HomeMy WebLinkAbout7/17/1990s,
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
A G E N D A
REGULAR MEETING
JULY 17, 1990
9:00 A.M. - COUNTY COMMISSION CHAMBER
COUNTY ADMINISTRATION BUILDING
1840 25th STREET
VERO BEACH, FLORIDA
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Carolyn K. Eggert, Chairman James E. Chandler, County Administrator
Richard N. Bird, Vice Chairman
Margaret C. Bowman Charles P. Vitunac, County Attorney
Don C. Scurlock, Jr.
Gary C.. Wheeler Jeffrey K. Barton, Clerk to the Board
9:00 AM
1.
CALL TO ORDER PAGE
2.
INVOCATION — John Herrington, Christ Methodist
by the Sea
3.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE — Commissioner Margaret C. Bowman
4.
ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA/EMERGENCY ITEMS
1. Scheduling of a public workshop on land uses
of the new Comp Plan.
2. Status report on TCRPC upland vegetation approach.
3. EMERGENCY South County Fire District Meeting.
5.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A: Approval of Minutes of Special
Meeting of 6/13/90
B. Approval of Minutes of Regular
Meeting of 6/19/90
6.
CONSENT AGENDA
Report of Occupational License
Taxes Collected for Month of
June, 1990
(Memorandum dated 7/2/90)
7.
CLERK TO THE BOARD
None
9:05 AM
8.
A. PUBLIC DISCUSSION ITEMS
Recommendat}on to Incorporate
Jungle Trail into the County
Park System
(See attached Park & Rec. Minutes)
_
JUL 1-7
199
�.6
Boor F'1GE 60u
9:05 AM 8. B. PUBLIC HEARINGS
1) ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE
NO. 87-11, TOURIST DEVELOPMENT
TAX, TO EXPAND THE AUTHORIZED
USED OF REVENUE TO THOSE
ALLOWED BY STATE LAW: PROVIDING
FOR SEVERABILITY, CONFLICTING
PROVISIONS AND EFFECTIVE DATE
(Memorandum dated 7/10/90)
2) Urban Resource Group Request
to Rezone Approximately 65 Acres
North of Oslo Road East of US#1
from RS -1 to RM -6
(Memorandum dated 7/3/90)
9. COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S MATTERS
None
10. DEPARTMENTAL MATTERS
A. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
None
B. EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT
None
C. GENERAL SERVICES
None
D. LEISURE SERVICES
None
E. OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
None
F. PERSONNEL
None
G. PUBLIC WORKS
1) Final Pay Request from Dennis L.
Smith for Miscellaneous Inter-
section, Phase IIIA
(Memorandum dated 7/10/90)
2) Right-of-way Acquisition, Lot 16,
Westlake Estates. Fronting 74th
Avenue, Pat & Linda Luther, Owners
(Memorandum dated 7/11/90)
3) Release of Retainage, Petition
Paving Projects for Kimball Lloyd
and Associates
(Memorandum dated 7/9/90)
4) Resolution Authorizing the Execution
of the DNR FRDAP Grant Agreement for
Treasure Shores Park, Phase I
(Memorandum dated 7/2/90)
PAGE
f
10.
11.
12.
13.
DEPARTMENTAL MATTERS - CONTINUED
H. UTILITIES
1) Interdepartmental Vehicle
Transfer
(Memorandum dated 7/9/90)
2) Agreement, Temporary Water
Service, Mr. & Mrs. William B.
Mills
(Memorandum dated 7/2/90)
3) Agreement, Temporary Water
Service, Mrs. Ann Blaicher
(Memorandum dated 7/2/90)
COUNTY ATTORNEY
A. Resolution Appointing Property
Appraisal Adjustment Board Members,
and Providing for Per Diem Compensation
for Property Appraisal Adjustment
Board Members
(Memorandum dated 7/5/90)
B. Letter from the President of St. Francis
Manor
(Memorandum dated 6/26/90)
COMMISSIONERS ITEMS
A. CHAIRMAN CAROLYN K. EGGERT
B. VICE CHAIRMAN RICHARD N. BIRD
C. COMMISSIONER MARGARET C. BOWMAN
D. COMMISSIONER DON C. SCURLOCK, JR.
E. COMMISSIONER GARY C. WHEELER
SPECIAL DISTRICTS
PAGE
A-ddad as an emergency:, SOUTH COUNTY FIRE DISTRICT MEETING.
ANYONE WHO MAY WISH TO APPEAL ANY DECISION WHICH MAY BE MADE AT THIS
MEETING WILL NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS
MADE WHICH INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL WILL
BE BASED.
J U L 171990
BOOK ( r-,`uC.li �ti"
Tuesday, July 17, 1990
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
17, 1990, at 9:00 o'clock A.M. Present were Carolyn K. Eggert,
Chairman; Richard N. Bird, Vice Chairman; Margaret C. Bowman; Don
C. Scurlock, Jr.; and Gary C. Wheeler. Also present were James
E. Chandler, County Administrator; Charles P. Vitunac, Attorney
to the Board of County Commissioners; Joseph Baird, OMB Director;
and Barbara Bonnah, Deputy Clerk.
The Chairman called the meeting to order.
Reverend John Herrington of Christ Methodist by the Sea gave
the invocation, and Commissioner Bowman led the Pledge of
Allegiance to the Flag.
ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA/EMERGENCY ITEMS
Chairman Eggert requested the addition to today's Agenda of
a brief status report on the Treasure Coast Regional Planning
Council, and the scheduling of a public workshop on the land uses
of the new Comp Plan.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously added the
above items to today's Agenda.
JUL `X9930 t ll �
J:aY I. d
.J
Chairman Eggert requested the addition of two emergency
items regarding the South County Fire District, and Commissioner
Scurlock questioned whether these items could be added seeing
there wasn't even an advertised Fire District Meeting on the
Agenda today.
Attorney Vitunac believed that it is permissible since
emergency items do not have to be advertised, and Administrator
Chandler explained that they were late in getting these items
down to the agenda office last Friday.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously scheduled
an emergency meeting of the South County Fire District
to be held immediately upon adjournment of this
meeting in that there are two emergency items that need
the Board's approval.
Attorney Vitunac announced that the Board would hold a
strategy meeting on contract negotiations in his office
immediately upon adjournment of the South County Fire District
meeting.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
The Chairman asked if there were any corrections or
additions to the Minutes of the Special Meeting of June 13, 1990.
There were none.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by
Commissioner Wheeler, the Board unanimously approved
the Minutes of the Special Meeting of 6/13/90, as
written.
2
It
The Chairman asked if there were any corrections or
additions to the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of June 19, 1990.
There were none.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Wheeler, SECONDED by
Commissioner Scurlock, the Board unanimously approved
the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of 6/19/90, as
written.
CONSENT AGENDA
A. Report of Occupational License Taxes Collected for Month of
June, 1990
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 7/2/90:
IuIDIv (0)' 1.1 S1111) w
OFFICE GIF Tf-IE TAX COFLFCTOO Fm
GENE E. MORRIS, C.F.G.
TAX COLLECTOR
TO: Board of County Commissioners
FROM: Gene E. Morris, Tax Collector
SUBJECT: Occupational Licenses
DATE: July 2, 1990
P. O. Box 1509
VERO BEACH. FLORIDA - 32961
TELEPHONE: (407) 587.8180
SuNeoM B 424-1338
Pursuant to Indian River County Ordinance No. 86-59, please be
informed that $2683.75 was collected in occupational license
taxes during the month of June, 1990, representing the issuance
of 168 licenses.
Gene E. Morris, Tax Collector
3
JUL 171990
iULp`
Inn �p FF [
USF.
.d
ON MOTION by'Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously accepted
the Occupational License report for the month of
June, 1990.
PUBLIC DISCUSSION - RECOMMENDATION TO INCORPORATE JUNGLE TRAIL
INTO THE COUNTY PARK SYSTEM
The Board reviewed the following letter dated 6/25/90:
Attached is a mister concept plan, which identifies tli6 areas of the
following requests.
4
Indian River County
c7...
s
t
f
Historical Society Jnce
°`3
,
d
.- i e9s .
2336 14th Avenue
` Vero Beach, Florida 32961
' Vero Station
Established 1903 . 6538 P. OBox
X ��rzyr' t
'-
407/778-3435
>' ' Honorary Directors
Dr. Eugene Lyon
_
r°r
Charlotte Lockwood
'
John J. Schumann. Jr.June
25p 19JU
•
=? lb: Mr. Jim Davis
Public Works Director
Indian River County
From: Indian River County
historical Society
y-
Subject:. Jungle Trail
"
y
.
.. 4r � - syr. y _
.'rj �� • 4 x
The Indian River County historical Society has luld n series of committee
meetings concerning the historic -and scenic Jungle Trail. The meetings
have been focused on what can be cone today to enhance and protect tits
Trail. -. _
_
The Indian River County historical Society has ntet *I tit the Indinn River
County Recreation Committee, Michael WoclLke, the appointed representative
of that committee, and yourself, Indian River County Public Works Director.
We have extudned the Jungle Trail Mawgement Plan and polled our committee
regarding w1kit steps are needed now.
The following is the Jungle Trail plan of action for June .JulY and
August of 1cJ c
gt J0. 13 1 ease note .that all
with the Indian of these requests are in concert
River Count approved rov•
Y ed Jttn
PI le Trail NLlnstgetnent
Plttn.
Indian River County Nm alrentltntcl tCci g
Y ge $80,(i(X) in funds
for Jangle .
Trail for. this fiscal year which have not been used. It is our request
that the following items be executed promptly out of tltnt'budget.
Attached is a mister concept plan, which identifies tli6 areas of the
following requests.
4
PLAN OF ACTION
ITEM 1AMEr
1. Survey Minter Beach Bridgehead property and do a conceptual
plan, phase I, for Bridgehead Iark. phase I lark will Include
Irt.rking, a nature walk and a fishing pier into the InClInn
River. Clean the entry area of trash and debris with Indian
River County maintenance personnel and mUntain existing
drive. $15,000
ITEM
BUDGET
2.
procure and install Jungle Trail historic, scenic and
informational sighs. The attached conceptual plan shows
the locations of 23 such signs. Five signs have already
been installed. The signs remilning will cost about
$15,000 plus installation. The Historical Society can
coordinate all this work with Indian River County
approval.
$15,000
3.
Install parking signs and st-abalize parking along south
Jungle Trail where heavy public use now exists. This
stabilized area will be in the Jungle Trail right-of-«n.y
until additional land is acquired. Install trash
containers and informational signs.
$100000
4.
Install "No Littering" and "No 1 rking" signs along
_
Jungle Trail:' The sign design is to be coordinated
with the 111storleal Society theme sign design. Install
trash receptables along the Trail.
$ 1,500
B.
File a field maintenance map for the north portion of
Jhngle:.Trai1,
$ 59000
6.
Complete the erosion assessment and stabilization plan
for Jungle Trail.
$10,000
7.
Complete emergency repairs for shoreline stabilization.
$16,000
B.
Enhance mintenance and native landscaping at the four
entry points to Jungle Trill.
$ 6,000
9..
Research and select two publid access sites for land
acquisition in.the 1991 fidcal budget.
$ 1,500
10. Research old site plan commitments for the Pkxm River
portion of Jungle Trnil. We believe Intbl.ic nccess,
parking, and docks were to be nide available to the
public in this area bn their approved site plan. Staff
11. Research the west side of the Indian River at Old
Winter heath Crossing for future public dock and
boating areas. Staff
7bta1 budget i'iitems 1 to 11 is $80,000
lbtal amount presently budgeted ' $809000
ADDITIONAL M UMr
12. prepare a budget to be included in the 1901 Indian River
County Ftscnl Budget meetings for ftiture maintenance,
protection and development of Jungle Trail. Staff
5
J U L 17 19490 KKK
JUL 17 `1990
Budget items might include:
shoreline stabilization
b,: public access acquisition
C. Bridge head Park improvements
d. regular road maintenance
e. continued Jungle Trail concept development
f. ranger patrol
g. additional* signage
h. park enhancement
BOOK
$ 40,000
$100,000
$ 20,000
$ 3,000
$ 3,000
$ 5,000
$ 10,000
The Indian River Cbunty t[istoricnl Society offers its orgnnimation and
members to help Indinn River County execute these requests in nny wny
possible. The Jungle Trail Utnagement flan sets completion tlltes for
much of this work. These completion date have Ixissed in rmny mens. We
urge you and your department to complete the listed work immediately.
We are avallable.to help.
Sincerely,
Clarolyn:S rt, president
Indiftn Ri er Cbunty historical Society
Millie Bunnell
Ruth Stanbridge
'john dean '
Commissioner Bird explained that although they didn't have a
quorum in their meeting of July 5th, the Parks & Recreation
Committee unofficially recommended that the County Commission
consider making the entire length of Jungle Trail a county park.
Since County staff really hasn't had a chance to look into the
ramifications of making the Trail a county park, he would like to
pass this back to staff and have them come back with a recommen-
dation.
Commissioner Scurlock understood that it would be a pretty
extensive undertaking from a budgetary and funding standpoint.
He didn't know if Administrator Chandler has had a chance to
address it in this budget or given much thought to it for future
budgets.
Administrator Chandler.advised that we budgeted $100,000 the
current fiscal year and are recommending $100,000 for next year,
but if the Board pursues the county park concept, we will need to
add another $100,000 into next year's budget.
Commissioner Scurlock asked what personnel would be needed
to cut the grass, paint the benches, fill the holes, etc., and
Administrator Chandler advised that he is recommending funding
for next year for two additional personnel for maintenance,
primarily for the south county park and some of our other areas,
6
but he didn't feel the ranger was as high a priority as some of
our other needs, and is not recommending funding of the ranger.
Commissioner Bird didn't feel the $100,000 improvement list
that _the committee came up with was necessarily tied to whether
or not the Trail becomes a county park. He believed these are
the improvements the committee feels need to be done along the
Trail for the publi'c's benefit and for the preservation of the
Trail.
Chairman Eggert pointed out that the shopping list is really
$180,000, and Commissioner Scurlock wished to see a full Parks 8
Recreation Committee take a look at this and then prepare a
5 -year plan to see where we are going and how to get there.
Commissioner Bowman questioned how much of the $180,000 is
necessary. She could see stabilization, but she would like a
chance to look the whole thing over.
Commissioner Wheeler advised that a committee of the Marine
Advisory Committee supports the concept of making Jungle Trail
into a county park, but feels that stabilization of the shoreline
should be the first priority.
MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bowman, that the Board direct staff to
review the proposed plan and come back with the pros
and cons of making Jungle Trail a county park and
how that can be best accomplished, along with the
financial impact and the timing of those funds.
Under discussion, Administrator Chandler clarified that the
$100,000 that was budgeted for this year and the $100,000 being
recommended for next year's budget is for stabilization,
irrespective of whether or riot it becomes a county park.
Public Works Director Jim Davis advised that items #5 and
#10 on the list submitted by the Historical Society have been
J U L 17 Mo
BOOK 6lu
JUL ii _iAO
Boos .avF r
impl-emented. We have filed a maintenance map for the north
portion of the Trail and we have researched the commitments of
the developers along the Trail. The Moon River Phase I project
has a condition under their land development permit to accomplish
stabilization along their frontage by December, 1990. That would
involve the majority of the stabilization that is needed along
the Trail, particularly in that concave portion where the erosion
is the heaviest. We have been holding off, hoping they wilt
fulfill that commitment so that the County will not have to
expend funds for that portion. We have talked with the engineer
of record, but are having some trouble contacting the hierarchy
of that development. Director Davis recalled that last year's
budget got cut from $200,000 to $100,000, and cautioned that we
are getting very limited as to what we can do in acquiring land
for parking.
THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION. The Motion
was voted on and carried unanimously.
Millie Bunnell, representing the Indian River County
Historical Society, commented that this is something they have
been working towards for a very long time and thanked the Board
for the unanimous vote on this matter. She noted that no mention
has been made of the money budgeted for the Jungle Trail
Management Plan. She understood that all of that money has not
been spent, and suggested that perhaps that money can be used for
this. The first priority, of course, is stabilization, and the
next is parking.
Director Davis advised that they have been looking at
available sites for acquisition, but it is a -very narrow corridor
and parallel parking along the Trail doesn't seem to be working
on Saturdays and Sundays. He reported that we soon will be doing
some stabilization outside the Moon River frontage.
8
Mrs. Bunnell circulated some photographs taken on July 4th
of cars parked along the Trail and the water lying in the road
from the recent heavy rains. (PHOTOGRAPHS ARE ON FILE IN ROLAND
DeBLO1S' OFFICE).
Commissioner Scurlock asked if we are going to try to spend
those funds in the Management Plan budget, but Administrator
Chandler expected that to be worked out at the budget meetings
coming up this week.
Jeanette Lier, 1 Michael Creek Drive, wished to point out
the need for citrus haulers to park along the road at times,
especially during harvest season. They are concerned that a
parking ban would prohibit their truck being parked along there
during certain times of the year, and Commissioner Scurlock
suggested that perhaps we could work out some sort of an
exemption for that.
Chairman Eggert explained that this matter is being sent
back to staff and will be brought back to the Board at a later
date.
PUBLIC HEARING - ORDINANCE EXPANDING THE AUTHORIZED USE OF
TOURIST DEVELOPMENT TAX
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-JOU01NAL
Published Darly
Vero Beach, Indian River County, Florida
COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER: STATE OF FLORIDA
Belore the undersigned authority personally appeared J. J. Schumann, Jr. who on oath
says that he is Business Manager of the Vero Beach Press-Joumal, a daily newspaper published
at Vero Beacb In Indian River County, Florida: thal,the attached copy of advertisement, being
a
In the matter o1 97
In the_ _.'•Court. was pub-
., `
fished In said newspaper In the Issues of
Affiant further says that the said Vero Beach press -Journal is a newspaper published at
Vero Beach, In said Indian River County. Florida, and that the said newspaper has heretofore
been continuously published in said Indian River County. Florida, each dally and has been
entered as second class mail matter at the post office in Vero Beach. in said Indian River Coun•
ly, Florida, for a period of one year nett preceding the first publication o1 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 rotund for he purpose of securing thio
advertisement for publication In the said newspaper.
Sworn to and subscribed before me this day of A.D. 19
�.) (Business Manager)
(Clerk so eftaultriCaurt. Indian Rfver Cpiety, Florida)
(BEAU 9
1 K....
PUBLIC NOTICE
The Board of County Commissloners of Indian
River County, Florida, will conduct a Public
Hearing on Tuesday. July 17, 1990 at 8:05 a.m.
in the Commission Chambers at 1840 25th
Street, Vero Beach, FL 32980, to consider the
adoption of an ordinance entitled:
AN ORDINANCE OF INDIAN RIVER
COUNTY, FLORIDA AMENDING ORDI-
` NANCE NO.87-11, TOURIST DEVELOP-
MENT TAX, TO EXPAND THE AUTHOR-
IZED USES OF REVENUE TO THOSE
,_AI,WNtF^.2Y•STATE LAW; PROVIDING
FOR 61NERABILITY, CONFLICTING
PROVISIONS AND EFFECTIVE DATE.
Anne who may wish to appeal any decision
m
wh ch ay be made at this meeting will need to
ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings
Is made, which Includes testimony and evidence
upon which the appeal Is based.
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
CAROLYN K. EGGERT, CHAIRMAN
June 27,1990 897290 .I
RC�Gh"0 FAGS
i U L 17 1590
BOOK
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 7/10/90:
`9
TO: The Board of County Commi•.ssloners
FROM:,,ot William G. Collins II - Assistant County Attorney
DATE: July 10, 1990
SUBJECT: Tourist Development Council Proposal to Revise
Section 22-253 of the Code of Laws and Ordinances
of Indian River County
At the June 6, 1990 meeting of the Tourist Development
Council, the Council proposed an ordinance revision which
would expand the authorized uses of tourist tax revenue to
be consistent with those authorized uses under state law.
Currently the County ordinance is more restrictive than
state law.
The following is an abbreviated summary of the authorized
uses of the revenue under existing County ordinance.
1. Convention center or sports stadium.
2. To promote and advertise tourism.
3. To fund tourist bureaus.
4. To finance beach improvements.
The proposed ordinance revision would add to Item 4 above
the enhancement of inland lakes and rivers to which there is
public access. It would also add a fifth category allowing
counties of less than 500,000 population to use tourist tax
revenues for museums, zoos, fishing piers 'or nature centers
which are publicly owned and operated or owned and operated
by not-for-profit organizations and opened to the public.
On June 19, 1990 the Board authorized advertising for public
hearing.
RECOMMENDATION
Recommend approval of the attached ordinance.
Commissioner Scurlock was concerned about the impact of
tourism on the rest of the community that has to live here year
around, travel our streets, and try to function during peak
tourist season. His suggestion would be that a certain portion
of those monies be reserved to mitigate the impact of tourism,
i.e. to make the roads wider, the community nicer and better able
to handle the tourists when they are are. If expanding this
helps accomplish that, he would support it, but if it just
10
M
expands it so that we have another 50 different categories where
we can piddle money away, he would have some concern. He asked
if the Pelican Island Learning Center would be eligible for
touri.st tax dollars under this ordinance, and Assistant County
Attorney Will Collins confirmed that with this amendment the
Learning Center would be eligible to apply for tourist tax
dollars as would th'e Center for the Arts, etc. He explained that
this amendment wasn't precipitated by any specific request, it
was just the feeling of the Tourist Development Council that the
County's ordinance should be the same as the State's.
Commissioner Scurlock was concerned about the future and
spending these funds on things that really don't benefit the
community as a whole,. but Commissioner Wheeler pointed out that
the Commission still has the last word on expenditures.
Commissioner Wheeler asked if these funds could be used to
fund improvements to Jungle Trail, and Attorney Collins advised
that the funds can be used to finance beach improvement,
maintenance, renourishment, restoration and erosion control,
including shoreline protection and enhancement; as well as
cleanup and restoration of inland lakes and rivers to which there
is public access. So, these funds could be used to restore or
control erosion on Jungle Trail if there was public access
associated with it. He didn't believe the funds could be used to
acquire additional land for parking, however.
Chairman Eggert opened the Public Hearing, and asked if
anyone wished to be heard in this matter. There being none, she
closed the Public Hearing.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Wheeler, SECONDED by
Commissioner Scurlock, the Board unanimously adopted
Ordinance 90-12, amending Ordinance No. 87-11, Tourist
Development Tax, to expand the authorized uses of
revenue to those allowed by State law; providing for
severability, conflicting provisions and effective
date.
C �
11 • RC�GK �� PAE�
J U L 1 1990
ORDINANCE NO. 9o- 12 BOOK
AN ORDINANCE OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY,
FLORIDA AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 87-11,
TOURIST DEVELOPMENT TAX, TO EXPAND THE
yt
AUTHORIZED USES OF REVENUE TO THOSE
ALLOWED BY STATE LAW; PROVIDING FOR
SEVERABILITY, CONFLICTING PROVISIONS AND
EFFECTIVE DATE.
.t
WHEREAS, Indian River County by Ordinance No.
87-11 on January 27, 1987 provided for the creation of two
taxing districts in which the tourist development tax may be
levied on the privilege of renting, leasing, or letting for
consideration any living quarters or accommodations in any
hotel, apartment hotel, motel, rooming house, mobile home
park, recreational vehicle park, camping space, or
condominium for terms of six months or less; and
WHEREAS, such ordinance provided for authorized
uses of revenue derived from the tourist development tax
which were more restrictive than that allowed by state law;
and
WHEREAS, Indian River County wishes to authorize
all uses of the tourist development tax revenues allowable
under state law,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that:
SECTION 1. Ordinance No. 87-11 adopted January
27, 1987 and codified in the Indian River County Code of
Laws and Ordinances as Section 21-253 "Authorized uses of
revenue" is hereby revised as follows:
Section 21-253. Authorized uses of revenue:
(a) All revenues received pursuant to this
article shall be.used for the following purposes only:
(1) To acquire, construct, extend, enlarge,
remodel, repair, improve, maintain,
operate or promote one or more publicly
owned and operated convention center,
sports stadium, sports arena, coliseum
CODING: Words underlined are additions; words WyiW fIht6h0Ih
are deletions.
12
- ORDINANCE NM- 12
or auditorium within the boundaries of
the county or subcounty special taxing
districts as set out in Section 21-251.
However, these purposes may be
Implemented through service contracts
and leases with persons who maintain and
operate adequate existing facilities;
(2) To promote and advertise tourism in the
State of Florida and nationally and
internationally;
(3) To fund convention bureaus, tourist
bureaus, tourist information centers and
news bureaus as county agencies or by
contract with the chambers of commerce
of similar associations in the county;
or
(4) To finance beach improvement,
maintenance, renourishment, restoration
and erosion controll, including
shoreline protection, enhancement,
cleanup, or restoration of inland lakes
and rivers to which there is public
access;
(5) Until such time as Indian River County
reaches a population of 500,000 based on
the most recent population estimates
prepared pursuant to the provisions of
Section 186.901, Florida Statutes, as in
effect on July 1st of each year, tax
revenues received pursuant to this
article may also be used to acquire,
construct, extend, enlarge, remodel,
repair, improve, maintain, operate, or
promote one or more museums, zoological
parks, fishing piers or nature centers
CODING: Words underlined are additions; words
are deletions-.
2
J 0 L 1 7 ,1990
13 BOOK P.GE6
r ORD I NANC�O . -2
��®
JUL �� i!r � FA�����e��
which are publicly owned and operated or
owned and operated by not-for-profit
organizations and open to the public.
(b) The revenues to be derived from the
tourist development tax may be pledged to secure and
liquidate revenue bonds issued by the county for the
purposes set forth in Section (a)`(1) or up to fifty (50)
percent of the revenues to be derived from the tourist
development tax may be pledged to secure and liquidate
revenue bonds issued by the county for the purposes set
forth In Section (a)(4).
SECTION 2.
Severability
If any section, or if any sentence, paragraph,
phrase, or word +of this ordinance is for any reason held to
be unconstitutional, inoperative, or void, such holding
shall not affect the remaining portions of this ordinance,
and it shall be construed to have been the legislative
intent to pass the ordinance' without such unconstitutional,
Invalid or inoperative part.
SECTION 3.
Conflicting Provisions
In case of a conflict between the provisions of
this ordinance and prior ordinances, the prior ordinance
shall be deemed repealed to the extent of such conflict.
SECTION 4.
Effective Date
This ordinance -shall become effective upon receipt
from the Secretary -of State of the State of Florida of
official acknowledgment that this ordinance has been filed
with the Department of State.
Approved and adopted by the Board of County
Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, on this 17
day of July , 1990.
CODING: Words underlined are -additions; words
are deletions.
3
14
M
ORDINANCE NO. 90-12
This ordinance was advertised in the Vero Beach
Press -Journal on the 27 day of June 1990, for a
publ is hearing to be held on the 17 _ day of July
1990, at
which time it was moved for adoption by
Commissioner Wheeler seconded by C
Scurlock and adopted by the following vote:
Chairman Carolyn K. Eggert
Vice Chairman Richard N. Bird
Commissioner Margaret C. Bowman
Commissioner Don C. Scurlock, Jr.
Commissioner Gary C. Wheeler
APPROVED AS TO FORM
AND LEGAL SUFFICIENCY
BY
WILLIAM G. COLLINS II
ASST. COUNTY ATTORNEY
Attest:
i
issioner
Aye
Aye
Aye
Aye
A*4—
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
By J4-�
Carolyn 57. Eggert
Chairman
Acknowledgment by the Department of State of the State of
Florida, this 23rdday of July , 1990.
Effective date: Acknowledgment from the Department of State
received on this �thday of Jul , 1990, at 10:30
a.m./gF*K. and filed in the Of ice ice—oot —e Clerk of the oar
of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida.
14a
r
- -- JUL 17 1990 POOK 80rU�R
URBAN RESOURCE GROUP REQUEST TO REZONE APPROX. 65 ACRES NORTH OF
OSLO ROAD EAST OF U.S. #1 FROM RS -1 TO RM -6
The hour of 9:05 o'clock A.M. staving 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 Couinty, 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 is
in the _ Court, was pub-
lished in said newspaper in the issues of ze
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 _ ( day of A.D. 19
�J^ (Business Manager
(eteriref-We-Girsuit-Gourt;-Indian--RiveF County,, Florida)
(SEAL) J
15
NOTICE — PUBLIC HEARING
Notice of hearing to consider the adoption of
a County ordinance zoning land from: RSI, Sln-
gle-Family Residential District to RM -8, Multiple.
Family Residential District The subject property
Is presently owned by United Financial Group,
Inc. The subject property Is located east of
South U.S. Highway 1, and north of 9th Street
S.W., contains approximately 85 acres, and Iles
In the SW 'A of Section 19, Township 33S,
Range 40E, lying and being rin Indian River
County.
The Board of County Commissioners win con.
duct a public hearingregarding the apppean
the applicant of the decision by the Planing
and Zoning Commission to decry the rezoning
request The public hearing at which partNs In
Interest and citizens shall have an opportunity to
be heard, will be held by the Board of County
Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida,
in the County Commission Chambers of the
County Administration Building, located at 1840
25th Street, Vero Beach, Florida on July 17,
1990, at 9:05 am.
The Board of County Commissioners may
grant a less Intense zoning district than the dW
trict requested provided it is within the. same
general use category.
Anyone who may wish to appeal an 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 to based.
Indian River County
Board of County Commissioners
June 28199 K Eggert, Chairman
Sol
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 7/3/90:
TO: James Chandler
County Administrator
DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE:
_'A6_ &&�
Stan Boling, AICP
Planning Director
THRU: Sasan Rohani S •�
Chief, Long -Range Planning
FROM: Robert M. Loeper C01-
Senior
0`Senior Planner, Long -Range Planning
DATE: July 3, 1990
RE:_ Urban Resource Group request to rezone approximately 65
acres north of Oslo Road east of U.S. 1 from RS -1 to RM -
6.
It is requested that the data herein presented -be given formal
consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their regular
meeting of July 17, 1990.
DESCRIPTION & CONDITIONS
This is a request to rezone approximately 65.33 acres from RS -1,
Single -Family Residential District (1 unit/acre) to RM -6, Multiple -
Family Residential District (6 units/acre). The property is
located north of Oslo Road and east of U.S. #1, behind the South
Vero Square Shopping Center and is part of a larger property
containing approximately 297.93 acres. The applicant is the Urban
Resource Group on behalf of the contractual purchaser, the Leonard
Garner Group of Florham Park, New Jersey. The property is
presently owned by United Financial Group. -of Houston, Texas. The
applicant intends to build a residential development on the
property.
On May 10, 1990, the Planning and Zoning Commission voted 4 to 1
to recommend to the Board of County Commissioners that the request
to rezone approximately 65 acres from RS -1, Single -Family
Residential District and RM -6, Multiple Family Residential District
to RM -10, Multiple Family Residential District be denied.
On May 25, 1990, in accordance with the provisions of Section 27
of the Indian River County Zoning Code, the applicant appealed the
decision of the Planning and Zoning Commission to the Board of
County Commissioners. At that time the applicant also amended the
application to request the RM -6, Multiple Family Residential
:.District.
Existing'Land Use Pattern
The property is presently undeveloped. Although primarily zoned
RS -1, the property includes a 100 foot wide finger that extends
from the bulk .of the property to US #1 and a portion that fronts
Oslo Road to a depth of 250 feet, both of which are zoned RM -6,
Multi -Family Residential District (6 units/acre). Immediately
north is the Forest Park subdivision. This substantially built -
out single family subdivision contains lots averaging 10,000 sq.
ft. and is zoned RS -6, Single -Family Residential District (6
16
JUL 171990
r JUL �`_ f� 910
units/acre). ' Property to
.wetlands and impoundments.
` of ,Oslo Road, is zoned RM -6.
with the exception of
Immediately west of the sub
BOOK 60 `�* 61? 7
„ �,
the east is zoned RS -1, and includes
Property to the south, along both sides
This property is largely undeveloped
the Florida Entomology Laboratory.
ject property is the recently completed
South Vero Square Shopping Center which is zoned CG, General
Commercial.
Future Land Use Pattern
The subject property is designated M-2, Medium -Density Residential -
2 on the comprehensive plan future land use map. This designation
permits zoning densities up to 10 units/acre. The M-2 designation
extends along the east of US #1 from the Vero Beach city limits
south to Oslo Road. Property east of the M-2 designation to the
Indian River is designated C-2, Conservation. This designation is
applied to those areas which contain or possess lands with
qualities and features which play a vital or essential role in the
normal functioning of the ecosystems; C-2 lands have been so
identified in the Conservation Element. The C-2 land use limits
development to conservation, recreation and residential uses (1
unit/40 acres on-site, 1 unit/acre Transfer Development Right).
According to.comprehensive plan policies exact boundaries of C-2
District properties are to be established prior to development by
an environmental survey. Property south of Oslo Road is designated
as L-2, Low -Density Residential 2, which permits residential
development up to 6 units per acre. The site occupied by the South
Vero Square Center, immediately west, is part of the Oslo Road/US
#1 Commercial Node.
Environment
The subject property is part of a large:
Indian River Lagoon. The property was
of Engineers, the St. John's River Wat
the county environmental planner. Tr
limits of the environmentally sensitive
the C-2, Conservation District. The
(approximtely 65 acres) not classified a
by the comprehensive plan represents 1
zoning application.
parcel which boarders the
surveyed by.the Army Corps
Dr Management District and
is survey established the
wetlands which are part of
remaining upland property
environmentally sensitive
he area considered by the
There are several environmental concerns and issues to be
considered. The site contains one of the few remaining coastal
tropical hammocks in the county and is therefore considered
environmentally important. This is evidenced by policy 6.3 of the
conservation element which lists the property as being under
consideration for public acquisition as a•means of preservation.
The comprehensive plan does not.limit the use or intensity of the
property, but the plan does place restrictions on development.
Policy 6.12 of the conservation element requires the preservation
of 10-15% of native upland habitat including coastal tropical
hammocks. Any development proposal would be required to meet these
standards. In addition, policy 7.3 of the land use element
requires an environmental survey prior to receiving a development
order for property designated as environmentally sensitive or
important.
Another environmental concern is. that a portion of the property is
within the 500 year and 100 year flood plains .as identified on the
Federal Emergency Management Agency, Flood Insurance Rating'Maps.
..Once again, this does not preclude development but places
restrictions on development. The establishment of minimum finished
floor elevations along with county stormwater requirements greatly
minimize flood hazards and danger.
Utilities and Services
The site's location within the developed area of the south county
is further evidenced by the availability of services and public
17
s � �
facilities. County water mains extend along US #1, adjacent to the
subject property. Likewise sewer lines have been extended to the
area to serve nearby development. The proximity of lines for these
services could be easily extended for development of this site.
This location is also within an area that is presently served by
private trash collection. No public drainage facilities serve.$he
site; therefore, the development of private drainage facilities on-
site will be required. Recreation facilities in the south county
include a community park under development at Oslo Road and 20th
Avenue. Multi -family developments usually contain on-site
recreational amenities for residents.
Transportation System
Access to the subject property is by US Highway 1 and Oslo Road.
US #1 is a four lane divided road classified as a principal
arterial roadway. Currently, the segment from Oslo Road to 4th
Street operates at a level of service "C"; however, the
comprehensive plan projects a level of service "F" by the year
1995. Improvements have been identified to maintain the level of
service "C"; however, they have not.been placed on the 5 -Year
Capital Improvement Plan. The US #1 segment from Oslo Road to the
south county line also has 'an- existing level of service "C" and
projected level of service "C".
Oslo Road is presently a two lane minor arterial road operating at
a level of service "C" from US #1 to 27th Avenue. Scheduled
improvements include the widening from 2 to 4 lanes from US #1 to
Old Dixie Highway by the year 1993. Despite these improvements,
the expected level of service for this road is projected as LOS
I'D".
ALTERNATIVES & ANALYSIS
In this section, an analysis of -the reasonableness of the
application will be presented. The analysis will include a
description of the potential impacts on surrounding areas,
potential impacts on the transportation and utility systems, and
any significant adverse impacts on environmental quality. This
section will also consider alternatives for development of the
site.
Com atability with -Existing Services and Facilities
This site is located within the county Urban Service Area (USA),
an area deemed suited for urban scale development. The
comprehensive plan establishes standards for: Transportation,
Potable Water, Wastewater, Solid Waste, Drainage and Recreation.
Together with Traffic, the adequate provision of these services is
necessary to ensure the continued quality of life enjoyed by the
community. The comprehensive plan also requires that new
development be' -reviewed to ensure that standards are not exceeded.
- Transportation
Although no traffic impact analysis has been done for the
site, staff estimates that the requested rezoning would
result in approximately 2500 average daily vehicle trips
from the site. Given projected trips from committed
development in the area (Grove Isle, Garden Grove, Oslo
Square occupancy), staff projects that the subject
property would generate sufficient trips to adversely
affect the minimum service level established for US #1.
Potable Water
The county water plant on Oslo Road provides water for
the south county area. This plant is presently
undergoing a planned extension to meet increased demand.-
County
emand.County water lines extend along US #1 within proximity
of the site. County water services would not be
constrained by this rezoning.
JUI" I ? 1990
Analysis
Sanitary -Sewer
The county provides wastewate
owned Vista Royale Treatment
agreement between the county
provides for the county to use
Beach plant. At.;this time, ca
BOOK SO F,vUE 620
r treatment at the county
Plant. In addition, an
and City of Vero Beach
some capacity of the Vero
cap
would be available;
however, a more exact determination of need and available
capacity would be made when a more specific development
plan for the site is reviewed. Sewer lines presently in
place along Oslo Road would not be large enough to serve
a project of this size and would need to be replaced with
larger lines. This rezoning would not lower existing
levels of service.
Solid Waste
Solid waste service includes pick-up by private operator
and disposal at the county landfill. The landfill has
a capacity beyond 2010 with expansion capabilities to
accommodate future demand.
Drainage
All development is reviewed for compliance with county
stormwater regulations which require on-site retention,
preservation of flood plain water storage and finished
floor elevations. Together these regulations limit the
potential of on-site and off-site flooding and damage.
The lack of public drainage facilities will require
private facilities utilizing the adjacent wetlands and
impoundments to meet stormwater needs. These facilities
are not likely to reduce drainage standards in this area.
Recreation
The comprehsnvie plan establishes a community park
standard of 1.25 acres/1000 population for the south
county. The comprehensive plan identifies a surplus of
14 acres for the year 1990. The expected population of
a 390 unit development would require an estimated 1.06
acres of park land.
The proposed rezoning from RS -1 to RM -6 represents a substantial
increase in development potential. In assessing this request
several issues must be addressed. These include the compatibility
of any proposed development with the existing development in the
area, consistency with the comprehensive plan, and the ability of
the county to meet the service. demands that would likely result
from this proposal.
The proposed increase in zoning would be compatible with the future
land use map of the comprehensive plan. In addition, boundaries
were established by jurisdictional agencies for the Conservation
District wetlands to the east. A review of the other elements of
the comprehensive plan indicates that the proposed rezoning would
be consistent with the plan policies.
The requested zoning would permit the development of approximately
390 dwelling units. Because the parcel is part of a larger
property containing 297 acres,*the development potential could be
increased. Both the comprehensive plan and present development
codes permit the transfer of density from the adjacent wetlands.
This could result in the potential development of nearly 585 units.
This transfer would require additional -review by the county and is
not guaranteed by right. It is also likely that this number would
be reduced by the various open space, parking and roadway
requirements of the project and unit type and mix used by the
developer. While the potential exists for the additional units,
for purposes of reviewing this request the 390 unit limit should
be used.
19
Development within the RM -6 District is likely to be compatible
with existing development in this area. The existing trees and
dense vegetation could easily be incorporated in perimeter
buffering. Development of the site could complement the existing
shopping center to the west, and the provision of internal access
could eliminate some off-site traffic. The wetland area to the
east is not likely to be developed due to stringent environmental
protection policies thereby eliminating any compatibility problems.
Compatibility issues are most likely to occur along the north and
south limits of the site. In addition, the RM -6 district requires
that a minimum of 50% of the lot be devoted to open space.
The Forest Park subdivision contains lots which are typically 100'
X 1001. This configuration results in dwelling units being placed
at or near the 20' foot rear setback line. The subdivision is
presently buffered from the higher density condominium units at
neighboring Vista Gardens by the Vista golf course fairways. At
the present time the RM -6 District does not have specific screening
requirements when abutting single-family developments. Landscaping
and buffering are part of the site plan review process and may be
required during that process. If the site develops through the
Planned Residential Development (PRD) process, buffers could be
required as a part of the development approval.
Since it is not certain if the site to the south which presently
contains the Florida Entomology Laboratory will undergo additional
development, it is difficult to assess any compatibility problems.
Regardless, the review process would address the need for
buffering.
The environmental issue is the loss of habitat. It is certain that
any development of the property will -result in the loss of trees,
regardless of the density. The best way or perhaps the only way
to guarantee the preservation of the on-site vegetation would be
by public purchase. This has been recognized in the comprehensive
plan by listing the property as a prime candidate for public
acquisition. Baring public purchase, the plan requires the
preservation of 10-15% of upland native vegetation. This could be
applied toward meeting the RM-6.district's fifty percent (50%) open
space requirements. Any additional on-site preservation will
depend on the developer's ability and willingness to incorporate
the unique vegetation into the site design.
The final issue that needs to be discussed is the impact any
potential development would have on public services and
infrastructure and the ability of those services to accommodate the
potential 390 units. It has been demonstrated that existing and
planned facilities which provide water, sewer, solid waste,
drainage and recreational services could meet or exceed the
additional units from this site. The transportation system would
be negatively impacted by the additional trips generated by the
additional dwelling units; however, this impact will be futher
reviewed by a more detailed traffic analysis when a specific
development proposal is submitted.
Alternatives
Several alternatives exist regarding this proposal. The first of
these would be to approve or deny a request based on the analysis
performed. Since it has been demonstrated that the additional 390
units permitted by this rezoning would likely reduce the US #1
:.levels of service from the minimum standard identified in the
comprehensive plan, the regpest could be denied. However, a
detailed traffic analysis will be required prior to. site
development including improvements for -which the developer will be
responsible. All alternatives to this would be to delay action
pending the results of a detailed traffic analysis.
rr �q 4
2 0
��f� t� BOOK
L F
BOOK 80 FA- 3
A second range of alternatives would be to examine the
applicability of another zoning district. The initial application
requested the RM -10 District. Staff raised several concerns
relating to the compatibility and concurrency of traffic facilities
in the review of this request. Staff subsequently determined that
a reduction from 10 units/acre to 6 units/acre would eliminate
these concerns and recommended accordingly. The applicant has also
amended the request to the lower density. Since the surrounding
residential -areas are predgminately"'zoned for 6 units per acre or
more, staff does not consider it necessary to further reduce the
zoning density.
The third alternative relates to the intensity of zoning or
permitted dwelling type. The M-2 District is intended for higher
densities than are generally found in the county as a whole and is
used primarily for multi -family housing. The highest single family
density is 6 units per acre. The presence of existing single
family residences to the north must be considered. Through the
site plan or PRD process, buffers would be reviewed. A more
drastic option would be to maintain an area of single family zoning
along this boundary so that any transition would occur on-site.
This option was used at Grove Isle where that development abutted
existing single-family development.
Conclusion
The requested zoning is consistent with the future land use map and
policies of the comprehensive plan. There are, however, concerns
including the compatibility with existing development and
transportation concurrency. The reduction in the requested density
reduces these issues and problems to a managable level. In
addition, these issues will be fully addressed during either site
plan or PRD review. The issue of environmental compatibility is
not so easily resolved, however, the comprehensive plan policies
place restrictions on use and promote public purchase of
environmentally important properties. All issues considered, staff
concludes that the rezoning of this property would be appropriate.
RECOMMENDATION
Based on the analysis performed,
of County Commissioners approve
the RM -6 District.
Attachments
staff recommends that the Board
the rezoning of this property to
1. Application
2. Location Map
3. Ordinance
4. Minutes of May 10, 1990, Planning and Zoning Commission meeting.
21
W
Approved Agenda Item:
For: -7 -1"7-10
BPa.
S --�
11 i
.419bert Keating, Director of Community Services, advised that
the applMi'caftt'"has modified his request to ask for RM -6 instead of
RM -1.0, which is consistent with what staff recommended to the
Planning & Zoning Commission.
Commissioner Scurlock asked about the transfer of densities
from the portions of the complete parcel that are designated as
environmentally sensitive, and Director Keating explained that
with the RM -6 zoning there is a potential for transfer of
densities from the adjacent wetlands. It is allocated for 1 upa
for density transfer purposes, and that cannot exceed 50 percent,
so that gives you 9 upa.
Commissioner Scurlock noted that staff's recommendation
states that sewer is available, and he questioned whether that
statement is correct as he understood that all of our capacity is
reserved. He asked to be enlightened on that since we are in an
expansion mode and have been told as a Commission that our
expansion is necessary because currently we are at capacity.
Utilities Director Terry Pinto confirmed that we are at
capacity on that south county line, and explained that the City
of Vero Beach has allowed us to use capacity which we will have
to replenish when we build our south county plant.
Commissioner Scurlock asked if it would be fair then to say
that any development, not only this project, that occurs in that
corridor that is going to come onto sewer is going to necessitate
the County to either acquire the General Development Utilities'
wastewater plant or design and construct a new south county
plant, and Director Pinto stated that it is our projection to
develop that plant within the next 3 years and fund it through
impact fees. Any developer looking for capacity or loaned
capacity through the City's plant would have to pay impact fees.
Commissioner Scurlock understood that Strazzulla Bros. have
reserved over $600,000 of capacity along Indian River Boulevard
and that
if they walked in tomorrow and
demanded _service, we
?DSK F:
looking at average daily service levels and peak season daily
service levels like we used to, we are now considering only peak
hour, peak season, peak direction levels. In addition, we are
not just looking at existing utility capacities or traffic
volumes on roadways; we are looking at the volume and capacity we
have committed to approved developments. We are just in the
beginning stages of doing it this way, and we are compiling a lot
of information on all the committed developments out there. We
will be having a system coming on line soon to do concurrency
much more accurately.
Commissioner Scurlock didn't feel the way we are looking at
concurrency now is the proper approach in that the view is more
to ask if there is existing capacity and whether a proposed
project is going to exceed whatever threshold, be it water,
sewer, transportation or solid waste. In his opinion, we are
giving densities higher than what the urban service area can
handle, and those people that won't be developing their property
for years to come will lose their rights to develop their
property because the capacity for water, sewer and roads is used
up simply because it is physically impossible have 10 lanes on
U.S. #1 or 6 lanes on Oslo Road, etc.
Director Keating felt those were excellent points, because
when we looked at the Comp Plan we did not look at overall
build -out and how all the density that was allocated for the
entire build -out for the county could be accommodated on the
roadway system.
Chairman Eggert advised that the Treasure Coast Regional
Planning Council has tremendous concern especially with regard to
transportation, and there are areas in Martin County where they
have set moratorium on further development because of the. lack of
infrastructure. L
Commissioner Scurlock had a problem with that whole corridor
in
terms of what
is going to be there
in the future and
what
we
JO
11
,1990
24RGC;�
f��E.6r
J U L I ? 1990
mor 8.0
can build, and perhaps we need to look at the entire area and
S,i
sca a it down.
Director Keating felt that is ,certainly one option. Just
looking at it through 1995 of the 20 -year time horizon of the
Comp Plan, the segment of U.S. #1 that would be affected does
show a problem. As a matter of fact, the plan actually
identifies that expansion will be necessary there and identifies
both State and local funding that will be used to rectify the
problem.
Commissioner Scurlock asked if any of those improvements for
U.S. #1 or Oslo Road are on our capital improvement program or
the DOT's, and Director Keating replied that none are. We are
acquiring right-of-way along Oslo Road with the anticipation of
it being a major length of an east/west corridor. The DOT has
been looking at alternate routes to U.S. #1 to reduce the number
of trips on that roadway.
Commissioner Scurlock commented that one of the problems he
has with the Dept. of Community Affairs (DCA) is that they would
like to make everything more compact and higher density because
you can service it better. However, the bottom line is that the
boundaries of the service area can keep getting extended. You
get infill, and you just extend the boundaries, and he didn't
want us to be another Palm Beach County or Miami. He felt the
DCA should give our community the ability to make those deter-
minations locally, and they have, because we have just passed a
Comp Plan and we had public hearings and people applauded in the
audience at the low density/low rise.
Commissioner Bowman was very happy to hear this voiced,
because this was what she used to try to get over when she sat on
the P&Z Commission, but she never could get beyond the myopia of
that former staff. She was told that it couldn't be done, that
you couldn't look at your overall densities and project roads.
Director Keating explained that after applying the strict
criteria of concurrency and looking at the capacity of the
25
_ M M
roadway as it is now and the volume of traffic that this proposed
project would generate, it was determined that the level of
service probably would be reduced from "C" to "D", but that is
considered adequate in our Comp Plan. It was felt that it would
not go to LOS "E", based on just the general look that we took.
What we have been looking at in drafting a concurrency ordinance
that will be part of the land development regulations is that
when we apply concurrency to a project at the rezoning stage,
there would be no reservation of any capacity at that time
because there is no commitment to allow that project to go forth.
Therefore, the bottom line is that there would have to be another
traffic concurrency determination done for this piece of property
whenever they came in for development approval, and that would
involve a detailed traffic impact analysis which would be a lot
more specific as to the magnitude of the impacts and where they
would occur.
Returning to his presentation, Director Keating advised that
in the overall analysis staff looked at the three major issues of
compatibility, consistency and concurrency before coming up with
this recommendation for approval of the RM -6 zoning. The Board
can either approve or deny this request for RM -6 zoning or
approve another zoning that is less intense, between the current
RS -1 and RM -6.
Chairman Eggert inquired how the lack of capacity of
wastewater affects staff's attitude towards concurrency and their
recommendation for approval of the RM -6 zoning, and Director
Keating believed that the Board couldn't approve this rezoning if
the capacity isn't available and it doesn't meet the criteria in
our Comp Plan which states that it must be programmed and
provided for in a capital: budget.
Commissioner Scurlock emphasized that it doesn't meet those
characteristics because we don't even have a request for proposal
to design a south county plant. We only have authoriza_tion.to
JUL 17 1990
26 � F�;F. 6P 6
k. p�'ace;gd.;,on the acquisition of the GDU plant, and we have no
contractual arrangement with the City of Vero Beach that
guarantees us any capacity. That capacity could be cut off
tomorrow. It is only at their good graces that they have allowed
additional hookups.
Director Keating reiterated that if capacity is not
available, concurrency is not met, and he didn't believe that the
Board could approve the rezoning under those circumstances. He
suggested that Attorney Vitunac might like to expound on that,
but Attorney Vitunac wished to reserve his comments until after
Attorney O'Haire has made his presentation.
Commissioner Scurlock asked Director Pinto if we have any
contractual arrangement that guarantees us in writing that this
project, or any other project for that matter, could come in
tomorrow and hook up and have wastewater taken to the City's
plant.
Director Pinto explained that we have a firm agreement for a
specific amount of capacity in the plant, and when a developer
submits for a project and tells us exactly what is going to be
built, then we make a final determination of whether or not there
is flow available. We could sit here today and say that there is
150,000 gallons of capacity, but all the Board is doing today is
determining the zoning, and a neighboring project could come in
tomorrow and reserve that same capacity by paying their impact
fees, and that capacity would-be gone.
Commissioner Scurlock asked Director Pinto if it would be
absolutely fair then to say that there is not enough capacity
under any scenario where the City of Vero Beach could service the
entire U.S. #1 corridor, and Director Pinto stated that is
absolutely correct. Director Pinto stated that it would be
accurate to say that under the present zoning of all of that
area, we are about 3 -million gallons short.
Attorney Michael O'Haire advised that he is representing the
people who own the property and the Urban Resource Group, who is
27
_ M
the contractual purchaser of the property and the applicant. He
wished to reserve a little time for rebuttal at the end of this
public discussion. While he knew the Board was familiar with
the property, he wished to point out that the present zoning is
RM -6 along the corridor that goes down Oslo Road. They are
bordered on the north by a density of 6 upa and northerly of that
by a permitted density of 10 upa, but he suspected that the
actual density is something higher than that.
Commissioner Bird interjected that he felt that statement
needed to be corrected. Perhaps the permitted density in Forest
Park Subdivision is 6 upa, but he didn't feel the actual density
is that high.
Attorney O'Haire stated that they are here to ask for no
more than the permitted density of their neighbors. Staff has
identified buffering as one of the alternatives, which is
something that has been used in the past, and Grove Isle comes to
mind. The difference between the RS -6 (to the north) and RM -6 is
simply building type, not density. They could, and he is here
today to say that they would, provide a corridor of RS -6 along
their northerly boundary. He believed the depth at Grove Isle
was 100 feet, and they would be glad to do that here, too, to
provide a transition within their own boundaries from one
building type to the other. He agreed wholeheartedly that we
have to plan for the future, but he hadn't understood Utilities
Director Terry Pinto to say that the wastewater capacity was not
there. For the record he wished to ask Director Pinto if there
is capacity albeit on a temporary basis there, and Director Pinto
replied, "On a temporary basis, yes."
Attorney O'Haire understood it is basically on a first-come,
first -serve basis and sooner or later, as development orders are
issued, capacity will cease"to be there unless you do something.
He asked if that was right, and Director Pinto answered, "Yes."
JUL 171990 28 ROOK 8
�JrtVjI (' ? ��11 Ei�{VC
toii'�i' tl' s i oner Scurlock wished to make it clear that capacity
is there when you pay for it and reserve it, and Attorney O'Haire
replied, "Right, not at the zoning Stage."
Director Pinto confirmed that it is first come, first serve.
Pay and you have it.
Chairman Eggert asked if that is including what Vero Beach
is allowing us to do, and Director Pinto answered, "Yes".
Attorney O'Haire also understood that it is not merely a
permissive arrangement with the City, because the City has
committed to providing you with the capacity, haven't they, and
Commissioner Scurlock answered, "Temporarily, which means they
can come in here tomorrow and say the temporary is over."
Director Pinto explained that we have agreed that we have to
back off capacity as they need capacity, so they cannot come in
and say, "out", but if they need capacity.......
Commissioner Scurlock asked Director Pinto if you took the
City of Vero Beach at build -out, and they have already indicated
that they are not going to build another wastewater treatment
plant, is their plant sufficient to serve the entire City and the
county as well, and Director answered, "No."
Commissioner Scurlock felt that is the answer, but Attorney
O'Haire felt the answer is "first come, first serve". He pointed
out that the policy that the County has followed is that capacity
is re-examined at the development order stage. That will be done
here, too, and that policy will continue for all projects. He
also pointed out that if or when they come in at site plan on the
property that is zoned RM -6 across the road from the Lab, the
County Utilities Dept. is going to see if the capacity is there
for the number of units that are actually designed for the
property. Similarly, the Utilities Dept, will also look to see
if capacity is there for the remainder of the property which is
RS -1 at the time they come in for site plan approval. If the
capacity is there, and all the other concurrency requirements are
29
M M
met, this property will be developed and improved, and can be
without any hassle, controversy, or argument at the RM -6 density
for that portion of the property currently zoned RM -6 and at RS -1
for that portion of the property currently zoned RS -1 because
there is a lot of money invested in this property. Money isn't
everything, but the money isn't invested foolishly. It s
g
invested in the strength of what the County has adopted as its
Comprehensive Land Use Plan.
Attorney O'Haire felt we need to talk about the plan that is
in place because the points that Commissioner Scurlock was making
this morning all relate to the Comp Plan. He believed that where
Commission Scurlock is really coming from is that we are going to
have to take another look at the Comp Plan, not in 5 years, but
sooner than that and perhaps make some changes. At this point in
time, his clients have relied on what is on the books, and -the
two things that are said about this property are that it is going
to be used for medium density purposes and why. It makes -sense
in terms of the growth management act that our land use plan is
driven by. It is within the urban services area. Yes, there is
a difference of philosophy between some people at the county
level and some people at the State level, but we all know that
infill is faster when you permit urban services to be extended
into areas that are not developed at all. Regardless of the
difference in philosophies, it makes good planning sense that
this property be used for medium density, and that is what the
Comp Plan says his clients can do with their property. The Comp
Plan addresses this property in one other way, and that is "or
the property will be acquired by the County." He wished to talk
about acquisition for just a minute. Last year we went through a
referendum on acquiring the wetlands along the river and the old
McKee Jungle Gardens property, and he felt the message delivered
by that referendum was pretty clear in that the rest of the
people of this county are not
interested
in financing
protection
JUL til �,
30
�,
6
�Kfor,-the,„residents of this particular area. Yes, this is an
environmentally important piece of property. His clients
recognize that and agree that some ,effort is going to have to be
made to preserve. He believed the Planned Residential
Development (PRD) with its contraints would be the best approach
to protect this property's development as its contraints would
enable the Planning staff to guide, direct and control
development. Assuming the County doesn't acquire it, and he
understood there is nothing budgeted for its acquisition, he
noted that if they come in with a single-family plat for the RS -1
portion of the property, there is not a lot of discretion except
in terms of concurrency and what they can do with the property.
Attorney Vitunac interrupted at this point to say that this
041
is a very important issue, since his office has a different
opinion from that of Attorney O'Haire. He felt that Attorney
O'Haire should hear the County's opinion now before we get lost
in some other part of the argument, and advised that Assistant
County Attorney Will Collins will present that opinion.
Attorney Collins advised that the question came up at the
P&Z meeting that if the property was not rezoned, would they have
a right to proceed and have a development order issued on the
property as a matter of right. Right now, State law says that
all development orders must be consistent with the Comp Plan,
which defines development orders to include not only rezonings
but also subdivision plat approvals, and before a development
order can be issued, it has to be consistent with the land use
element of the Comp Plan. Therefore, a plat approval should go
through the same consistency review to see if it is consistent
with the Land Use element of the Comp Plan and consistent with
the Conservation, Housing and Economical Development elements.
That kind of a review must be gone through before a subdivision
plat can be approved. It may very well be that at the current
zoning of RS -1, it would be found to be consistent with all those
31
M
elements and be approved, but that review still has to be gone
through. It is no longer a matter of right. A development order
cannot be issued unless you determine it is consistent with the
Comp Plan.
Attorney O'Haire stated that he agrees with what Attorney
Collins is saying completely. There is no argument or dispute.
Continuing, Attorney Collins advised that the Fourth
District Court of Appeals has held that it is not just the land
use element that it must be consistent with. You cannot simply
look at the color of the map and say, "You are consistent with
our Comp Plan." You have to look at all the elements of the Comp
Plan, and it is very likely that there will be competing
priorities, objectives, and policies in the different elements of
the Comp Plan. The court stated that it is the role of the
County Commission to abide by all the elements and it is up to
the Commission to determine what priorities to assign to these
competing policies.
In conclusion, Attorney Collins summarized that this is
essentially our position on consistency and the ability to have a
subdivision approved as a matter of right. It is a matter of
right only if you are consistent with the plan and that
determination still has to be made.
Attorney O'Haire suggested that a single-family development
under any view, goal or policy of the Comp Plan would be
consistent, because you would have to be going off a very deep
end to say that a single-family plat of this property would not
be consistent. It would be consistent, but in terms of
preserving the ecological and environmental well-being of the
property, you would not have the tools available that you have in
a PRD or a multi -family development due to the strengths in your
Planning Dept. to control hoW.the property is to be developed.
We all know how single-family plans get developed. You lay
things out in a grid, more or less, and you may have curving
32 nY"r cad.
,�
Jui- l e7 1990
st.ree.t_sl�,.but there is a lot less room available for creative
buffering and planning of what is there to begin with. Attorney
O'Haire emphasized that the Comp Plpn has addressed this property
in two ways. He has listened to the tapes and read all of the
cards and letters from the people from the Laboratory, and didn't
quarrel with anything they have to say. This is a nice piece of
property. It is a good piece of property, and it has a lot of
value to it. Taking all of that as true, the Commission is faced
under the Comp Plan with only two fair and reasonable options.
Either permit them to use their property in a reasonable way,
which they feel is what they are asking for, or buy the property.
The Comp Plan provides an either/or scenario for this particular
piece of property. He is here today on behalf of the landowners
to ask the Commission to permit them to use their property.
Commissioner Scurlock interjected at this point to emphasize
that the question of acquisition is not a debatable issue today.
The Commission is here today to decide what is a reasonable use
of the property, and not to decide whether we are going to
acquire the property. He wanted that to be very clear, because
acquisition isn't a part of his thinking process today.
Attorney O'Haire sincerely hoped that the Commissioners do
not articulate some other reason for denying a reasonable use of
the property with the idea of acquisition, and he would never
suggest that such an idea would cross their minds.
Commissioner Scurlock assured him that would never happen.
Chairman Eggert emphasized that there are other options with
the single-family PRD than just laying it out in a grid, and
Attorney O'Haire agreed that there are other options, but when
you lay it out in a single-family development, you are not
concentrating on building areas and leaving open areas to the
same extent. You can, but that is not what happens in the real
world.
33
� r �
Attorney O'Haire next addressed the transportation issue and
pointed out that the County has adopted a level of service
standard in the Comp Plan of a minimal acceptable level`of
service "D". He introduced Tony Tramel, traffic engineer from
the Beindorf Division of Kimley-Horn who has taken a look at what
the actual situation is and has applied all of those figures to
determine what level of service this project would bring us out
at.
Mr. Tramel explained that the developer, the Leonard Garner
Group, recognized in the early phases of this particular project
that traffic and the level of service standards were potential
concerns and retained Kimley-Horn to conduct impact analyses for
the proposed project. They have conducted/compiled traffic
volume information from some 18 traffic count stations within the
general U.S. #1 corridor including 6 signalized intersections
along U.S. #1 from Oslo Road to 17th Street, as well as the
intersection of Oslo Road and Old Dixie Highway. He has met with
the County's traffic engineer, Michael Dudek, concerning the
project's influence area regarding the background growth that
they are using in this particular area and the new project trip
generation that they are associating with this project. The
purpose of his presentation today is to indicate to the
Commission that this TIA has been performed and that they are in
the process of compiling that. Based on this detailed analysis
of each of these signalized intersections studied within the
project area and with a 5 -year build -out, they have determined by
this analysis that they are, in fact, complying with the County's
adopted level of service standards. Mr. Tramel advised that
after their compilation is completed, they can submit their
analysis to the County Commission upon their client's
authorization, but it is their professional opinion at this
particular time that the development as proposed would be
consistent with the County's adopted level of service standards
dealing with traffic.
J,L 1 1920 34�00K so DUF 64i
- Commissioner Bowman asked how far they had reached for
impact, and Mr. Tramel advised that they went as far north as
17th Street and U.S. #1.
Commissioner Bowman was concerned..about the number of
traffic trips that would be generated by 600 units and the impact
that would have on U.S. #1, especially at the 4th Street
intersection where we know right now that we need a second
left -turn lane coming off of Indian River Boulevard and entering
US. #1. There is hardly enough space in there to add that
left -turn lane, and she couldn't see putting that extra traffic
at that particular intersection because it is going to be a
tremendous job to increase capacity there.
Attorney O'Haire noted that transportation did surface as an
issue in the P&Z meeting, and he had wished to address it, both
for purposes of the record and for the Commission's information.
In conclusion, and again reserving some time at the end for
rebuttal, Attorney O'Haire summarized that opposition to their
application has arisen from two areas, the Lab to the south of
them which is located in an RM -6 category, and Forest Park
Subdivision to the north. Basically, what the Lab is saying is
that any use of the subject property is going to affect the use
of their property. He doesn't argue that point, but his clients
are entitled to use their property and are entitled to a
reasonable use of it. He noted that the County's Planning staff
has identified a solution to their concern, which is a transition
area of buffering within the subject parcel, and they are
perfectly happy to live with that because it can all be done on a
PRD basis and coherently planned for the best interests of the
property owner and the community.
Commissioner Scurlock wished to make the following memo from
Attorney Collins a part of the official record, and Attorney
Vitunac pointed out that this memo goes into the same type of
issue that we just talked about. We thought we disagreed with
Attorney O'Haire, but he agrees with us.
35
Attorney Collins advised that he has provided copies of this
memo to both the applicants and the County Commissioners.
Attorney O'Haire had no problem with making it a part of the
record, and didn't think it differs from what he is saying
because as long as they are consistent with the County's land use
plan, they are entitled to reasonable use of the property. He
asked Commissioner Scurlock if he agreed, and Commissioner
Scurlock replied that he hasn't had a chance to read it through.
TO: Charles P. Vitunac - County Attorney
FROM:c4-Y�-.Will1am G. Collins II - Assistant County Attorney
DATE: May 22, 1990
SUBJECT: Post February 13, 1990 Development Orders - United
Financial Group, Inc. Rezoning Request
The Planning and Zoning Commission of May 10, 1990
highlighted the fact that neither the Planning staff, the
Planning Commission nor the public is aware of the
implications of Comprehensive Plan adoption on February 13,
1990.
Legal Status of Plan
The adoption of the Comprehensive Plan confers a legal
status on the plan which overrides any land development
regulations now in place. (F.S. 163.3194(1)(b).)
Furthermore, all actions taken in regard to development
orders (which include building permits, subdivision
approvals, rezonings, special exceptions, etc.) shall be
consistent with the plan. Thus, any rezoning, subdivision
approval, etc. which Is not consistent with the plan is
subject to an action against the local government for
Injunctive or other relief by any aggrieved or adversely
affected party who feels that such subdivision approval,
rezoning, etc. materially alters the density or intensity of
use on a particular piece of property in a manner not
consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. (F.S. 163.3215(1).)
Statutory Definition of Consistency
"A development order or land development regulation shall be
consistent with the comprehensive plan if the land uses,
densities o*r intensities, and other aspects of development
permitted by such order or regulation are compatible with
and further the objec,,tives, policies, land uses, and
densities or intensities in the comprehensive plan and if it
meets all other criteria enumerated by the local
government," F.S. 163.3194(3)(a).
J U L 17 1�
36 �OC�K J
'JC
r JUL i=7 1990
Application to United Financial Group, Inc. Rezoning Request
Thts whole topic came up because the applicant for a
rezoning last night, the-agdnt of United Financial Group,
-Inc., stated that *a subdivision could be approved on the
site proposed for rezoning as a matter of right. This theme
was picked up by both the staff and the Planning Commission.
In fact, a subdivision must be reviewed by the same
standards which the Planning Commission would apply to a
request for rezoning, that is, 'ls the requested subdivision
plat approval or rezoning consistent with the Comprehensive
Plan?" In order to answer that question, the subdivision
plat or rezoning would be evaluated against the plan land
use map, densities recommended and the objectives and
policies of all elements of the Comprehensive Pian, as well
as the criteria currently enumerated in our land development
regulations.
Applying this test for consistency to the rezoning request
before the Planning Commission last night from United
Financial Group, Inc. would show that an RM -10 rezoning
request was consistent with the land use map and densities
recommended in the land use element of the Comprehensive
Plan for the subject property. However, there are other
policies in the Comprehensive Plan where consistency with
the Comprehensive Plan may not be met in the sense that the
rezoning may not be compatible with or further these
objectives and policies:
Economic Development Policy 1.1 encourages the expansion of
existing businesses.
Economic Development Policy 1.4 promotes the growth of
businesses which provide skilled workers rather than
minimum wage jobs.
Economic Development Policy 1.10 proposes utilizing existing
Industries as a magnet to attract new development,
Including support businesses.
Economic Development Policy 3.1 promotes the development of
research facilities in the County
Conservation Policy 6.2C proposes acquiring 50 acres of
xeric scrub by 1991 and designates 29 acres of this
Oslo Road site as one of four potential sites for such
purpose.
Conservation Policy 6.3 proposes acquiring coastal oak
hammock by 1992 and lists this Oslo Road site as one of
four potential sites.
Conservation Policy 6.5C proposes acquiring such sites only
after easements and cooperative agreements are ruled
out.
Housing.Policy 2.2.3 proposes a variety of housing types
with special consideration to compatibility of land use
relationships and neighborhood character.
The =above represents only a partial review of certain
Policies which may not be furthered by a rezoning of the
subject. -property. Thus, while consistent with the land use
map and recommended density, there may 'be inconsistencies
with certain other policies within the plan. While a 1 unit
per acre subdivision may be more compatible with the'
policies and further their objectives better than a 10 unit
per acre PUD, the same analysis must be applied to each type
of development order request.
Court Interpretation of Consistency
The Fourth District Court of Appeals In Southwest Ranches
Homeowner's Association, Inc. v. Broward ounty, -5-02--5.2i]
931, 1987 at page 935 rejected
"the county's assertion that the land
use element of its comprehensive plan
alone • should ' be considered in
determininq consistency ... . The other
37
_ M M
M
elements of the plan were adopted
pursuant to the statutory mandates. of
Chapter 163. We cannot agree that the
land use plan Is the sole, controlling
document with which subsequent plan
elements had to comply. On the
contrary, each subsequently adopted
element was designed to fulfill the
overall requirements and goal.s of the
statute, as the text of these elements
amply demonstrates.".
The court went on to state that there was a "statutorily
mandated obligation to adopt a comprehensive plan and abide
by all its elements." (Emphasis.added by the court.)
Despite the necessity to abide by all the plan elements, the
court stated *that "the legislative scheme calls for a more
flexible approach to the determination of -consistency" and
cited F.S. 163.3194(3)(a) (see page 1, paragraph 3). The
court further advised that "managing growth under a
comprehensive plan with such a wide array of elements may
Involve selecting between conflicting goals and priorities."
(502 So.2d 931 at 939)
CONCLUSION
The adoption of our new Comprehensive Plan will place a
greater burden on the Planning staff to evaluate all
development orders (rezonings, special exceptions, etc.) in
terms of whether or not these proposed developments are
consistent with and further the objectives and policies of
all the elements of the Comprehensive Plan. While placing a
greater burden on the Planning staff In the review of
development proposals, such expanded reviews will ensure
that the goals of the Comprehensive Planning and Land
Development Regulation Act are achieved and that the
community grows in a manner consistent with its adopted
plan, while at the same time allowing the Planning
Commission and the Board of County Commissioners discretion
In weighing the relative priorities and values which should
be assigned to any competing or conflicting policies.
WGC/nhm
cc: Board of County Commissioners
Planning and Zoning Commission
James E. Chandler - County Administrator
Planning Department Staff
38 80 Fr�GE U
L 111-11990
J. A L 17' 1990
Commissioner Scurlock stated that he had read the memo from
Attorney Collins, and his answer to Attorney O'Haire's question
is "Yes."
I
Chairman Eggert opened the Public..Hearing, and asked if
anyone wished to be heard in this matter.
Richard H. Baker, Ph.D., 6945 43rd Avenue, director of the
University of Florida Medical Entomology Laboratory, fully
supported the Planning & Zoning Commission's 4-1 recommendation
for denial of the rezoning. He objected to the proposed
densities because of the traffic congestion that would be created
with 600 residential units with an average of two vehicles per
unit, plus visitors, and he felt the Lab's program itself would
be greatly affected if this request is approved. At the Lab,
they raise and work on mosquitos and sandflies to find ways to
control them without requiring the use of chemicals. They serve
the county with mosquito control. They have many visitors who
share experiences regarding the wetlands and mosquitos; they also
work with schools as the area is an asset in educating children.
It is a clean industry and the Lab employs 45 to 50 people with a
$1.5 million budget. He pointed out that the more people in this
area, the more chemicals would be used by them and it would
undermine the Lab's program. Dr. Baker stressed that the whole
ecological system at this location should be saved. It is a
pristine habitat and the only such area of coastal hammock left
in the whole community. It.was here back when Christopher
Columbus landed in America. The understory and other vegetation
is also important. Of the 133 plant species on the site, some
are threatened and one is endangered. Dr. Baker did not feel the
proposed multi -family development would be harmonious to the
area, and urged the Board to deny the rezoning request.
Robert Morton, 13 Forest Park Drive, felt that the proposed
densities would detract from their single-family neighborhood.
He noted that his house was 20' from the rear property line of
39
W
the subject property, and he did not think it was good planning
to have those densities there.
Doug Borofsky, a University of Florida scientist working at
the Lab, could appreciate Attorney O'Haire's comments about his
clients having an investment in this land and being entitled to
their rights to develop their property, but other people also
have an investment'in this matter. He, himself, has a lifetime
of research invested and the federal government has millions of
dollars invested in this property, which would be greatly
impacted by the proposed densities. Mr. Borofsky anticipated
that residents of the proposed development would be calling the
Mosquito Control District to get the area sprayed, and then after
awhile the mosquitos would become resistant and mutated, and all
that time and research would go down the drain. If this
development goes in, he would call it an ecological disaster.
Pat Brown, 1740 21st Street, pointed out that the owners of
this property purchased it knowing it was zoned at RS -1 and still
can use the RS -1 zoning. She didn't feel the applicant has shown
a good reason why there should be anything else there and didn't
know why this community has to prove that he should not get RM -6.
In addition, since the County's land development regulations are
presently undergoing a change, she didn't feel it was the time to
be approving this rezoning.
Janice Broda, 9335 Frangipani Drive, spoke on behalf of the
conservation committee of the turtle coast group of the Sierra
Club, who feel that incompatibility with existing adjacent land
uses and traffic concurrency are two compelling reasons to deny
this rezoning request. The RM -6 zoning also would be
inconsistent with Objective #6 of the Conservation Element of the
Comp Plan which is that ":Sufficient upland vegetation communities
to maintain viable.populatio'ns of all native plant and animal
species, and representative stands of each habitat type in Indian
River County, will be preserved." Mrs. Broda emphasized that
40 PUbK F'�� F 6
JUL
J U L 17 1990
RQQF ,0" r,65111
this parcel contains perhaps the last intact, undisturbed coastal
hammock on the mainland. This property is environmentally
important according to definitions set forth in Policy 6.11,
which states that "Undeveloped tracts of xeric scrub and coastal/
tropical hammocks 5 acres or larger shall be deemed
environmentally important." They are asking that the Board deny
this rezoning request in that it is inconsistent with the
Conservation Element of the Comp Plan.
Sue Hill, 420 West Forest Trail, asked when the survey was
done on the transportion, because she observed a young lady
taking traffic counts at Indian River Boulevard and U.S. #1 in
June when there is the least traffic. She felt that the count
should have been taken 3 months earlier during the peak tourist
season.
Director Keating advised that the Planning Department did
not review a traffic impact analysis. For the statements made in
staff's recommendation, they took the peak season traffic counts
that were done by the Traffic Engineering Dept. on the segments
of U.S. #1 that will be affected, and applied a generalized
capacity factor.
Commissioner Scurlock understood then that we used peak
season numbers, but don't know the applicant's numbers as yet.
Celeste Albert, 6 -year employee at the Lab and resident of
Vero Beach, questioned why we have to have a rezoning at all
since RS -1 is 1 upa and there.are two strips of RM -6 already
there. She was concerned about sewage coming out of the ground,
and strongly suggested that we have a moratorium on building in
that area until we can assure better road capacity and sewer
capacity. Mrs. Albert asked if the LOS "D" designation is the
worst designation as far as traffic volumes are concerned, -and
Director Keating explained that the designations can go to E or
F, but our Comp Plan does allow D.
41
James Haeger, 1865 Garden Grove Parkway, concurred with Dr.
Baker about saving one of the few remaining coastal tropical
hammocks in the county, and urged the Board to deny this rezoning
request.
Attorney Bruce Barkett, representing the Vista Civic
Association, which represents homeowners in Vista Royale, Vista
Gardens and Forest Park Subdivision, spoke in opposition to the
proposed rezoning because of traffic, impact to wetlands, and
inconsistency with the Comp Plan with regard to the detriment to
the entomology lab and the incompatibility with Forest Park
Subdivision. He emphasized that the applicant is not here asking
for something that he is entitled to. The applicant is not here
with a site plan where he simply comes in and you have to grant
him site plan if he meets the rules. Nor is this a case where
the County is initiating action which it must justify. The
applicant is here to ask the County Commission to do something,
but you have no obligation to accommodate him if you don't think
it is a good idea. You do not have to move off dead center, and
as long as your decision is fairly debatable, and that is the
standard, you have complete discretion to decide this matter.
The only caveat is that your decision must be consistent with the
Comp Plan. This rezoning is not a good idea because the RM -6
zoning could allow as many as 585 units if there is a density
transfer from the adjacent wetlands. The impacts of that high a
density would be significant with respect to stormwater runoff,
wastewater capacity, and traffic volumes.
Attorney Barkett pointed out that Objective #5 in the
Conservation Element of the Comp Plan requires you to protect the
functions of the wetlands so that even if a proposal doesn't
include the filling of wetlands, it should be denied if it
endangers the functions of t'he wetlands with harmful drainage.
Attorney Barkett concluded his arguments against the
rezoning, and urged the Board to deny this rezoning request.
42SI1 u
JUL 1 �: r
JUL I ? WO
C. B. Keck, 595 W. Forest Trail, representing the homeowners
in Forest Park, couldn't understand why the developer would be
allowed RM -6 when sewer capacity for that area is being borrowed
from the City at the present time and it is not known how long it
will be available. He wondered if we are going to have to put a
moratorium on everything else because of the impact from this
development. Mr. Keck stated that he was here at the P6Z meeting
when the developer said that RM -10 was a reasonable use of their
land, but now they are back saying that RM -6 is a reasonable use
- just anything to make the land more valuable. He asked that
the Board look around the room and take note that all of these
people here don't want it, and then keep in mind that only one
who wants it is a financial group in Texas. He asked that since
we are going to bail out the S&Ls in Texas, let's not do it
twice.
Joseph Greeley, president of Vista Civic Association, spoke
of the growth occurring in Florida, especially in the southern
part of the state, and didn't want to see our community become
another Lauderdale.
Brian Fromang of 45th Avenue felt this piece of property is
very unique and was concerned that we might be setting a
precedent for allowing developments to go up along the river
northward.
Juanita Baker, 695 43rd Avenue, urged the Board to preserve
this unique area of coastal hammock and wetlands.
There being no others who wished to be heard in this matter,
Chairman Eggert closed the public hearing.
Attorney O'Haire began his rebuttal by stating that one unit
per acre is not a reasonable use of this property. It is
unreasonable because of the surrounding zonings. He emphasized
that the RM -6 zoning wasn't his idea or the developer's idea.
The County's Planning Dept. recommended RM -6, and they have
agreed to that number. The Board sets the rules, and the Land Use
Element of the Comp Plan is implemented by the rules, and they
43
meet the rules and play by the rules. They are asking the Board
not to change the rules in order to dedicate his clients'
property to preservation. That isn't fair, and it is not right.
If they comply with the rules and the standards set by the
County, they are entitled to a reasonable use of their property.
He didn't quarrel with anything that Dr. Baker had to say. The
property is unique,'but they own it. It is their property, and
they are entitled to use their land as their neighbors have used
their land, regardless of the character of their land. Going
back to the Comp Plan, he pointed out that the County implements
its planning standards through the standards you set and the
standard you have set in terms of conservation is preserving 15%
of the upland vegetation. They will meet that standard. They
will play by the rules. Attorney O'Haire urged the Commission to
allow them to play by the rules and not to change the rules on
them. Let them do with their land as others have done around
them. They are consistent; they have made every effort to be
concurrent; and there has been no demonstration that they are
not. He emphasized that the County Planning staff has never
followed a policy of permitting people to destroy the environment
in the development of their land, nor has the County done that in
enacting their ordinances. They are not going to be allowed to
to do that either. They would like a reasonable use of their
land, and the present zoning is not fair and not reasonable. He
urged the Board to do what staff has recommended, to rezone it to
RM -6.
Commissioner Wheeler asked how long United Financial has
owned that property as he understood it had changed hands, and
Attorney O'Haire advised that they have owned it since 1980 and
construction on the shopping center was delayed for 7 years.
Commissioner Wheeler felt the densities along the river
through there and to the south are too high. We also have
problems in Rockridge with drainage and runoff into the river.
PF -
;1!',L J, 7 `990
P-Oor S0 Fd F. 65t'
�:The mo�,.,people Iiving'near the river, the more problems you have
with runoff from parking lots, driveways, etc., because it has
less of a chance to clean itself upIbefore it drains into the
river. In fact, he would like staff to look at other properties
down there to reduce the densities.
Attorney O'Haire emphasized that they will have to comply
with drainage and stormwater requirements. He suggested that
something more intensive is a fair and reasonable use of the
land. They are not required to preserve the environment for the
rest of the county. You are not required to do it at your house,
and Leonard Garner isn't required to do it with his property.
Commissioner Wheeler felt that if he had his way, we
wouldn't have more than 2 or 3 upa maximum, but he is only one of
five Commissioners.
MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bowman, that the Board deny the request
from Urban Resource Group to rezone approximately 65
acres from RS -1 to RM -6 based on the lack of compliance
with the consistency of the Comprehensive Land Use Plan
in reference to Economical Policies 1.1, 1.4, 1.10,
3.1; Conservation Policies 6.2c, 6.3, 6.5c; and Housing
Policies 2.2.3, and because there is a substantial
question as to whether or not utility services are
available.
Under discussion, Chairman Eggert pointed out that they
thought long and hard about putting on that RS -1 zoning in the
first place. That just wasn't plunked down there for something
to do one day, and she has tremendous problems in rezoning it at
a greater density from all we have known about that property
before, and she would support the Motion.
45
Commissioner Bird planned to support the Motion as well, and
one of his major reasons for supporting it will be the
inconsistency with the Conservation policies. He recently had
the opportunity to visit the site and spend time there, and he
felt that it would be very difficult to develop that site at any
density much above the RS -1 and still preserve the beauty,
integrity and the pristine environment that is there. However,
he still felt the people who own this property have the right to
use it or to sell it, and he would be the first one to lead the
charge for this County Commission and whatever other public
bodies we can mass together to buy this property and put it into
the public hands and the public trust as soon as we possibly can.
After walking that property the other day, he could say that it
is as close to the way Florida was 200, 300 and 400 years ago as
you are ever going to find left in this county, including the
mosquitos that are there. He hadn't been that excited about the
acquisition of McKee Jungle Gardens, to be honest about it, but
he is excited about this piece, and he would be very much in
favor of us trying to use whatever means we have to see that this
property is acquired for some public purpose and public trust.
THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION. The Motion
was voted on and carried unanimously.
SCHEDULING OF PUBLIC HEARING - DISCUSSION OF DRAFTS, LAND
DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS OF THE COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN
The Board scheduled a public workshop for Thursday, August
9, 1990, at 9:00 o'clock A.M. in the County Commission Chambers
to discuss land use elements of the Comp Plan, and authorized
staff to publish notice of t'he meeting.
46
p�iGE 6�.
'JUL L 17 1990
i. F l NAL` �% REQUEST FROM DENNIS L. SMITH FOR MISCELLANEOUS
INTERSECTION PHASE III -A
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 7/10/90:
TO: James E. Chandler,
County Administrator
FROM: James W. Davis, P.E.,
Public Works Director
$�'
ur U� 1
SUBJECT: Final Pay Request from Dennis L. Smith for
Miscellaneous Intersection Phase III A
DATE: July 10, 1990 FIDE: MISCIIIA.AGN
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
The construction of the Miscellaneous Intersection Phase
IIIA has been completed by Dennis L. Smith, Inc. The
project has been accepted by the County Engineer.
The contractor is requesting final payment in the amount of
$25,083.96 which is the retainage.
RECOMMENDATIONS AND FUNDING
Staff recommends approval of the final payment in the amount
of $25,083.96. Funding in the amounts of $8,361.32 from
District 4 Traffic Impact Fees, $8,361.32 from District 6
Traffic Impact Fees and $8,361.32 from District 9 Traffic
Impact Fees.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously approved final
payment in the amount of $25,083.96, as set out in the
above staff recommendation.
47
RIGHT-OF-WAY ACQUISITION - LOT 16, WEST LAKE ESTATES FRONTING
74TH AVENUE - PATRICK & LINDA LUTHER
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 7/11/90:
TO: James E. Chandler,
County Administrator
FROM: James W. Davis, P.R.
Public Works Director
SUBJECT: Right -of -Way Acquisition -
Lot 16, Westlake Estates fronting 74th Avenue -
Pat & Linda Luther, Owners
DATE: July 11, 1990
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
During the June 5, 1990 regular Board of County
Commissioners meeting, the Board approved the purchase of
Lot 16, Westlake Estates Subdivision for $25,000. Staff's
recommendation at that time was to compensate the owner in
the amount of $25,000 for the lot and to pay "closing costs"
such as recording fees, documentary stamps, etc. Mr. Tom
Schlitt, a relative of Mr. Luther and a local realtor, did
communicate with the staff on this matter for Mr. Luther,
however, it was not staff's recommendation that a 10% real
estate commission be paid by the County since, in our
understanding, this transaction was not a typical buyer/
seller transaction whereby a realtor had a listing on
property and was advertising the property for sale.
During the June 5, 1990 Board meeting, a motion was made to
"approve staff's recommendation." At the meeting, Mr.
Luther questioned the Board's motion regarding closing costs
and Mr. Luther stated that the closing costs were to be
"11%1', which were to include a 10% real estate commission to
Mr. Schlitt. Staff did not recommend payment of a 10%
realtor's fee, however, the Board did include the fee in
their motion. At this time, staff would like to clarify that
a 10% real estate commission is to be paid by the County.
ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS
For typical right-of-way purchases, real estate commissions
are usually not paid by the County. In our discussions with
Mr. Luther and Mr. Schlitt, a real estate commission was not
discussed. The alternatives include:
Alternative # 1
The County pay a 10% real estate commission to Mr.
Luther's representative, Mr. Schlitt.
Alternative # 2
The County not pay a 10% real estate commission.
RECOMMENDATIONS AND FUNDING
Alternative # 2 is recommended.
W, x
48 j
rC
OTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by
Commissioner Wheeler, that the Board not approve the
the payment by the County of a 10% real estate
'I
commission, as recommended by staff.
Under discussion, Commissioner Bird felt the Board's
direction to staff on this matter at the meeting of June 5th was
rather confusing. He had gone back and listened to the tape of
that meeting when we agreed to buy that property. Mr. Luther was
up at the podium and the Motion was to agree for the County to
buy the property, and Mr. Luther made the comment, "including the
11%", which was the 10% real estate commission and 1% closing
costs. At that point, Commissioner Scurlock said, "That's my
Motion.", and we all voted on it and it passed. It was on the
tape and we did agree to pay 11% as our share of the closing
costs.
Administrator Chandler explained that Public Works Director
Jim Davis wanted to bring it back to check to see if that was
clearly the Commission's intent, because ordinarily on something
like this, we wouldn't be involved in payment of the realtor's
fees.
Commissioner Scurlock realized that he stated that was his
Motion, but he clearly understood that he was moving not to pay
the 10% real estate commission, which was staff's recommendation,
and still is. He has not changedhis mind and his Motion today is
the same, not to pay the real estate commission.
Chairman Eggert believed this was a family thing, and it
never occurred to her that we would be paying the real estate
commission.
Commissioner Bird explained that supposedly there is a
listing agreement on the property, and the property was brought
to Director Davis' attention by Tom Schlitt, representing the
property owner.
Commissioner Bowman felt that since it is clearly on the
record, we shouldn't go back on it.
49
THE
CHAIRMAN
CALLED FOR
THE MOTION to
not pay
the 10%
real
estate
commission.
The Motion
failed by
a vote
of 2-3, Commissioners Bird, Bowman, and Wheeler
dissenting.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bowman, the Board, by a vote of 4-1,
Commissioner Scurlock dissenting, approved Alternative
#1, that the County pay a.10o real estate commission to
Mr. Luther's representative, Mr. Tom Schlitt.
a
*11
�. BOOK �i:� F.1GE U
JUL .17�
I
UL 17
eooK 80 F'a F 661
RELEASE' -OF RETAINAGE TO KIMBALL LLOYD AND ASSOCIATIONS FOR
PETITION PAVING PROJECTS
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 7/9/90:
TO:
THROUGH:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
DATE:
James E. Chandler,
County Administrator
James W. Davis, P.E.
Public Works Director
Roger D. Cain, P.E.
County Enginee�'�,
Michelle A. Gentile, C.E.T.
Civil Engineer
Release of Retainage - Petition Paving Projects
for Kimball Lloyd and Associates
July 9, 1990
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
The design of the following Petition Paving Projects by
Kimball Lloyd and Associates is complete:
1.)
42nd
Avenue
- between
10th and
12th Streets #8709.
2.)
42nd
Avenue
- between
6th and
8th Streets #8705.
3.)
13th
Avenue
- between
12th and
14th Streets #8707.
4.)
44th
Avenue
- between
16th and
Pinewood S/D #8711.
5.)
2nd Street -
between
23rd and
24th Avenues #8847.
As part of the work order for these projects, the Consultant
will have to meet with the property owners to discuss the
design. The Engineering Division will schedule this meeting
at a later date. The Consultant is aware that his firm will
participate at this meeting.
In Work Order No. 6 under Section VII, Partial Paymentq.., the
10% retainage shall not be retained longer than four (4)
months after the date of final acceptance of the design
phase. These plans were accepted March 23, 1990.
At this time the Consultant is requesting release of the 10%
retainage in the amount of $1,933.00 as .withheld by the
County via the agreement between the Consultant and the
County.
RECOMMENDATIONS AND FUNDING
Since the design work is complete and the Consultant has
agreed in good faith to attend the final meeting with the
property owners, staff recommends release of the 10%
retainage in the amount of $1,933.00. Funding to be from
Petition Paving Account Fund 173.
51
ON MOTION by Commissioner Wheeler, SECONDED by
Commissioner Scurlock, the Board unanimously
approved the release of the 10% retainage in the
amount of $1,933, as out in the above staff
recommendation.
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF THE DNR FRDAP GRANT
AGREEMENT - TREASURE SHORES PARK, PHASE I
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 7/2/90:
TO: James E. Chandler,
County Administrator
TROUGH: James W. Davis, P.E.,
Public Works Director
FROM: Terry B. Thompson, P.E., 5
Capital Projects Manager
SUBJECT: Resolution Authorizing the Execution
of the DNR FRDAP Grant Agreement
for Treasure Shores Park - Phase I
DATE: July 2, 1990
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
The Department of Natural Resources has requested that the
County accept the $120,000 Florida Recreation Development
Assistance Program (FRDAP) grant for Phase I construction of
Treasure Shores Park by formal action.
The attached resolution authorizes acceptance of the grant
and grant conditions; and execution of the FRDAP Project
Agreement.
RECOMMENDATIONS AND FUNDING
Staff recommends that the Chairman be authorized to execute
the attached resolution and the attached FRDAP Project
Agreement.
The County's $60,000 match for construction will be funded
from Account #311-210-572-066.51 - Treasure Shores Park.
J U L 17 SO
52
r
J4!'L 17 1990
M t 63
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird,.SECONDED by
Commissioner Scurlock, the Board unanimously adopted
Resolution 90-84, approving the acceptance and
execution of Florida Recreation Development Assistance
Program Project Agreement No. F89-099.
FRDAP PROJECT AGREEMENT IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO
THE BOARD
RESOLUTION NO. 90-84 -
A RESOLUTION OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
APPROVING THE ACCEPTANCE AND EXECUTION OF
FLORIDA RECREATION DEVELOPMENT ASSISTANCE
PROGRAM PROJECT AGREEMENT NO. F89-099
WHEREAS, The Board of County Commissioners of Indian River
County, Florida intends to accept the conditions of and enter
into Project Development Agreement No. 89-099 with the State of
Florida, Department of Natural Resources for acceptance of a
grant from the Florida Recreation Development Assistance Program;
and
WHEREAS, the total project cost will be greater than
$180,000, to be comprised of $120,000 to be contributed by the
State and a minimum of $60,000 to be contributed in cash and
or/In-Rind Services by Indian River County for Phase I
construction of Treasure Shores Park; and
WHEREAS, said Board of County Commissioners of Indian River
County, Florida, does retain jurisdictional control, and maintain
said park and facilities; and
WHEREAS, Indian River County has committed the required
program matching contribution from the Tourist Tax District II
Fund to the proposed project which will remain available until
needed; and -
WHEREAS, Indian River County has a physically and legally
responsible position to satisfactorily develop, operate and
maintain the project site in accordance with program required;
and
WHEREAS, continued maintenance and proposed improvements to
this public beach park facility will be in the interest of all
the citizens of Indian River County;
53
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of County
Commissioners of Indian River County, that this official document
does hereby certify the Board of County Commissioner's intent
to accept the conditions of and enter into Project Development
Agreement No. F89-099 to which this Resolution will be attached;
The foregoing resolution was offered by Commissioner Bird
and seconded by Commissioner Scurlock , and, being put to a
vote, the vote was as follows:
Chairman Carolyn K. Eggert
Vice Chairman Richard N. Bird Aye
Aye
Commissioner Margaret C. Bowman
Aye
Commissioner Don C. Scurlock, Jr.
Aye
Commissioner Gary C. Wheeler
Aye
The Chairman thereupon declared the resolution duly passed
and adopted this 17 day of duly , 1990.
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA '
BY ITS BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS
Carolyn �1- Eggert Chairman
i
`' &,OrY
/ �ler
INTER -DEPARTMENTAL VEHICLE TRANSFER
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 7/9/90:
DATE: JULY 9, 1990
TO: JAMES E. CHANDLER
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
FROM: TERRANCE G. PINT
DIRECTOR OF UTI RVICES
STAFFED AND
PREPARED BY: JOHN FREDERICK LANG I
ENVIRONMENTAL SPECIALYST
DEPARTMENT OFUTILITYSERVICES
SUBJECT: INTERDEPARTMENTAL VEHICLE TRANSFER
BACKGROUND:
The Department of Utility Services has surplussed a pickup truck,
Fleet No. 205, as of February 1990. This vehicle had a bent frame
and it was not cost effective to repair the vehicle.
54
i , q � MCI 80 FxGE 66
PC�0K 0 0 65"
ANALYSIS
The-�a4lding Department has a surplus vehicle, a pickup truck, Fleet
No.' 119. The vehicle is a Ford Ranger, with a wholesale value of
$2,675.00, and a retail value of 3,750.00. The vehicle requires
approximately $200.00 worth of repairs, per Fleet Management.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Department of Utility Services recommends that the Board of
County Commissioners authorize the transfer of $3,000.00 for Asset
No. 8660 from the Water Division Renewal and Replacement Fund to the
Building Department.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bowman, SECONDED by
Commissioner Scurlock, the Board unanimously
authorized the transfer of $3,000 for Asset
No. 8660 from the Water Division Renewal and
Replacement Fund to the Building Department, as
recommended by staff.
TEMPORARY WATER SERVICE AGREEMENT - MR. 6 MRS. WM. B. MILLS
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 7/2/90:
DATE:
JULY 2, 1990
TO:
JAMES E. CHANDLER
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR.
FROM:
TERRANCE G..PINT
DIRECTOR OF UTI Y SERVICES
i
SUBJECT:
AGREEMENT
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY AND
MR. AND MRS. WILLIAM.B. MILLS
TEMPORARY WATER SERVICE
PREPARED AND STAFFED BY: WILLIAM F CAIN
CAPITAL O CTS ENGINEER
DE PAR F, UTILITY .SERVICES
BACKGROUND
Mr. and Mrs. William B. Mills have requested that a temporary
service be installed from the water line on 2nd Street to service
their property at 189 16th Avenue, Vero Beach, Florida 32962, prior
to the installation of a water main on 16th Avenue.
55
ANALYSIS
The Agreement states that the Indian River County Department of
Utility Services (IRCDUS) shall provide a temporary water service to
189 16th Avenue until such time that a water line is constructed on
16th Avenue by assessment. Mr. and Mrs. William. B. Mills agree to
pay all fees required to make this connection. They further agree
to participate in the assessment and to reconnect to this water line
as required by IRCDUS.
RECOMMENDATION
The Department of Utility Services recommends that the Board of
County Commissioners approve the attached Agreement with Mr. and
Mrs. William B. Mills on the Consent Agenda.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bowman, SECONDED by
Commissioner Scurlock, the Board unanimously
approved a Temporary Water Service Agreement
with Mr. 6 Mrs. William B. Mills, as recommended
by staff.
AGREEMENT IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD --
TEMPORARY WATER SERVICE AGREEMENT - MRS. ANN BLAICHER
DATE:
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 7/2/90:
JULY 2, 1990
TO: JAMES E. CHANDLER
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
FROM: TERRANCE G. PINT
DIRECTOR OF UTI L SERVICES
SUBJECT: AGREEMENT
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY AND MRS. ANN BLAICHER
TEMPORARY WATER SERVICE
PREPARED AND STAFFED BY: WILLIAM F. McC IN
CAPITAL PROJEC NGIN
DEPARTMENT OF I SERVICES
BACKGROUND
Mrs. Ann Blaicher has requested that a temporary service be
installed from the water line on 2nd Street to service her property
at 225 16th Avenue. Vero Beach, FL 32960, prior to the installation
of a water main on 16th Avenue.
56 00 eb sr65,u+.
�l a l 17 1690-
U L, f (
The Agreement states that the Indian River County Department of
Utility Services (IRCDUS) shall provide a temporary water service to
Mrs. Blaicher until such time that a water line is constructed on
16th Avenue by assessment. Mrs. Blaicher agrees to pay all fees
required to make this connection. She further agrees to participate
in the assessment and to reconnect to -this water line as required by
IRCDUS.
RECOMMENDATION
The Department of Utility Services recommends that the Board of
County Commissioners approve the attached Agreement with Mrs. Ann
Blaicher on the Consent Agenda.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bowman, SECONDED by
Commissioner Wheeler, the Board unanimously approved
a Temporary Water Service Agreement with Mrs. Ann
Blaicher, as recommended by staff.
AGREEMENT IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD -
RESOLUTION APPOINTING PAAB MEMBERS AND PROVIDING FOR PER DIEM
COMPENSATION
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 7/5/90:
TO: The Board of County Commissioners
FROM:, I_ William G. Collins II - Assistant County Attorney
DATE: July 5, 1990
SUBJECT: Resolution Appointing Property Appraisal
Adjustment Board Members and Providing for Per
Diem Compensation for Property Appraisal
Adjustment Board Members
Pursuant to Chapter 194, Florida Statutes, the Board is
advised to:
1. Appoint by Resolution three members of the Board to
serve on the Property Appraisal Adjustment Board for
1990 with two alternates.
2. Provide by resolution for per diem compensation to the
Property Appraisal Adjustment Board members. The
amount of such compensation is established by statute
If the Board of County Commissioners and the School
Board of Indian River County elect to allow such
compensation. Since the School Board appoints two
members to the Property Appraisal Adjustment Board,
two-fifths of the expenses of the Board are borne by
the' School Board and three- fifths by the County
Commission. An appropriate resolution is attached for
your approval.
57
� � r
t� J
Commissioners Scurlock, Bird, and Bowman offered to serve on
the board this year, and Commissioner Wheeler and Chairman Eggert
offered to be alternates. A 15 -minute organizational meeting was
set for 10:00 o'clock AM. on Wednesday, August 15, 1990.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by
Commissioner Wheeler, the Board unanimously approved
Resolution 90-85, appointing the 1990 Property
Appraisal Adjustment Board Members, and providing for
statutory per diem compensation.
RESOLUTION NO. 90- 85
A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY,
FLORIDA, APPOINTING THE 1990 PROPERTY
APPRAISAL ADJUSTMENT BOARD MEMBERS, AND
PROVIDING FOR STATUTORY PER DIEM
COMPENSATION.
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners is
required to appoint three members to the Property Appraisal
Adjustment Board by Florida Statutes, Section 194.015; and
WHEREAS, it Is contemplated that the School Board
of Indian River County will adopt a resolution appointing
Its membership to the Board and providing for allowance of
per diem compensation for such members in accordance with
Florida Statutes, Section 194.015 (1989); and
WHEREAS, the cited statute requires a specific
election from both the County Commission and the School
Board In order to allow such compensation,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of
County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, that:
1. The foregoing recitals are hereby ratified and
acknowledged;
Z. DON C. SCURLOCK, JR.
a•
MARGARET C. BOWMAN
RICHARD N. BIRD , and
are appointed to the 1990 Property
Appraisal Adjustment Board with CAROLYN K. EGGERT and
GARY C. WHEELER as alternates; and
58
JUL 1111-1 PIXY
3. The above-named members of the 1990 Property
App17aIsaI Adjustment Board, or their duly authorized
replacements, may receive per diem compensation for services
provided on the board as allowed by law for State employees,
9
pursuant to the above cited statute.
The foregoing resolution was offered by
Commissioner _ SCURLOCK who moved its adoption. The motion
was seconded by Commissioner _WHFF,Fa and, upon being put
to a vote, the vote was as follows:
Chairman Carolyn K. Eggert
AYE
Vice Chairman Richard N. Bird AYE
Commissioner Margaret C. Bowman
AYE
Commissioner Don C. Scurlock, Jr. —AXE
Commissioner Gary C. Wheeler AYE
The Chairman thereupon declared Resolution No.
90- 85 duly passed and adopted this 17 day of
JULY , 1990.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
By -�
aro Iy ge t• Ghia i rman
ATTEST:
APPROVED AS TO FORM AND
LEGAL SUFFICIENCY:
William Coll—ins If
I f
Assistant County Attorney
59
TRANSFER OF CONTROL OF ST. FRANCIS MANOR
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 6/26/90:
TO: Bhrd of County Commissioners�PUtulgh;cFROM: CP. �ountY A
ttorne
Y
DATE: June 26, 1990
SUBJECT: TRANSFER OF CONTROL OF ST. FRANCIS MANOR
REFERENCE: LETTER FROM THE PRESIDENT OF ST. FRANCIS MANOR
St. Francis Manor a non-profit, non -denominational housing
facility for elderly persons was constructed on land leased
to St. Francis Manor of Vero Beach, Florida, Inc. by Indian
River County. The lease was.executed on August 8, 1973 for
a term of 99 years.
St. Francis Manor's current Board of Directors would like to
turn over ail assets to the Diocese of West Palm Beach so
that the -Diocese and Catholic Charities can provide
continuity of service and administration. See attached
document.
All terms of the.lease will remain unchanged.
Recommendation: If the Board of County Commissioners agrees
to the proposed transfer, staff recommendation would be to
approve the transfer of control and authorize the Chairman
to execute on behalf of the County any documents necessary
to reflect County approval.
CPV/sb
Chairman Eggert noted that the facility will remain
non-profit, non -denominational.
Attorney Vitunac advised that everything must remain the
same or it would be a violation of the lease. The lease will
stay the same, there is just a different manager.
ON MOTION by Commission Scurlock, SECONDED by
Commissioner Wheeler, the Board unanimously
approved the transfer of control of the St. Francis
Manor, and authorized the Chairman to execute any
documents necessary to reflect County approval, as
recommended by staff.
pj 0 ngrr F,
"'
67 1
TREASURE COAST REGIONAL PLANNING COUNCIL
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY PROPOSED REVISIONS TO TCRPC POLICIES
f
10.1 REGIONAL ISSUE: Policy Cluster, (#43): Protection of
Natural Systems
Regional Goal 10.1.2: To preserve sufficient natural upland
habitat of each community type throughout the Region to maintain
viable populations of all native plant and animal species,and
representative stands of each habitat type.
Policy 10.1.2.1: A= sufficient number of preserve areas of
appropriate. size and location shall be established throughout the
region to guarantee protection of all native plant and animal
populations. To the maximum extent feasible, these preserve areas
shall be established consistent with the location of "wilderness
islands" and major wildlife corridors. Specific action should be
taken to acquire lands of the Pal Mar Drainage District. (TCRPC,
Local Governments, DCA, Private Sector.)
Policy 10.1.2.2: All development projects 5 acres or larger,
excluding agricultural operations, shall set aside, through
selective clearing and micro -siting of buildings and construction
activities, a minimum of 15 percent of the total cumulative acreage
of native plant communities which occur on-site (e.g., flatwoods,
xeric scrub, coastal/tropical hammock, etc.). In no case, however,
shall the required set aside areas exceed 10 percent of the total
project site property acreage. Such set aside areas shall be
preserved in viable condition with intact canopy, understory, and
ground cover, and shall be protected by the filing of conservation
easements. The preserved set aside area(s) shall be allowed as
credit toward other county land development regulations such as
landscape, buffers, open space requirements, and minimum yard
setback requirements.
Where preservation of 15% of the native upland plant communities
on-site is not feasible given site specific characteristics, the
county shall permit off-site preservation and/or habitat creation_
(type -for -type) as an alternative to on-site 15% preservation_.
Moreover, as an incentive to preserve contiguous tracts which
provide more habitat value than linear buffer set aside areas, the
county shall allow a percentage reduction to a minimum of 10% of
the cumulative native plant community acreage, for those preserve
areas that are set aside as a contiguous tract.
Development Droiects proposed for lands currentiv consisting of
native upland plant communities may, as an alternative -to 15
percent preservation of the on-site community, pay a fee equivalent
to (the average assessed value of one acre of the particular
habitat type under consideration) X (the number of acres of habitat
type that would otherwise have been set aside). This fee shall be
payable to the county prior to commencement of development on -
61
site. (Local Governments, DCA, TCRPC, Private Sector.
Policy 10.1.2.3.5: All--impa7et fees paid to the Counties and
described in PFolicy' should be
used for the acquisition of native lands, "wilderness island"
preserve areas, major wildlife corridors, and the management of
lands acquired using these fees. Where lands of suitable character
and size are available for purchase within the governmental
jurisdiction from which that fees were derived from, efforts should
be made to acquire such lands. To the maximum extent feasible, fees
collected for impacts on one particular habitat type should be used
for purchase of that habitat type, however, first priority should
be given to purchase.of regionally rare or endangered lands that
occur within the County (Local Governments, TCRPC.)
Policy 10.1.2.4: Before any land which is suspected by the local
reviewing agency to potentially support listed species is cleared,
the property shall be surveyed for endangered plant communities,
and listed species by a competent ecologist or environmental
specialist. Listed species shall be those appearing in the most
recent edition of "Official Lists of Endangered and Potentially
Endangered Fauna and Flora in Florida" published by the Florida
Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission and/or the Florida Committee
on Rare and Endangered Plants and Animals publications.
In the event any listed species is present on site, the Florida
Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission and U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service shall be immediately notified. Proper protection of these
species and habitat upon which they are significantly dependent
Rhal_1 be provided to the satisfaction of these agencies and the
local government.
Policy 10.1.2.5: Each c
shall adopt programs to a
1. Pro
iur
and
an inventory of native plan
cti
ity within the Region
wino:
:ommunities in their
2. Provide for the public purchase of high quality native upland
plant communities and upland/wetland mosaics.
3. Offer tax relief for land maintained in healthy native upland
upland plant communities to the fullest extent allowed by
Chanter 193. Florida Statutes.
Commissioner Eggert explained that our suggested plan wasn't
included in the packets sent out by the Council prior to the
upcoming meeting this Friday. She advised that their staff is
coming forward with an alternate plan which she understands has
been worked out with Doug: Bournique. Attorney Collins told her
this morning that he had talked to people among the agricultural
group and they still are supporting our approach. The Council's
approach is that instead of having each unit save,25% of their
62J U L 7 1990
•r
J U L 17 1980
P,�ri�( so F'",;C ur. 6713
upland habitat, we would keep a running inventory of how much was
saved and how much was not saved and then go back, say at the end
of 5 years, and say if the amount wp should have saved has been
purchased. She had asked how they would determine how much we
should save and if they realized the cost of land up here.
Anyway, they are going to FAX the final write-up to us this
afternoon so that Director Keating and Attorney Collins can
review it before Friday's meeting. Dan Carey assures her that he
is working very hated to help all the counties become consistent
and get out from under the thumb of the DCA. He has offered to
go to Tallahassee and convince the DCA that we are consistent
here, and he has offered to testify at an administrative hearing.
Commissioner Bird still felt that preserving 15-100 of the
upland vegetation is reasonable and that 25% is too much, and
that it probably will end up in the Supreme Court someday.
SOUTH COUNTY FIRE DISTRICT MEETING
The Chairman announced that immediately following
adjournment of this meeting, the Board will reconvene sitting as
the District Board of Fire Commissioners of the South County Fire
District. Those minutes are being prepared separately.
There being -no further business, on Motion duly made,
seconded and carried, the Board adjourned at.11:55 o'clock A.M.
ATTEST:
Clerk
63
_,�.WYN
.
r
r''