the contract now be awarded to the
second low bidder, Fisher McGann, in the amount of $63,566.
Since this bid is $14,299 more than the low bid ($49,267),
additional funding is required.
ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS
Road and Bridge Division FY 88/89 budget has $35,000 budgeted in
line item 111-214-541-066.29. In addition, the low bidder's bid
bond in the amount of $2,463.35 can be used for funding.
Additional funding in the amount of $26,102.65 is needed. There
remains an unencumbered balance of $193,970 in Road and Bridge
Division line item 111-214-541-034.59 (other insurance). It is
recommended that a budget amendment be authorized to line
transfer the $26,102.65 from line item 034.59 to 066.29.
RECOMMENDATION AND FUNDING
It is recommended that the second low bidder, Fisher McGann, be
awarded the contract in the amount of $63,566 and that a budget
amendment be approved to transfer $26,102.65 from Road and Bridge
Fund 111-214-541-034.59 (Other Insurance) to 111-214-541-066.29
(Buildings).
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously approved
Budget Amendment #091 and staff's recommendation
as set out in the above memo.
55
JUL 2b1989 HI `�8/
J, U L 2 5 1989
TO: Members of the Board
of County Commissioners
FROM: Joseph A. Bair
OMB Director
_I
SUBJECT: BUDGET AMENDMENT
NUMBER: 091
DATE: August 17. 1989
Entry
Number
Funds De artment Account Name
Account Number
Increase
Decrease
1.
EXPENSE
ROAD AND BRIDGE
Road and Brid a Insurance
111-214-541-034.59
9 0
S26.103.00
Road and-Bridge/other Bldg-
111-214-541-066.29
926 103.00
9 0
DEVELOPER'S AGREEMENT FOR OVERSIZING WATER LINE IN SYLVAN LAKES
SUBDIVISION (FORMERLY TWIN LAKES)
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 7/10/89:
DATE:
JULY 10, 1989
TO: JAMES E. CHANDLER
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
FROM: TERRANCE G. PINTO
DIRECTOR OF UTILIT ERVICES
STAFFED AND
PREPARED BY: SCOTT C. DOSCHER S Ce
PROJECT ENGINEER
DEPARTMENT OF UTILITY SERVICES
SUBJECT: SYLVAN LAKES SUBDIVISION (FORMERLY TWIN LAKES)
IRC PROJECT NO. CDS 297
BACKGROUND:
H.K.Z. Development Corporation, Owner and Developer of Sylvan Lakes
Subdivision (formerly known as Twin Lakes) has oversized a water
line on 41st Street, west of Kings Highway, to serve the subject
project and surrounding area.
ANALYSIS•
The development required 990 feet of 6 inch diameter water main.
The County Master Plan requires a 16 inch water main. The County
wishes to compensate H.K.Z. Development Corporation for oversizing
the line in the standard amount of $2.00 per inch of oversizing, per
foot,of line oversized. This amounts to $19,800.00.
56
Reimbursement shall be from 50% of all impact fees collected from
Sylvan Lakes Subdivision and surrounding properties who connect to
the portion of the water system during the first five years after
acceptance of the subject construction by Indian River County. This
amount shall not exceed the above -stated amount.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Department of Utility Services recommends that the Board of
County Commissioners approve the attached Developer's Agreement with
H.K.Z. Development Corporation.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by
Commissioner Eggert, the Board unanimously approved
staff's recommendation as set out in the above memo.
DEVELOPERS AGREEMENT IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE
ACQUISITION OF COMPUTER MODELING SYSTEM FOR THE COUNTY'S WATER
DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 7/11/89:
DATE: JULY 11, 1989
TO: JAMES E. CHANDLER
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
FROM: TERRANCE G. PINT
DIRECTOR OF UTIL Y SERVICES
STAFFED AND
PREPARED BY: WILLIAM F. MCCAI
CAPITAL PROJECTS
DEPARTMENT OF UTIL TY SERVICES
SUBJECT: ACQUISITION OF COMPUTER MODELING SYSTEM FOR THE
COUNTY'S WATER DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM
BACKGROUND:
As a result of the Water Master Plan that is being done by Boyle
Engineering, they had to generate a computer model (Boyle Net) to
simulate the water distribution system at various stages of
development (i.e., 1990, 2005, etc.). The Department of Utility
Services is requesting to have the data base for this model
transferred to a Kentucky Pipe Model, which this Department intends
to purchase.
57
Jul 251989 Roos ,C,$i;;.
I
JUL 2 5 1989
R =(•
ANALYSIS•
The Department of Utility Services originally intended to purchase
the Boyle Net Model; however, the software, with data in place, was
more than $20,000.00. This high cost was primarily due to licensing
fees associated with their software. After reviewing the cost and
capabilities of the Boyle Net Model, we have found the Kentucky Pipe
Model to be more compatible with our current and long term needs.
The costs associated with this model are as follows:
1. Kentucky Pipe Software $ 425.00
2. Boyle Services (see attached
Work Authorization) 3.903.00
$4,328.00
The funds for these services will come from Account No.
471-219-536-033.13 (Engineering Services) and Account No.
471-219-536-035.12 (Software).
RECOMMENDATION•
The Department of Utility Services recommends that the Indian River
County Board of County Commissioners approve the signing of the
attached Work Authorization No. 1 with Boyle Engineering.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by
Commissioner Eggert, the Board unanimously approved
staff's recommendation as set out in the above memo.
WORK AUTHORIZATION NO. 1 IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO
58
ACQUISITION OF PROPERTY FROM HARRY HURST, LOTS 1, 2, 3 - BLOCK 28
The Board reviewed the following letter dated 7/26/89:
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS CHARLES P. VITUNAC
1840 25th Street, Vero Beach, Florida 32960 County Attorney
Telephone: (305) 567-8000
• • Suncom: 224-1425 WILLIAM G. coII
Asst. County Attorney
SHARON PHILLIPS BRENNAN
Asst. County Attorney
July 26, 1989
Mr. Harry R. Hurst
2358 Vero.Beach Avenue
Post Office Box 1415
Vero Beach, FL 32961-1415,
SUBJECT: LOTS 1, 2, 8 3, BLOCK 28
Dear Mr. Hurst:
Indian River County is interested In buying three lots owned
by you to the west of the downtown Vero Beach Baptist
Church. The property would be used by the County for
locating library or courthouse facilities in the downtown
area, and is part of the County's plan for acquiring
certain properties in the six block area bounded by 23rd
Street on the north, 17th Avenue on the west, 21st Street on
the south, and 14th Avenue on the east.
By the Board of County Commissioner's ratification of this
Fetter given at the July 25, 1989 meeting of the Board of
County Commissioners, the Board has authorized the County
Attorney's Office to acquire the property by eminent domain
If necessary.
I would appreciate it if you would contact me to discuss
this purchase. In the. meantime, the County will be
obtaining appraisals of the property which will be used by
the County to establish an estimate of fair market value.
Sincerely,
\G]"r
CHARLES P. VITUNAC
COUNTY ATTORNEY
JUL 51989 59 buoK 11 FA , 441
F_
JUL 2�`969 4
BOOK 1 F'{ �E 442
Attorney Vitunac advised that Mr. Hurst has said that this
type of letter would satisfy his tax reasons and he would enter
into negotiations with the County to sell the 3 lots he owns
which are to the west of the First Baptist Church.
Attorney Vitunac explained that he had felt it would be too
complicated to structure the third -party trade that was discussed
and that it would be better to buy these lots and then have a
contract with the church to effect the.other closing. The above
letter, if authorized today by the Board, would be a threat of
condemnation which would enable Mr. Hurst to roll over his
capital gains.
MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bowman, that the Board authorize
the County Attorney's office to send the proposed
letter to Harry Hurst.
Under discussion, Commissioner Bird said he would vote for
this if this property was to be used for the overall downtown
complex, not just for the library, and Commissioner Eggert
interjected that it would be used for the Courthouse.
THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION. The Motion
was voted on and carried unanimously.
There being no further business, on Motion duly made,
seconded and carried, the Board adjourned at 10:30 o'clock A.M.
ATTEST:
Clerk Chairman
60
W
I