HomeMy WebLinkAbout8/14/1990BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
A G E N D A
REGULAR MEETING
August 14, 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 - None
3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - Comm. Gary C. Wheeler
4. ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA/EMERGENCY ITEMS
a. aizman Eggert .acu
sed.that Atty Collins .request that a discussion about
fferent -approachesfor . sett laCmt with the -DCA be . added as Item 11B (1) , &
add report from Treasure.Coast RReeqgimal 'Plamning .Council as Item 12B(2).
b. Airport FireTruck Maint.be added as Item 1OB(2). Atty Vitunac be added
as Item 6B regarding out of County travel, & �hai3"On asl�e� that Item 10C (1) in
regard to proposed out
prcp.be moved up with Item 8A t.�)-Courthcuse Master
5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Plan Presentation.
Approval of minutes of regular meeting
of 7-10-90
6. CONSENT AGENDA
A. Received and placed on file in the
office of Clerk to the Board -
Report of Convictions, month of
July, 1990
B. Out of County travel for Comm. Scurlock
to attend WPCF Annual Conference, Oct. 7
thru 11, 1990, Washington, D.C.
( see attached) .
C. Appt. of Donald Kettlewell to National
Organization on Disability
( see attached) .
D. Transportation Disadvantaged Coordinating
Board Membership appointments.
(Memorandum dated 8-2-90).
E. Final plat approval for the Garden Grove
PRD Phase III
(memorandum dated 7-27-90)
F. Request for authorization to submit
application for State Archeological
Survey Grant
(memorandum dated 8-8-90)
AUG 14199®FBF F '
Fr -
AUG 19911
6. CONSENT AGENDA - CONTINUED
G. Policy for N.S.F. checks
(memorandum dated 8-7-90)
7. CLERK TO THE.BOARD
•r
None
9:05 AM 8. A. PUBLIC DISCUSSION ITEMS
POCK � FaE ��
PAGE
1) Supv. of Elections request for
used cardreader -
(memorandum dated 8-3-90
2) Committee's Recommendation on Childrens
Services -
(letter dated 8-7-90)
3) Presentation of Final Courthouse
Master Plan
(memorandum dated 8-8-90)
B. PUBLIC HEARINGS
1) James Meade request to rezone
approximately 20 acres from
RM -6 and A-1 to RM -8 -
(memorandum dated 7-25-90)
2) McQueen & Associates request to
rezone approx. 17.24 acres from
A- 1. to RM -6 -
(memorandum dated 7-25-90)
3) William S. Jarvis request to
rezone approx. 1.95 acres from
RM -10 to CG -
(memorandum dated 7-25-90)
4) Kimball/Lloyd & Assoc. request to
rezone approx. 27.5 acres from A-1
to RM -8 -
(memorandum dated 7-25-90)
9. COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S MATTERS
None
10. DEPARTMENTAL MATTERS
A. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
None
B. EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT
Lease Agreement, Bell South Mobility
(tabled at 7-24-90 meeting)
C. GENERAL SERVICES
1. Proposed courthouse property
acquisitions - certified
appraiser selection
(memorandum dated 8-7-90)
2. Proposed parking lot north of
administration building -
(memorandum dated 8-7-90)
V
D. LEISURE SERVICES PAGE
None
E. OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
Cancel contract and refund money for
streetlight at Surfside Terrace/AIA
(memorandum dated 8-8-90)
F. PERSONNEL
Proposed 1991 Holiday Schedule
(memorandum dated 7-27-90)
G. PUBLIC WORKS
1. Remaining Road and Bridge Division
road resurfacing projects
(memorandum dated 8-7-90)
2. Removal of dead trees in County
right-of-way
(memorandum dated 8-7-90)
3. Professional Services for Land
Management Plan Revisions and
Modifications to the FRDAP Grant
for Treasure Shores Park
(memorandum dated 8-1-90)
4. Amendment No. 2 Professional
Engineering Services Agreement -
Kings Highway (58th Ave.) Corridor
Improvements
(memorandum dated 8-6-90)-
H. UTILITIES
1. Hedden Place Water Distribution
System Assessment
(memorandum dated 8-6-90)
2. Takeover of Roseland Plaza Utilities
(memorandum dated 8-6-90)
3. Sea Oaks Wastewater Treatment Plant
Expansion Project -
(memorandum dated 7-31-90)
11. COUNTY ATTORNEY
Prisoner Medical Expenses - Dwight D.
Denmon -
(memorandum dated 7-23-90)
A
mor ° ��
AUG 14 1990
12.
13.
COMMISSIONERS ITEMS
A. CHAIRMAN CAROLYN K. EGGERT
B. VICE CHAIRMAN RICHARD N. BIRD
i
C. COMMISSIONER MARGARET C. BOWMAN
D. COMMISSIONER DON C..SCURLOCK, JR.
E. COMMISSIONER GARY C. WHEELER
SPECIAL DISTRICTS
None
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.
Tuesday, August 14, 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,
August 14, 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 Virginia Hargreaves, Deputy Clerk.
The Chairman called the meeting to order.
Reverend Charles Weaver, First Methodist Church, gave the
invocation, and Commissioner Wheeler led the Pledge of Allegiance
to the Flag.
ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA/EMERGENCY ITEMS
Chairman Eggert advised that Attorney Collins has requested
that a discussion about different approaches for settlement with
the DCA be added as Item 11B (1), and along with that, she would
like to add a report from the Treasure Coast Regional Planning
Council as Item 11B (2). The Chairman requested that an emergency
item on Airport Fire Truck Maintenance be added to the agenda as
Item 10B (2). Under the -Consent Agenda, she asked that the name
of Attorney Vitunac be added' to Item 6B regarding out -of -County
travel, and lastly, the Chairman asked that Item 10C (1) in
regard to proposed courthouse property acquisitions be moved up
with Item 8A (3) - the Courthouse Master Plan. -presentation.
aooK�� rA�E esti
AUG 141990
AUG 14'1990
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Bird, the Board unanimously approved the
additions to the Agenda and transfer of an item as
requested by the Chairman and described above.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
The Chairman asked if there were any additions or correc-
tions to the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of July 10, 1990.
There were none.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Bird, the Board unanimously approved the
Minutes of the Regular Meeting of July 10, 1990, as
written.
CONSENT AGENDA
A. Reports
The following was received and placed on file in the Office
of Clerk to the Board:
Report of Convictions, Month of July, 1990.
B. Out -of -County Travel
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Bird, the Board unanimously approved out -
of -County Travel for Commissioner Scurlock and
Attorney Vitunac to attend the WPCF Annual Conference,
October 7 thru 11, 1990, at Washington, D.C.
2
C. Appointment to National Organization_ on Disability
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Bird, the Board unanimously approved the
appointment of Donald Kettlewell as the County's
representative to the National Organization on
Disability (N.O.D.)
D. Appointments - Transportation Disadvantaged Coord. Board
The Board reviewed memo from Senior Planner Boudreaux:
TO: James Chandler
County Administrator
DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE:
0- ert Kbat ng, CP
Community Developmddt Director
THRU: Sasan Rohani
Chief, Long -Range Planning
FROM: Cheri Boudreaux
Senior Planner, Long -Range Planning
DATE: August 02, 1990
RE: TRANSPORTATION DISADVANTAGED COORDINATING BOARD
MEMBERSHIP APPOINTMENTS
It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal
consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their regular
meeting of August 14, 1990.
DESCRIPTIONS & CONDITIONS
On May 8, 1990, the Board of County Commissioners approved the
transmittal of the county's application to the state to become the
local Designated Official Planning Agency (DOPA) for the provision
of transportation disadvantaged planning activities in the area.
The State's Transportation Disadvantaged Commission (TDC)
officially notified the county by letter of its approval as the
DOPA on June 15, 1990.'
d
The next step in the process is for the DOPA to officially appoint
the appropriate members of the Local Coordinating Board.
On July 24, 1990, the Board directed the staff to contact the
appropriate state agencies and the Council on Aging regarding their
suggested appointies. The Board also nominated Commissioner
Margaret C. Bowman as Chair of the L.C.B.
AUG 141990 3 Fa1A 3�1
I
r AUG 14 1990
ALTERNATIVES & ANALYSIS
Chapter 427, Florida Statues and Rule 41-2, Florida Administrative
Code, specifically outlines the mandated requirements of the
Coordinating Board's structure and duties.
Based on the mandated requirements the following are the suggested
names of the LCB appointies based on contact with each state agency
and the Council on Aging.
* Ms. Phyllis Sidersky
State of Florida Department of
Health & Rehabilitative Services
* Mr. Don Hinkle
Vocational Rehabilitation Supervisor
Department of Labor & Employment Security
Division of Vocational Rehabilitation
* Mr. Vincent Mc Cann
Veterans Services Officer
Florida Department of Veteran's Affairs
* Mr. Kent Rice
Florida Department of Transportation
District Public Transportation Manager
* Ms. Pearl Jackson
Economic Opportunity Council, Outreach Program
Representing the economically disadvantaged
* Dr. Gary Norris or his designee
Superintendent of Public Schools
Representing the Public Education Community
* Mr. Jerry Ashcraft, President
Council on Aging Board of Directors
Representing the elderly
* Ms. Nancy Sczurek
Representing the handicapped
* Mr. Harry Hurst, Executive Director
Association of Retarded Citizens
Citizen advocate representative
*. Ms. Martha Daley
Citizen Advocate and user
representative
RECOMMENDATION
The staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners appoint
the members to the Transportation Disadvantaged Local Coordinating
Board as presented.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Bird, the Board unanimously approved the
appointment of those listed above to the Transporta-
tion Disadvantaged Local Coordinating Board.
4
E. Final Plat Approval - Garden Grove PRD, Phase III
The Board reviewed memo from Staff Planner Tworek:
TO: James E. Chandler
County Administrator
DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE:
Obert M. Ke ing, ICP
Community Developntdnt_Di rector
THROUGH: Stan Boling, AICP
Planning Director
FROM: Cheryl A. Tworek
Staff Planner, Current Development
DATE: July 27, 1990
SUBJECT: FINAL PLAT APPROVAL FOR THE GARDEN GROVE PRD PHASE III
PLAT
It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal
consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at its regular
meeting of August 14, 1990.
DEVELOPMENT AND LOCATION:
Garden grove PRD Phase III plat is a proposed 78 lot phase of a
total 240 lot PRD subdivision located on the east side of U.S. #1,
north of Midway Estates Mobile Home Park and west and north of Vero
Shores Subdivision.. The zoning classification of the site is RM -
6, Multiple Family Residential (6 units per acre) and RS -6, Single
Family Residential (6 units per acre). The land use designation
is L-2, Low Density (up to 6 units per acre).
The Board of County Commissioners granted conceptual PRD plan
approval for the overall subdivision on August 25, 1988. At its
regular meeting of September 10, 1987, the Planning and Zoning
Commission granted preliminary PRD plat approval to the Garden
Grove PRD. Phases I and II of the PRD have since been constructed,
approved and recorded. The owner/developer, Garden Grove
Associates, Inc., is now requesting that final plat approval be
granted to the Garden Grove PRD Phase III and has submitted the
following:
1. a final plat in conformance with the approved preliminary
plat;
2. a certified cost estimate from the project engineer; and
3. a deed of easement and bill of sale of utility facilities.
ANALYSIS:
4.
All required improvements have been constructed by the developer
and have been inspected and deemed acceptable by the Public Works
Department and the Utilities Department. The developer is
warranting the publicly dedicated utility improvements_ and is
posting security to guarantee the warranty. The project engineer
has submitted a certified cost estimate for the warranty
5y
AUG 141990
AUG -141990 �
Ronw 8
maintenance agreement.' The County Attorney's Office has reviewed
and approved the warranty maintenance agreement and the letter of
credit which guarantees the warranty maintenance agreement. The
Utilities Department has accepted the certified cost estimate for
the required utilities improvements. All applicable requirements
regarding final plat approval have been satisfied.
i
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners grant final
Plat approval for Garden Grove Phase III PRD plat and accept the
submitted warranty maintenance agreement and letter of credit.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Bird, the Board unanimously granted Final
Plat Approval for Garden Grove Phase III PRD Plat
and accepted the submitted warranty maintenance
agreement and letter of credit.
F. Application for State Archaeological Survey Grant
The Board reviewed memo from the Community Development
Director:
TO: James Chandler
County Administrator
FROM: Robert M. Keating, AICP 4,A4<
Community Development'Director
DATE: August 8, 1990
RE: Request for Authorization to Submit Application for State
Archeological Survey Grant
It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal
consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at its regular
meeting of August 14, 1990.
DESCRIPTION & CONDITIONS
Two years ago, the county received a state grant to conduct a
historic survey. That survey which was undertaken by a consultant
qualified in historic preservation focused only on structures. No
consideration was given to archeological resources.
The need for an archeological survey, however, has long been
recognized. Several comprehensive plan policies including policies
9.2 and 9.3 of the coastal management element, call for a survey
of the county's archeological resources. Recent proposed
development projects located in areas having potential
archeological resources also underscore the need for more
information on these resources.
6
To do an archeological survey would require the services of a
competent historical/archeological consultant. Staff estimates the
cost of a generalized survey at $12,000 to $14,000. This cost
could be partially off -set through state grant funds. Such funds
are presently available during the current funding cycle for
historic/archeological grants. Such a grant would provide funding
on a 50/50 matching basis; however, the application deadline is
August 31, 1990.
ALTERNATIVES & ANALYSIS
A generalized archeological survey is needed for the unincorporated
county. Completing such a survey would not only provide necessary
planning data; it would also meet several plan policies.
Since such a survey must be done by individuals with archeological
expertise, the activity cannot be done with existing staff. The
possibility of a state grant, however, does provide a partial
funding source. The remainder of the funds can be provided through
money budgeted in the planning division's 1990-1991 budget for
consulting services.
Staff feels that this is a necessary activity that can be done at
this time at a reasonable cost with partial state funding.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Board authorize the staff to submit a
archeological survey grant application, approve use of the
necessary matching funds, and authorize the chairman to execute the
application.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Bird, the Board unanimously authorized
staff to submit an archaeological survey grant appli-
cation, approved use of the necessary matching funds,
and authorized the Chairman to execute the application.
G. Policy for N.S.F. checks
The Board reviewed memo from OMB Director Baird:
t
A U G 14 1990
AUG 4199Q = Ri7o� 80 ��� �. 8,5
TO: Nkmbm af The Board
DATE: August 7, Il
SUBJECT FOUCTFOIZ N.S.F. CHECKS
COMUi
, AGENDA
FROIVL:
Gus Da.
m'=M
The ami the 1988/89 audit that the Board of County Commissioners
develop a w i write off N.S.F. (Non -Sufficient Funds) checks. The budget
office recommm& fie M=6ag policy be approved.
1. F&zmw &qm=w=, will provide a monthly list of N.S.F. checks to
with a copy to the budget office.
2- 7heBmmImfQ=MyCommissioners authorizes the Finance Director
kwImYmMhwCsvnty to write off N.S.F. checks which are over six
3> 7he Ammm deputment will provide each department a list of
damU w & :, with a copy to the budget office on a monthly
ON MOTtM by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Com-
missfianwr Wrd,. the Board unanimously approved the
pibtftT Tinarr ar-4' to N.S.F. checks as recommended by
tl' ®r re-z-11ow above.
SUPV. OF ELEM Sw - RL:QUEST FOR USED CARDREADER
pewv1s,&r• of EfectPons Ann Robinson came before the Board
in regards to the. fedi llo f.mg request:
8
� � r
August 3, 1990
ANN ROBINSON
SUPERVISOR OF ELECTIONS
1840 25TH STREET, SUITE N-109
VERO BEACH, FLORIDA 32960-3394
TELEPHONES: (407) 567-8187 or 567-8000
TO: HON. CAROLYN EGGERT, CHAIRMAN, BCC
FROM: ANN ROBINSON, SUPERVISOR OF.ELECTIONS ��
RE: ITEM FOR BCC AGENDA OF AUGUST 14, 1990
The BCC approved the 1990-91 elections budget which includes the
purchase of another used cardreader; new cardreaders are no longer
being manufactured. Melbourne Technical Services,2233 Vermont
Street, West Melbourne, FL has offered to sell us a used M1000
Documation cardreader for $500 in August and the balance of $4,500
in October. We have the $500 in the current budget.
According to F.S. 101.293, competitive bids are needed for any pur-
chase of voting equipment by a governing body unless "a majority
of the governing body finds that there is but a single source from
which suitable equipment may be obtained."
Melbourne Technical Services has been doing the maintenance on our
cardreaders for several years. Dan and Jackie Gloger own MTS, and
I have found them to be completely reliable. Some counties in
Florida bought cardreaders from other companies only to find that
the motors were substandard and had to be replaced. Attached are
three pages of information about the Glogers and MTS.
I recommend that the.Board of County Commissioners vote to approve
the purchase of a used M1000 Documation cardreader from Melbourne
Technical Services as a single source from which suitable equipment
may be obtained due to the proximity, reliability, and trained
personnel of the company. The cost will be paid from the elections
budget. This way the cardreader will be ready for the first primary.
Thank you.
Supervisor Robinson commented that she does not know that
this approval is strictly required by law, and other Supervisors
do not always bring this to the Commission, but she felt the
Board should know this.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Scurlock, the Board unanimously approved
the purchase of a used M1000 Documation cardreader
as requested by the Supervisor of Elections.
AUG 141990 9
A U G-141990:
COMMITTEE'S RECOMMENDATION ON CHILDRENS SERVICES
Commissioner Scurlock referred the Board to the following
letter (which he noted is not particularly consistent with what
he promised to bring forth to the Commission):
THE FL
650 Apalachee Parkway
August 7, 1990
Doug Scurlock, Jr.
County Ccmmissioner
1840 25th St.
Vero Beach, FL 32960
Dear Commissioner Scurlock,
Attorney
y
Personnel 199D=9TWARD OF GOVERNORS
�:� r s
561-56M Comlrunity Dev.
Utilities
Finance
Other Respond to:
P.O. Box 3406
Vero Beach, FL 32964
This letter will serve as confirmation that the Citizen's
Committee for Children in favor of a Children's Services
Council has asked to be put on the August 14, 1990 County
Commission agenda for purposes of requesting that the County
Commission form a committee to evaluate children's services in
Indian River County.
The undersigned recommends that the committee be called the
"Children's Services Council" and that the composition of the
committee follow that set forth in Section 125.901, Florida
Statutes. It is further recommended that the committee
undertake an. analysis of the current budget and funding of
children's programs in Indian River County with a focus on
ascertaining the unmet needs of Indian River County's children,
utilizing the materials and documents already provided to the
County Commission by the undersigned.
Finally, the undersigned requests that the County Commission
act with all haste in forming the proposed committee and, in
that regard, will be at the. disposal of the County Commission
for recommendations and suggestions as to members of the
community to be _appointed to the committee, and to provide
input and information for any other questions or issues that
may arise.
We look forward to a continuing cooperative relationship with
the newly formed Children's Services Council.
Kindest regards,
George H. ss
Chairman izen's Committee for Children
Board of Governors
-19th Judicial Circuit
10
- M M
Commissioner Scurlock reminded the Board that at the
previous meeting when Childrens Services were discussed, the
Board took the position of not favoring creating a special
independent district, but agreed that childrens' needs are an
important part of county government and he felt indicative of
that is the 1/2 million we are currently allocating for those
purposes. He reported that he since has had several meetings
with Wayne McDonough and representatives of the original group
that came to the Board requesting a referendum, at which meetings
they looked at several alternatives and were not in total
agreement. Commissioner Scurlock advised that the law does not
allow us the degree -of flexibility we had originally thought, and
he does not think there is an ability to create a special
dependent district outside of our millage cap. He informed the
Board that he agreed that he would come back to the Board and
make a recommendation, and that recommendation is for the
establishment of a 9 member committee to be appointed by the
County Commission, to serve at the Board's pleasure, and to be
advisory in nature. This particular committee would look at
children's needs and the services that are rendered and funded by
the County Commission, and they would be especially involved in
the budgetary process because that is where we really come down
to the bottom tax dollars. At the appropriate time,
consideration would be given to having a straw ballot as to how
the community feels in terms of a portion of our'millage going to
this purpose.
Commissioner Scurlock continued to explain that we are
spending over half a million currently, and this committee would
be able to analyze not only how we are using our present
resources but how our fufure resources may be spent in this
particular area. He would suggest that Chairman Eggert chair
that committee in that she has been involved with most of the
human resource issues, mental health, drug and alcohol abuse,
AUG 14 1990 0-,
AUG 141990s�
etc., and if Chairman Eggert wishes, he would switch that
committee assignment with her for the Land Acquisition Committee.
Commissioner Scurlock advised that this recommendation is
not in total concurrence with the original group who felt
strongly about having a special independent district and a paid
director, but he felt very comfortable with the recommendation.
If it is successful in helping us with this task, we can consider
changes later, but he felt that this is a good beginning.
Chairman Eggert noted that the letter calls for the makeup
of the Committee to be the same as under the Statute, and she
does not particularly agree with that as she does not see any
point in having a member of HRS sit on the committee. She felt
we have a lot of organizations here that are HRS funded that can
supply a member.
Commissioner Scurlock stated that is why his recommendation
is for a 9 member advisory committee to be appointed by the
Board, but obviously we will consider appointment of those who
have been involved.
Chairman Eggert asked if anyone wished to speak on this
matter, and Madeline La Plaunt, member of the original group,
wished to say that the meetings they had were good; they are
willing to work with the Board in any way; they would like the
Board to try this route; and any committee the Board appoints,
they would be happy to work along with it.
William Stegkemper spoke representing the RN Child Care
Center, a private, for profit, tax paying entity and stated that
he felt the recommended committee should have someone from the
private sector on it as well.
MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by
Commissioner Wheeler, to establish a 9 member advisory
committee; Chairman Eggert to chair said committee; and
instruct that the Chairman solicit participation from
the community.
12
Commissioner Wheeler wished it to be perfectly clear that we
are looking at a 9 member committee that would look at the needs
and propose a specific budget to the Commission for approval.
Chairman Eggert confirmed that she felt they would be
looking at the half million dollars currently allocated and
looking at a combination of needs to see if there should be any
adjustments or recommendations for further things to be budgeted.
Commissioner Wheeler wished to be sure that the committee is
made up of 9 members at large, and Commissioner Bird further
clarified that he felt the committee will explore the overall
needs of children in the county, determine what we have presently
that will fill those needs and where the gap is, and be sure our
money is going where it needs to go.
Chairman Eggert pointed out that this should be called the
Childrens Services Committee.
THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION.
It was voted on and carried unanimously.
PRESENTATION OF FINAL COURTHOUSE MASTER PLAN & CERTIFIED
APPRAISER SELECTION FOR COURTHOUSE PROPERTY ACQUISITIONS
Administrator Chandler reviewed the following memos:
AUG 141990 13 n�°k
c�
AUG 14 1990
TO: Board of County Commissioners DATE:--- --
August 8, 1990 FILE:
SUBJECT: PRESENTATION OF FINAL
i �---�� COURTHOUSE MASTER
FRO • James E.-'
. Candler ' PLAN
County Administrator
A presentation of the final Courthouse Master Plan is scheduled for the
August 14, 1990 meeting. Herbert/Halback, Inc. will present their analysis
and recommendations of the option approved by the Commission at the July
10, 1990 meeting. It is anticipated that this would conclude the master
planning phase for the courthouse project.
Additionally, proposals for appraisals of the properties involved will be
submitted for consideration. If the master plan concept is approved, the
appraisal services can be initiated immediately with approval of the quotes at
Tuesday's meeting. By law, two appraisals are required.
A option agreement was submitted by Mr. Flick and has been revised by the
County Attorney to conform to the County requirements.
DATE: AUGUST 7, 1990
TO: HONORABLE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
THRU: JAMES E. CHANDLER
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
FROM: H.T. "SONNY" DEAN, DIRECTOR
DEPARTMENT OF GENERAL SERVI S
SUBJECT: PROPOSED COURTHOUSE PROPERTY ACQUISITIONS
CERTIFIED APPRAISER SELECTION
BACKGROUND:
' Staff sent out requests to six (6) certified appraisers to perform
the subject appraisals. The Law requires two appraisals for the
purchase of properties in excess of $500,000.
The following firms submitted proposals:
1. Napier Appraisal Services
2. Callaway and Price, Inc.
3. Armfield and Wagner .
4. Benson Appraisal Company
5. O'Steen Appraisal Services
6. Appraisal and Real Estate Services
ANALYSIS:
Armfield and Wagner submitted a low cost of $16,600 with a delivery
of four to six weeks. Napier submitted the next low estimated cost
of $17,650 with a delivery of eight to twelve weeks. Both companies
indicated that the individual appraisals would be submitted as
completed.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends that the two low proposals be accepted and we
contract with Armfield & Wagner along with Napier to perform the
service.
14
Administrator Chandler noted that our consultants have
looked at concepts and, as directed, analyzed locations for the
courthouse as suggested at the July 10th meeting. He believed
the Board will see that the courthouse and the required parking
can be accommodated within those properties Mr. Flick has an
interest in, and the consultants have looked at other varying
concepts within that same 3 block area as well. The
Administrator advised that, in the interests of time, staff has
solicited proposals to do appraisals of the properties in
question., He has also hoped to have an option agreement the
Commission could look at today, but staff will be bringing that
back next week.
Commissioner Scurlock had one comment before the presenta-
tion began. He noted that he saw in the newspaper a suggestion
that the Commission was unaware of the parking requirement for
Mr. Flick, and he wished to make it very clear that at the last
presentation to the Board Mr. Flick made his parking needs very
plain. He did not want to have the misconception that the
Commission was unaware of those needs.
Administrator Chandler commented that while Mr. Flick did
indicate they had parking needs, from a staff perspective, he
personally did not know that they specifically wanted 150 spaces
tied into a lease or perhaps their option agreement regarding
acquisition of the properties. He advised that he met with Mr.
Flick to discuss the option agreement yesterday and again discuss
the question of lease of spaces, etc., and it was quite clear
that perhaps there was some misunderstanding. We have indicated
we can work with Mr. Flick on this after we get the appraisals,
and the newspaper release possibly was a bit premature in regard
to there being a problem on this.
Commissioner Scurlock s'tated that the other aspect he wants
made perfectly clear is that the Commission in the spirit of
cooperation has been working with Mr. Flick when actually legally
we could just go out and condemn the property.
AUG 141990 15
AUG 14 1990 vqt
Fred Halback of Herbert Halback, Inc., referred the Board to
the following memo entitled Impact on Utilities:
...
The existing 6" cast iron water main along the east side of 15th Avenue between 20th
Street and 21 st Street will need to be abandoned. Prior to abandonment, a new 6"
P.V.C. water main will need to be placed along 21st Street from 14th Avenue tol6th
Avenue. Fire flow for -the courthouse can come from the 8" water main on the 20th
Street or the new 6" water main installed along 21 st Street.
Sanitary Sewer
The existing 15" gravity sewer main through block 44 will need to be replaced with a
concrete encased 15" P.V.C. gravity sewer main, similar to the new library. Also,
depending on the location of the courthouse building, the existing 8" gravity sewer
main through block 45 may need to be relocated. Sanitary sewer service for the
courthouse can be supplied by the sewer main through block 45 or block 46.
The main electrical supply lines run east and west along 21st Street and 23rd Street.
There are smaller service lines which can be abandoned or rerouted in block 46 and
45.
The existing facilities are as submitted in our the Master Plan document submitted
earlier.
The legal positive outfall for this concept will most like by the existing system along
21st Street from 16th Avenue westward. The existing culverts will require evaluation
and possibly enlarging the culverts or simply replacing the culverts.
As of July 13, 1990, the Indian River Farms Water Control District has established the
following criteria for a 25 year - 24 hour storm event.
The maximum discharge from any site shall be limited to 2 inches in a 24 hour period:
This criteria applies to the proposed development and will have an effect on the
drainage facilities. Since this area exhibits an exceptionally good percolation rate, it is
still felt that an underground exfiltration trench will be an acceptable method.
However, in addition to the local Drainage District's new requirements, the St. Johns
River Water Management. District is creating new criteria for an underground
exfiltration trenches. With all of these new rules, it may be necessary to combine with
some above ground storage areas. The actual building and new impervious areas
--must be known, and a preliminary design performed. Additional Property may be
required. All of these rule changes are very recent and are still being established.
15a
The major service line runs east and west along 23rd Street and will not conflict with
this proposed development.
Additional costs for the above mentioned utility impacts have been estimated at
$50,000.00 and have been added into the $100,000.00 previously identified in the
Judicial Complex costs.
15th Street Abandonment
The following are criteria that have been stipulated by the City of Vero Beach:
• The R.O.W. will revert back to the adjoining property owners and placed back
on the tax roles.
• The City will require the maintenance of a utility easement.
• Any proposed street abandonment will require full approval by the City
Council.
Placement of the Judicial Building and parking garage as proposed by Henry Flick will
have the following impact on the existing roadways:
• The intersection of 16th Avenue and 20th Street will need to be signalized.
• The intersection of 16th Avenue and 21st Street may need signalization.
Further traffic analysis will be necessary to fully understand the impact on this
Intersection.
• All intersections surrounding the complex will need to be improved for
pedestrian:traffic, (i.e. crosswalks, signalization).
An allowance of $100,000.00 has been included in the cost estimate to cover the costs
of these improvements.
Mr. Halback commented that, in a nutshell, as a result of
studying these impacts, to be conservative, they suggested
increasing the Utilities budget $50,000. He noted that one
other issue they looked at was the issue of the City -owned
parking lot and the requirements that may be put into effect on
the other parking that had been used by Mr. Flick of approxi-
mately 70 spaces. The City says that the County will need to
replace the 20 spaces that are on the City -owned lot, but the
other spaces are not required to be replaced; although it is
possible the County may want1to for a variety of reasons.
Mr. Halback then addressed Concept J, which is as follows:
AUG 141990
16
MOK 0 rF"['Fi8 b S,
I
AUG 14 1990
. — ram sMn rsm s..es. '' 1•
i —"� ►=� • ••- �- f gid. :; _ :.:.._. -
A _ I X1—!1 � •I.;z �� � _ � _ �` � ���
i i !!� a '� � f 'r•. 5 i
I' e =::� L: u ( --
I•-�6
PrFuti wrR•AF(
Sw+u 85
�.�rtnruato Z
TorAt_ SIS
berlrrrl
Mr. Halback advised that Concept J is exactly like the
configuration suggested by the properties owned by Mr. Flick.
This concept gives you a total of 535 spaces, and it includes the
20 additional needed to be replaced in the City parking lot. The
cost is approximately 18 million using the prices provided by Mr.
Flick. They have not included any condemnation costs.
Chairman Eggert asking about the possibility of needing any
more land for drainage in any of these configurations because of
the 25 year storm requirement, but Mr. Halback advised that it
may be possible through the final design to work out surface
retention on the properties shown.
Mr. Halback stressed that in Concept J you have a willing
seller, and this is one of the lower cost scenarios they are
proposing today.
Commissioner Bird asked how much parking is available
17
immediately adjacent to the building and was informed that there
are 67 spaces adjacent.
Discussion continued regarding parking, the problem that
this parking area also undoubtedly would be made use of by
tenants of the businesses to the east, and the possibility of
talking to Mr. Flick about relocating some of his parking into
other areas.
Commissioner Scurlock asked if there has been any dialogue
in regard to approaching the printing company about the possibil-
ity of trading their location for the State Attorney's building.
Administrator Chandler stated that there has been no dis-
cussion of that at this point. We have tied this in with getting
appraisals. In addition to getting appraisals on the properties
Mr. Flick has control over, we want to get one on the west half
of Block 45, which includes the print shop and possibly also
expand the appraisal to include the 6 lots just south of the
proposed parking facility. We want to know the value of all
properties that may possibly be under consideration.
Commissioner Bird inquired about the feasibility of moving
the parking garage to the south and not having to take the bank's
drive -up structure, but Mr. Halback pointed out that, although
this is a possibility, you then may be into negotiation with an
unwilling seller.
Commissioner Wheeler brought up the possibility of building
the parking garage over the drive -up facility, and Administrator
Chandler stressed that from the staff perspective, we want to
consider all physical aspects, and when we get appraisals, we
will know better what we are looking at.
Commissioner Scurlock commented that we are building a
facility to serve 91,000 -People, and while we want to mitigate
the impact on property owners, he personally would not let the
impact on one property owner stop him from voting for doing the
most efficient thing.
Mr. Halback next presented Concept K:
18
I
A u G 14 1990
0
GC%HC.SFr K
F►FpllY� �p+VFi
4IfaGE d'S .•
u►hatts+o
�1
'RSD -L 569
Mr. Halback explained that Concept K assumes you may want to
take some of those out -parcels and look at them for increased
opportunities for surface parking. This concept gives you 589
spaces instead of 535, and the cost of Concept K is approximately
19.25 million, or 19.36 million if you do the increased parking.
The difference between those numbers is in the cost of the
parking lot not the land.
Mr. Halback then referred to Concept L, as follows:
19
1�rrArrt
1u<Ib:icl;
Q w�
— SIM the fr In
saw
I- II =;
- I J a't:_ �• .� � , I' +•IIS �.. � --- T.
_ .i '' � •� _''''HHH�jjj{{{{t�r'" .i Ikilb3t•1;
-"J' ---•— �I��E._1�- 1. _..
.'
Mr. Halback noted that this concept shifts the building a
half block to the center of the block between 15th and 16th
Avenues so that you don't have to abandon 15th Avenue, and this
would also eliminate the need to relocate or purchase any of the
parking lot currently owned by Mr. Flick. Concept L provides
secured parking for 450 cars and surface parking of 65 spaces, or
a total of 515 spaces and it also shows an option of moving some
parking to another block to the north.
Administrator Chandler interjected that with this concept we
would not need the Brackett property that Mr. Flick has indicated
he wanted to meet some of his parking requirements.
Commissioner Wheeler asked if Mr. Flick still would need
that Brackett property under' this concept, and Mr. Halback
pointed out that while he may not need it for parking, he might
need it for his drive-in teller.
Alin 1 a 1990 20 .. ?Oov. 8 0 ��. �L 8 7,2
,
AUG
14
1990
DOOK
80
- Mr.
Halback continued that in Concept L we would
have 515
spaces without taking the City's 20 spaces or Mr. Flick's, but
Commissioner Bird noted that this concept involves taking only
some of Mr. Flick's property, and then•.on the rest possibly you
have a willing seller or an unwilling seller.
Mr. Halback agreed and pointed out that another constraint
in this concept is that it does not leave a lot of flexibility
for future growth, except possibly the abandonment of another
street.
Commissioner Bird further noted that under this proposal,
the building would span the alley, and he believed it was said
there are actually more utilities in the alley than in the
street.
Mr. Halback agreed, but advised those costs are already
plugged into the plan.
Mr. Halback then presented the last concept, Concept M:
21
i
IJIE1
J t7O tTMtT
Er -Ir M
.LP -WA as
TOI�•1- S4s
Mr. Halback noted that Concept M basically shows buying all
the property on that block but still pushing the building back to
its original configuration straddling 15th Avenue. Under this
concept, you end up with 595 parking spaces. This particular
concept costs approximately 19.8 million, or 19.9 depending on
whether you want to pay for the improvements to the one parking.
lot. This plan costs a little bit more, and you have possibly 2
unwilling sellers; however, this plan meets all your requirements
and gives you the greatest flexibility for future expansion.
Commissioner Bird asked how much of the cost is in the hard
structures in all 4 scenarios presented, and Mr. Halback advised
that it is the same in every case - building and furnishings are
10.6 million and the parkingigarage approximately 2.9 million.
Mr. Halback informed the Board that their recommendation to
the Board would be to consider either Concept J, which is exactly
what Mr. Flick proposed, and where you have a lower cost and a
22
L AUG 14 1990
ht•rin•rt
Ii:t1UTc}F
NOOK.
r
AUG 141990
willing seller, or Concept M, which provides you the greatest
flexibility for approximately $800/900,000 more.
Commissioner Wheeler believed Some question was raised as to
ingress and egress in Concept J, but Administrator Chandler
advised that it has been indicated this is not a problem.
Commissioner Bird noted that basically the difference
between these is the additional parking, and he felt we are
kidding ourselves if we think the tenants to the east are going
to be happy about sharing that parking.
Mr. Halback agreed and felt the only way you could possibiy
make that parking lot work would be with a gate of some type.
Discussion continued regarding parking, and Administrator
Chandler pointed out that from a practical standpoint, we will
not be at maximum utilization of those parking spaces for a
number of years down the road.
Mr. Halback agreed totally and commented that he would
suggest that the only problem with Concept J is that of all the
schemes, it is the tightest on its relationship of short term
parking to long term parking. He noted that people who park
there for the whole day most likely will use the parking garage.
Commissioner Bird noted that the other related item is
selection of appraisers and asked if those appraisals will
include the properties in any of these 4 scenarios.
Administrator Chandler advised that the appraisals will
include all the property under Mr. Flick's control plus the block
with the print shop, and now staff is suggesting including the 6
lots on the front of the parking garage. He stressed that before
we get into too much detailed discussion with the property
owners, we would like to have those appraisals in. If the
Commission has a definite preference for a certain concept, that
would have an effect, but any of these concepts will meet the
parking requirements.
Commissioner Scurlock personally felt that the bottom line
of the whole thing is flexibility, and, theretore, Concept M is
23
M W
obviously the best concept. He did not know if the Commission is
ready to displace two unwilling sellers, however, or the cost of
doing so, but noted that if we just don't want to make someone
mad, the other option is to abandon the whole thing and move over
by the Health Department where we own the property.
Administrator Chandler continued to discuss appraisals and
watching the cash flow on the Sales Tax revenue. He informed the
Board that we have taken the worst case scenario with our with-
drawals on the Jail, the Health Department, etc. and felt that
with where we are today, we are within the ballpark of the costs
we are talking about, but it is getting tight and there is a
potential for a shortfall at some time down the road.
Commissioner Scurlock brought up the possibility of reces-
sion's effect on the economy and our reinvestment rate, and
Administrator Chandler confirmed all that has been included in
the worst case scenario and we.also have been very conserva-
tive in figuring architect's flees, etc.
Commissioner Bird felt that in order to compare apples to
apples with this plan and the original plan where we were going
to put the complex on county -owned land, we need some indication
of the value of the buildings that will remain in the County's
hands and not be used up by this project. He felt some kind of
rough indication of the remaining value of those 3 buildings
would help.
Administrator Chandler agreed that value should be
considered.
The Chairman asked if anyone present wished to be heard, and
no one wished to speak.
Administrator Chandler commented that he would like to have
the concurrence of the Commission as to the concepts we are
zeroing in on at this point°in time and the particular locations
so that we can know that we are dealing strictly within the 20th
to 21st Street and 14th to 17th Avenue area.
AUG 14 1990
IWO 60 8'
24
AUG 14 1990
POOK 80 `h,u . 87",
",
MOTION WAS MADE'by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED
by Commissioner Wheeler, to accept staff's recom-
mendation on selection of appraisers and authorize
them to contract with those making the two low
proposals - Armfield & Wagner and Napier Appraisal
Services; and to indicate that Concepts J and M are
the most favorable of those presented.
Administrator Chandler asked if staff can have authorization
to include the southern 6 lots in the appraisals, and Commission-
ers Scurlock and Wheeler agreed to include this in their Motion.
Commissioner Bird commented that, if we are going to concen-
trate in this area, he believed J and M are the best concepts,
but he would like to reserve the right to consider the others
after we see the actual prices involved, and Commissioner
Scurlock noted that he would like to do the same if we get into
real problems with these concepts.
THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION with the
addition of appraisal of the 6 lots.
It was voted on and carried unanimously.
REZONING - 20 ACRES S.OF SR60, W.OF 74TH AVE. TO RM -8 (MEADE)
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:
25
l
VERO BEACH PRESS -JOURNAL
Published Daily
Vero Beach, Indian River Codnty, Florida
COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER: STATE OF FLORIDA
Before the undersigned authority personally appeared J. J. Schumann, Jr. who on oath
says that he is Business Manager of the Vero Beach Press -Journal, a daily newspaper published
at Vero Beach in Indian River County, Florida; that.the attached copy of advertisement, being
in the matter
in the _ Court, was pub-
lished in said newspaper in the issues of
Affiant further says that the said Vero Beach Press -Journal is a newspaper published at
Vero Beach, in said Indian River County, Florida, and that the said newspaper has heretofore
been continuously published in said Indian River County, Florida, each daily and has been
entered as second class mail matter at the post office in Vero Beach, in said Indian River Coun-
ty, Florida, for a period of one year next preceding the first publication of the attached copy of
advertisement; and affiant further says that he has neither paid nor promised any person, firm
or corporation any discount, rebate, commission or refund for th purpose of securing this
advertisement for publication in the said newspaper..
Sworn to and subscribed before me this _�i`JJ_ da f A.D 19 1GY,,
/(Buyness Man Mgr)
AP
;•,,/� rte, -...A
(Clerk of the Circuit Court, Indian River County,:Florida)
(SEAL)
"An ROAD 0
A-1 SUBJECT
PROPERTY
NOTICE - PUBUC NEARING
Notice of hearing to consider the adoption of
a County ordinance rezoning land from: RM -6,
Muldple-Famil1yy Residential District and - A-1,
Agricultural Olstriot to RM -8, Multiple -Family
Residential District. The subject property Is pre-
sently owned by James Meade, et. al. and Is lo-
cated on the south side of S.R. 80, east of 77th
Avenue. The subject prcontains approxi -
matey 20 acres and Is ying Ahe SE 1/4 of Sea
Von 1. Township 33S, Range 38E. ying and
being In Indian River County, Florida.
A public hearing at which parties In Interest
and citizens shall have an opportunity to be
heard, will be held by the Board of County Com-
missioners of Indian River County, Florida. In the
County Commission Chambers of the County
Administration Bullding, located at 1840 25th
Street. Vero Beach. Florida on August 14,1990.
at 9:05 a.m.
The Board of County Commissioners may
grant a lose Intense zonlr►g district than the dis-
trict requested provided It Is within the same
general use category.
Anyone who may wish to appeal arty decision
which may be made at this meeting will need to
ensure that a verbatim record of the proceed-
ings Is made, which Includes testimony and evi•
deny upon which the appeal Is based.
Indian River County
Board of County Commissioners
-s � K. Eggert, Chairman
July 25,705423
Community Development Director Keating made the staff
presentation, as follows:
all 141990 26 1
AUG 14 1990 noon .t 1;8 79
TO: James Chandler
County Administrator
DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE:
c �
o ert M. Kea ti, A
Community Develo men Director
THROUGH: Sasan Rohani
Chief, Long -Range Planning
FROM: Cheryl A. Twore
Staff Planner, Range Planning
DATE: July 25, 1990
SUBJECT: JAMES MEADE REQUEST TO REZONE APPROXIMATELY 20 ACRES FROM
RM -6 AND A-1 TO RM -8
-• It is requested that the data herein presented by given formal
consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their regular
meeting of August 14, 1990.
DESCRIPTION & CONDITIONS:
This is a request to rezone approximately 20 acres from RM -6,
Multiple -Family Residential District (6 units/acre) and A-1,
Agricultural District (1 unit/5 acres) to RM -8, Multiple Family
Residential District (8 units/acre). The property is located on
the south side of State Road 60 -approximately 1/4 mile west of 74th
Avenue. The property is owned by James Meade, et.al. The
applicant intends to develop the property with multi -family
housing.
On June 28, 1990, the Planning and Zoning Commission voted 6-0 to
recommend to the Board of County Commissioners that the request to
rezone approximately 20 acres from RM -6, Multiple Family
Residential District (6 units/acre) and A-1, Agricultural District
(1 unit/5 acres) to RM -8, Multiple Family Residential (8
units/acre) be approved.
Existing Land Use Pattern
The property presently has two uses. Approximately 16 acres is
presently planted in citrus. The remaining 4 acres, the northwest
portion of the property, is open land and contains a residence.
The parcel also has split zoning, the front 11 acres being zoned
RM -6 and the back 9 acres zoned A-1. This same zoning pattern is
present on property immediately east. This property contains an
unplatted residential street. Southeast of the subject property
is the Westlake Estates Subdivision which has 20, one acre lots.
Property to the south is zoned for agriculture and planted in
citrus. West of the subject property is Tamara Gardens zoned RM -
6. This development was approved for 58 units; however, only 16
units have been built. Since no active site plan exists, any
additional development in Tamara Gardens would require site plan
approval. Property to the north, across S.R. 60, is zoned RM -6 but
is planted in citrus. Several large residential developments
including Cambridge Park, Indian River Estates and Village Green
are located along S.R. 60 within a half mile of this site.
Future Land Use Pattern
The subject property is designated as M-1, Medium Density, on the
county future land use map. This designation permits a variety of
residential zoning categories at densities up to 8 units per acre.
27
All surrounding property has the same land use designation which
extends one half mile north and south of S.R. 60.
Environment
The subject property is not designated as environmentally important
or environmentally sensitive by the comprehensive plan, nor is it
within a flood plain as identified by the Flood Insurance Rating
Maps.
Utilities & Services
The site is within.the urban service area of the county. Potable
water and sewer are available to the subject property. Lines are
presently in place along S.R. 60. The site which is located in the
Indian River Farms Drainage District is not adjacent to a district
canal.
Transportation System
The property fronts S.R. 60, a principal arterial road. This four
lane divided roadway is presently operating at a level of service
"C" or better.
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.
Compatibility with Existing Service 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.
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 the minimum acceptable standards for these services
and facilities are maintained.
- Transportation -
A review of the traffic impacts that would result from the
development of the property indicates that the existing level of
service would not be lowered. The maximum build -out permitted by
zoning would be 160 units, which would generate approximately 1,900
daily trips. This volume would maintain the existing LOS "C". A
more detailed review of transportation impacts will be required as
part of the development review process.
Potable Water
This area is serviced by the county water plant on Oslo Road. This
plant is presently undergoing a planned expansion to meet increased
demand. The county utilities department has determined that water
services would not be constrained by this rezoning.
Sanitary Sewer
The subject site is within the county. West Regional Wastewater
Service Area. As with potable water, the county utilities
department has issued a positive sanitary sewer concurrency
determination.
z$
AUG 141990 MOK ;Y �;
A U G 14 1990
- Solid Waste
'ROOK 8 ,;E 8 1 -7
Solid waste service includes pick-up by private operator and
disposal at the county landfill. The active segment of the
landfill has a 5 year remaining capacity, and the landfill has
expansion capacity beyond 2010. The solid waste department has
determined that this rezoning would not negatively impact solid
waste services. '
- Drainage
All development is reviewed for compliance with county stormwater
regulations which require onsite retention, preservation of flood
plain storage and minimum finished floor elevations. In addition,
development proposals will have to meet the discharge requirements
of the Indian River Farms Drainage District. Together, these
regulations limit the potential for onsite and off-site flooding
and damage. A preliminary drainage review by the Public Works
Department has not revealed any drainage deficiency.
- Recreation
A review of county recreation facilities and projected demand as
a result of this rezoning indicate that adopted levels of service
will be maintained. The table below illustrates the additional'
park space that would be needed for the proposed rezoningand the
existing surplus acreage by park type. This indicates that no
additional park space will be needed.
Project Demand
Park Type (Acres) Surplus Acreage
Urban District
1.76
222
Community
0.44
77
Beach
0.53
38
River
0.53
14
ANALYSIS
The proposed zoning change represents a substantial increase in the
density and a change in use. In assessing this request, three
major issues must be addressed,, compatibility with the surrounding
area, consistency with the comprehensive plan and concurrency of
the public facilities.
The State Road 60 corridor is experiencing rapid development. This
is largely due to the availability of public utilities and easy
road access. Since multi -family developments undergo either site
plan or PRD review, specific buffering and compatibility concerns
would be addressed at that time.
Compatibility is not a major concern for this property. It is
likely that any additional development along S.R. 60 would be of
a similar intensity or density. The residential developments to
the east and west are compatible with the multifamily designation.
The agricultural development to the south is also compatible but
the county code does require the placement of additional setbacks
and buffers along active agricultural operation.
The multi -family zoning would also be compatible with existing
zoning and large scale development in the S.R. 60 corridor.
A review of this rezoning with the future land use map and
policies, as well as the policies of the other plan elements, does
not reveal any inconsistency. The rezoning would further the
housing element objectives of providing a diversity of housing
types and densities. Residential development of the corridor would
also facilitate the non-residential development of the Kings
Highway and I-95 commercial nodes.
29
M M M
The State Road 60 corridor is one of the few areas which has the
necessary facilities and services to support higher density
development than is the norm in the county. The concurrency review
of facilities for the proposed rezoning indicates that these public
facilities and services are not presently constrained or likely to
be constrained by the proposed rezoning. As with all development,
a more detailed concurrency review will be conducted during
development approval.
CONCLUSION
The proposed zoning meets the three part test of compatibility,
consistency and concurrency. In addition, the rezoning would set
the tone for other development in the.immediate area and encourage
the maximum utilization of the land and public facilities.
RECOMMENDATION
Based on the analysis performed, staff recommends that the Board
of County Commissioners approve this request to rezone property to
RM -8.
Director Keating commented that this is a request to change
to one of our higher densities, and he felt if there is any place
for it, it is in this area.
Commissioner Wheeler asked why we are recommending 8 units
versus 6 when we have residential to the west and Attorney Bernie
Grail has a residential estate near there.
Director Keating explained that the Grail site is the first
phase of his development and east of him is the Seald Sweet
property. Staff's concept is that the higher density represented
by the M-1 Land Use designation is more appropriate right along
SR60 as opposed to when you get further back.
The Chairman asked if anyone wished to be heard. There were
none, and she thereupon closed the public hearing.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Wheeler, Commissioner Scurlock voting
in opposition, the Board by a 4 to 1 vote adopted
Ordinance 90-13 approving rezoning of the subject
20 acres from RM -6 and A-1 to RM -8 as requested
by James Meade.
A U G 14199® 30
AUG 14199®�y �.s�,
1,_.r ��
ORDINANCE NO. 90- 13
I
AN ORDINANCE OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, AMENDING THE
ZONING ORDINANCE AND THE ACCOMPANYING ZONING MAP FROM
A-1, AGRICULTURAL DISTRICT AND RM -6, MULTIPLE FAMILY
RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT TO RM -8, MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL
DISTRICT, FOR THE PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE
OF S.R. 60 APPROXIMATELY 1300 FEET WEST OF 74TH AVENUE, AND
DESCRIBED HEREIN, AND PROVIDING FOR EFFECTIVE:DATE.
WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission, sitting as the
local planning agency on such matters, has held a public hearing
and subsequently made a recommendation regarding this rezoning
request; and
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River
County, Florida, did publish and send its Notice of Intent to
rezone the hereinafter described property; and
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners has determined that'
this rezoning is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan of
Indian River County; and
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners has held a public
hearing pursuant to this rezoning request, at which parties in
interest and citizens were heard;
NOW,• THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED, by the Board of County
Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, that the Zoning of
the following described property situated in Indian River County,
Florida, to -wit:
The East twenty acres of Tract 10, Section 1, Township 33
South, Range 38 East, as shown on plat of Indian River Farms
Company, Plat Book 2, Page 25, St. Lucie County, Florida,
property now lying and being in Indian River County, Florida.
Be changed from A-1, Agricultural District and RM -6, Multiple
Family Residential District to RM -8, Multiple Family Residential
District.
All with the meaning and intent and as set forth and described in
said Zoning Regulations.
Approved and adopted by the Board of County Commissioners of
Indian River County, Florida, on this 14th day of August , 1990.
This ordinance was advertised in the Vero Beach Press -Journal
on the 25th day of July, 1990 for a public hearing to be
held on the day of August 14 , 1990 at which time it was moved for
adoption by Commissioner Bird , seconded by Commissioner
Wheeler , and adopted by the following vote:
Chairman Carolyn R. Eggert Aye
Q,-nissio.-mr Gary C. WheeleryA e
Commissioner Richard N. Bird Aye
Commissioner Margaret C. Bowman Aye
Commissioner Don C. Scurlock Nay
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
. OF INDIAN iIVER COUNTY
BY: !J
Carolyn.I. Eggert, hairman
31
REZONING - 17 + ACRES/JUNGLE TRAIL TO RM -6 - COQUINA PRD/McQUEEN
The hour of 9:05 o'clock A.M. having passed, the Deputy
Clerk read the following Notice with Proof of Publication
attached, to -wit:
VERO BEACH PRESS -JOURNAL
Published Daily
_;;_: .•,
Vero Beach, Indian River COtinty, Florida
COUNTY OF IND IAN RIVER: STATE OF FLORIDA
_ sut,
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
I '�
at Vero Beach in Indian River County, Florida: that�the attached copy of advertisement, being
' in the matter of
NOTICE - PUBLIC HEARtIIG
Notice of hearing to consider the adoption Lof
land FamUff
F8
AgriculEtirei to fi1nance
Multiple
DistrictDW.IL
ReaidXtial The subject property Is Pre- .
sently owned by Roy S. A DoroMY M Reeves .
and is located west of Highway Alli, and east of
Jungle TraU at approximately 86th street. The
in the Court, was pub-
subject property Is lying In a portion of Govern-
ment lots 10 and 11 In section 26, Township
31a, Range 39E containing app►mdmately 1T'
acres +-, lying and being In Indian River County.
lished in said news a er in the issues of
newspaper
Florida.
hear) at which In Interest
public
and itizens shall have an opportunity to be
•
heard. will be held by the Board of county Com•
n laslonme of Indian Rim County. Florida. In the
County Commission Chambers of the County
Affiant further says that the. said Vero Beach Press -Journal is a newspaper published at
Administration aro B ch. Floridalocated et 1840 25th
Street, Vero Beach. Flron August 14, 1990,
Vero Beach, in said Indian River County, Florida, and that the said newspaper has heretofore
at 9:05 am.
The Board of County Commissioners may
been continuous) pLblished in said Indian River County, Florida, each daily and has been
Y
grant a less intense zoning district than the dis-
entered as second class mail matter at the post office in Vero Beach, in said Indian River Coun-
tdat requested provided It Is within the awns
ty, Florida, for a period of one year next preceding the first publication of the attached copy of
general use category
Anyone `"h° may wish arty decisionedto
advertisement; and affiant further says that he has neither paid nor promised any person, firm
is mesonappeal
which may be made at this nesting wIU need to
or corporation any discount. rebate. commission or refund for tjjj���_ purpose of securing this
advertisement for publication in the said newspaper. /
ensure that a verbatim record of the proceed -
Inge made, which
Is based. and evl-
b based.
eappIncludal
dance upon which the appeal
a
/! (
�aJ da
Sworn to and subscribed before me this _ y of A.D. 19 -I�
Indian Riverof Co County
Boardof CommissionersChairman By: -s -Carolyn K. Eggert, Chatmran
'
ZZ
July 25,1990 705394
Bu�l ss Manager)
(Clerk of the Circuit Court, Indian River County, orida)
(SEAL)
Aefty Wtllbflt, Skft of Film
na.e►. m.,�...,.,e F�.,t.... yum% 29. IS?3
Director Keating made the staff presentation, as follows:
32
AUG 141990
AUG 14 199
TO: James Chandler
County Administrator
i
DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE:
Robert M. Kea ng, CP
Community Deve opm t Director
THROUGH: Sasan Rohani
Chief, Long -Range Planning
FROM: Cheryl A. Tworek
Staff Planner, L g Range Planning
DATE: July 25, 1990
SUBJECT: MCQUEEN & ASSOCIATES REQUEST TO REZONE APPROXIMATELY
17.24 ACRES FROM A-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 August 14, 1990.
DESCRIPTION & CONDITIONS:
This is a request by McQueen & Associates to rezone -17.24 acres
from A-1, Agricultural District (one unit/5 acres) to RM -6,
Multiple Family Residential District (6� units/acre). The subject
property is located on Jungle Trail approximately 900 feet south
of Sea Oaks. The property is presently owned by Larry and Dorothy
Reeves and is part of the 110 acre Coquina Planned Residential
Development.
On June 28, 1990, the Planning and Zoning Commission voted 6-0 to
recommend to the Board of County Commissioners that the request to
rezone approximately 17.24 acres from A-1, Agricultural District
(one unit/acre) to RM -6, Multiple Family Residential District (6
units/acre) be approved.
Existing Land Use Pattern
The subject property is presently undeveloped. Property to the
north and east is also undeveloped and zoned RM -6. Groves are
located on the adjacent property to the south, which is zoned A-
1. The Indian River forms the property's -western boundary.
Future Land Use Pattern
The subject property and all surrounding property is designated Low
Density Residential, L-2, on the county future land use map. This
designation permits residential. zoning densities up to 6
units/acre. Jungle Trail is designated as a historic road by the
comprehensive plan.
Environment
The subject property is not designated as environmentally sensitive
or important by the comprehensive plan. The property is within a
flood plain as identified by the Flood Insurance Rating Maps.
These maps have identified flood elevations of 8 feet for the bulk
of the property. The Indian River Lagoon is designated as Florida
Outstanding Waters.
33
M
Utilities & Services
The subject property is within the Urban
county; however water and sewer lines do no
These utilities are presently available to the
to the north. The property is not served by
Transportation System
M
Service Area of the
t extend to the site.
Sea Oaks development
public drainage.
The subject property abuts the historically designated Jungle
Trail. Access to this 2 lane dirt road is restricted to those
properties which have no other traffic access. Since the subject
property is to be developed as part of the 110 acre Coquina PRD,
access will be on S.R. AlA. This two lane paved road is designated
as a minor arterial road and operates at a level of service "C" or
better between CR 510 and the Vero Beach city limits.
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.
Compatibility with Existing Services and Facilities
This site is located within the county Urban Service Area (USA),
an area deemed suitable for urban scale development. The
comprehensive plan establishes standards for: Transportation,
Potable Water, Wastewater, Solid Waste, Drainage and Recreation.
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 the minimum acceptable standards for these services
and facilities are maintained.
- Transportation
The proposed rezoning would permit the development of up to 103
units. These units are expected to generate approximately 1200
daily trips. Access to historically designated Jungle Trail would
be restricted, resulting in all trips using S.R. A -1-A. A review
of the existing and projected traffic indicates that the rezoning
would not result in a change of the existing LOS "C". This parcel
is part of a larger project for which a detailed traffic analysis
will be performed.
- Potable Water
Potable water for the north beach area is provided by the county
owned water plant located just to the north of the Sea Oaks
Development. The county utilities department has determined that
this plant could adequately serve the rezoned property.
- Sanitary Sewer
As with water, sanitary sewer service is provided by a county owned
plant located at Sea Oaks. This plant has been determined to be
adequate to meet the potential demand.
- Solid Waste
Solid waste service includes' pick-up by private operator and
disposal at the county landfill. The active segment has a 5 year
remaining capacity and the landfill is expandable to accommodate
the projected solid waste demand of the 2010 population. Solid
waste generated as a result of this rezoning would not negatively
impact existing levels of service.
34
AUG 141990 MOF Ou
AUG 141990
- Drainage
ROOK . �'P;;r. 8-� I
This property, on the barrier island, is not within a drainage
district and would be required to construct a private drainage
system as part of any development. The criteria for such a.system
would be the county's stormVater management ordinance.
Furthermore, since the Indian River Lagoon is designated as
outstanding Florida water, additional retention and discharge
treatment would be required.
- Recreation
Recreation facilities are evaluated by using the project population
times the county park level of service standards. The table below
shows the acreage needed to accommodate the projected site
population and the existing surplus acreage by park type. No
additional park land would be required as a result of this
rezoning.
Project Demand
Park Type (acres) Surplus Acreage
Urban District 1.14 222
Community 0.68 28
Beach 0.34 77
River 0.34 38
Analysis
The proposed rezoning represents a substantial increase in the
permitted density and a change in use. As with all rezonings, the
issues of compatibility with surrounding development, consistency
with the comprehensive plan and concurrency of public facilities
must be addressed.
The agricultural zoning district is still present on Orchid Island.
Historically, citrus was the dominant land use on the northern
portion of the island. While groves are still in operation on the
island and produce among the highest quality fruit in the world,
the amount of land in groves has declined substantially. In more
recent years, changing demographics have resulted in a large number
of new residents in Florida, most of whom have settled in coastal
areas. Within Indian River County, many people have chosen the
barrier island as their new home. Thus, the agricultural district
has also become a holding district, with land often remaining in
active agricultural production until development.
Since the subject property is part of a larger project which is
presently zoned RM -6, the compatibility issue is limited to the
property on the south. The grove property to the south is also
likely to undergo conversion to a residential use in the future as
development pressures continue on the barrier island. Because the
county code requires buffers for residential developments adjacent
to active agricultural operations, the subject property will be
subject to that requirement along its southern boundary at the time
of development. Other specific buffer and compatibility issues
will be included in the development review process.
The requested multifamily zoning designation is consistent with the
future land use map and the comprehensive plan policies. Policies
which focus on special environmental conditions and barrier island
development issues will require additional consideration during
development review.
The proposed rezoning has been determined to meet the facilities
concurrency requirements of the county. While the proposed
rezoning will not result in concurrency constraints, the larger
project of which it is a part has the potential for raising
concerns. These concerns will be addressed as part of the project
review and need not be considered at this time.
35
- M M
Conclusion
The proposed rezoning has been shown to be compatible with the
overall development of this area of the barrier island and is
likely to result in a development project similar to those already
in existence. This action would also be consistent with the intent
of the comprehensive plan and not result in the deterioration of
public facilities and services.
Recommendation
Based on the analysis performed, staff recommends that the Board
of County Commissioners approve the rezoning of this property to
RM -6.
Director Keating noted that this rezoning only applies to
17.24 acres out of the entire 110 acre tract and environmental
and archaeological questions will be considered in more specific
terms at the PRD stage.
Commissioner Wheeler asked what densities they are proposing
under PRD, and Engineer Darrell McQueen of McQueen & Associates
advised that it is under 3 upa. He believed it was indicated
that the Land Use was at 2 upa., but he believed that was an error
and it should have said 6 upa. He confirmed that the plan that
L,
will be presented at the PRD is for a little less than -3 upa.
Commissioner Wheeler wished to know why they need RM -6, and
Mr. McQueen explained that if the PRD were in place, he wouldn't
even need rezoning, but presently under the PRD he can only put
the number of units on a specific piece of property that it is
zoned for, and they will need more than 3 upa on that property to
be able to set aside the required preservation area, stormwater
retention, etc.
Commissioner Bird inquired how we legally prohibit a
development access to Jungle Trail, which is a public road.
Director Keating advised that what we have done is provide
subdivision collector roads up in that area so that all parcels
that would be landlocked except for Jungle Trail have access to
another road. '
Commissioner Bird asked what our leverage is to prohibit the
access to Jungle Trail on a non -landlocked parcel, and Director
36 ���iz C�� `VII
AUG 14 1990
AUG
14
eonr
Keating felt it
is the*Jungle Trail Management Plan and
our
Scenic and Historic Roads Ordinance.
Commissioner Bowman wished to know why staff memo says
access would be "restricted." Why not•.say it would be
"prohibited," and Director Keating explained that they are
looking at the possibility of a need for a means of emergency
access.
Discussion continued regarding access, and -Attorney Vitunac
informed the Board that this comes under Fla. Statute 336 which
says the Board of County Commissioners controls access to county
roads.
Commissioner Bowman then brought up the question of buffer -
Ing, and Director Keating explained that will come in when we
discuss the PRD next week, and with all PRDs a minimum of 25'
perimeter buffer is required.
The Chairman asked if anyone wished to be heard. There were
none, and she declared the public hearing closed.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Bird, the Board unanimously adopted
Ordinance 90-14 rezoning the subject property from
A-1 to RM -6 as requested by Larry and Dorothy Reeves.
37
ORDINANCE NO. 90- 14
AN ORDINANCE OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, AMENDING THE
ZONING ORDINANCE AND THE ACCOMPANYING ZONING MAP FROM
A-1, AGRICULTURAL DISTRICT TO RM -6, MULTIPLE FAMILY DISTRICT,
FOR THE PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED ON JUNGLE TRAIL, SOUTH OF
SEA OAKS, AND DESCRIBED HEREIN, AND PROVIDING FOR EFFECTIVE
DATE.
WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission, sitting as the
local planning agency on such matters, has held a public hearing
and subsequently made a recommendation regarding this rezoning
request; and
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River
County, Florida, did publish and send its Notice of Intent to
rezone the hereinafter described property; and
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners has determined that
this rezoning is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan of
Indian River County; and
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners has held a public
hearing pursuant to this rezoning request, at which parties in
interest and citizens were heard;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED, by the Board of County
Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, that the Zoning of
the following described property situated in Indian River County,
Florida, to -wit:
The South 1/2 of government lots 10 and 11, Section 26,
Township 31 South, Range 39 East; Indian River County; less
and except; the South 506.3 feet of government lot 10, Section
26, Township 31 South, Range 39 East; also less; beginning at
a point on the Indian River 1110 feet South of the North
boundary of government lot l0'for point of beginning; thence
run East 196 feet in government lot 11, Section 26, Township
31 South, Range 39 East; thence run South 210 feet, thence run
due West 196 feet to the boundary line between lots 10 and 11;
thence run north along said line 210 feet to the point of
beginning.
Be changed from A-1, Agricultural District to RM -6, Multiple Family
Residential District.
All with'the meaning and intent and as set forth and described in
said Zoning Regulations.
Approved and adopted by the Board of County Commissioners of
Indian River County, Florida, on this 14th day of August , 1990.
This ordinance was advertised in the Vero Beach Press -Journal
on the 25th day of July , 1990 for a public hearing to be
held on the day of August 14 , 1990 at which time it was moved for
adoption by Commissioner Scurlock. , seconded by Commissioner
Bird , and adopted by the following vote:
Chairman Carolyn K. Eggert Aye
Commissioner Gary C. Wheeler Aye
Commissioner Richard N1. BirdyA e
Commissioner Margaret C. Bowman Aye
Commissioner Don C. Scurlock Aye
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
BY: CJ ,C .
Carolyn./1K. Egger ,•Chairman
610
38
4.1990 P1001
J
AUG
141990
�A P.
A
REZONING
- APPROX. 2 ACRES NW COR. 8TH ST. 6 6TH AVE.
FROM
RM -10
TO CG (JARVIS/74TH AVE. CORP., PUTTICK ENTERPRISE 6 VLK INVESTS.)
The hour of 9:05 o'clock A.M. having passed, the Deputy
Clerk read the following Notice with Proof of Publication
attached, to -wit:
VERO BEACH PRESS -JOURNAL
Published Daily
Vero Beach, Indian River Codnty, Florida
COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER: STATE OF FLORIDA
Before the undersigned authority personally appeared J. J. Schumann, Jr. who on oath
says that he is Business Manager of the Vero Beach Press -Journal, a daily newspaper published
at Vero Beach in Indian River County,'Florida; that.the attached copy of advertisement, being
a.
in the matter
in the _ A Court, was pub-
lished in said newspaper in the issues of 611�edljl
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 a purpose of securing this
advertisement for publication in the said newspaper.
Sworn to and subscribed before me this _ow r^ day chi- A.D. 19 _
�. (Business Manager)
(Clerk of the Circuit Court, Indian River County, Florida)
(SEAL)
Director Keating made the staff presentation:
KV:]
s
NOTICE-PUMJC HEARNO
Noti* of hearing to consider the adoplim
a County ordinance rezonhv land trove RIAFt
mum
ple-Famiy O. Residential Oistriet 10 CGe
eral Commerclal District. The subject property
presently owned by the 74th Avwwa Corp., R
tick Enterprites. Inc.. and VLK Invsstmer06 k►
and is located at the NW corner of 6th Avera
and 8th Street containing appro3dmtegr 1.95
aCra& The subject property is"n the SE
of Section 12, Township 33S, Range 39E. M
and being In Indian River County. Florda.
A public hearing at which parties in Ukten
.and citizens shall have an Oppor>tatdy to
•heard, will be held by the Board of County Co
missioners of Indian River County. Flarda, in t
County Commission Chambers of the Cou
-Administration Building. located at 1610 2.
Street. Vero Beach. Florida as August 14. le
:at 8:05 a.m.
. The Board of County Commissioners n
-grant a less Intense zoning district Cnn the k
.tries requested provided it is watiln the as
general use category.
Anyone who may Trish to appeal any 41
which may be made at this mestrlq will nesc
.ensure that a verbatim record of the prone
Ings Is made, which Includes Wbini Try MW
dance upon which the appeal is based.
Indian River County
Board of County ComadsW Net
By:-s-Caroyn IC Eggert. Crwman
July 25.1890 796
TO: James Chandler
County Administrator
DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE:
Robert M. Keat ng, CP
Community Dev lopm nt Director
THROUGH: Sasan Rohani 0`
Chief, Long -Range Planning
FROM: Cheryl A. Twore
Staff Planner, Range Planning
DATE: July 25, 1990
SUBJECT: WILLIAM S. JARVIS REQUEST TO REZONE APPROXIMATELY 1.95
ACRES FROM RM -10 TO CG
It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal
consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their
regular meeting of August 14, 1990.
DESCRIPTION & CONDITIONS:
This is a request to rezone approximately 1.95 acres from RM -10,
Multiple -Family Residential District (10 units/acre) to CG,
General Commercial District. The property is located on the
northwest corner of 8th Street and 6th Avenue. The property is
owned by the 74th Avenue Corporation, Puttick Enterprise, Inc.,
and VLK Investments, Inc. The rezoning request is the result of
boundary adjustments in the U.S. #1 Commercial/ Industrial Corri-
dor. The applicant has no plans for development of the site at
this time.
On June 28, 1990, the Planning and Zoning Commission voted 6-0 to
recommend to the Board of County Commissioners that the request to
rezone approximately 1.95 acres from RM -10, Multiple Family
Residential District (10 units/acre) to CG, General Commercial
District be approved.
Existing Land Use Pattern
The subject property is presently undeveloped and totals approxi-
mately 6 acres. The portion fronting U.S. #1, totalling approxi-
mately 4 acres, is presently zoned CG, while the remaining 1.95
acres along 6th Avenue is zoned RM -10. Property to the north and
south along U.S. #1 is developed commercially. Older residential
development is located immediately north of the property along 6th
Avenue. The 13 lot subdivision located between 6th and 7th
Avenues, is presently zoned CG and RM -10; however, the new compre-
hensive plan has shifted the commercial corridor boundary to 7th
Avenue.
An older residence is also located on the commercially zoned
property on the southwest corner of 8th Street and 6th Avenue.
The area east of 6th Avenue is zoned RM -10 and contains several
relatively new residential 'developments including Citrus Woods,
Village Walk and Waverly Place. The property immediately east of
the subject property is presently vacant.
Future Land Use Pattern
The subject property is designated as part of the U.S. #1 Commer-
cial/Industrial Corridor on the Comprehensive Plan future land use
map. This designation permits commercial and industrial zoning
40 C
c,
i90 €�Appe .��
AUG 14 9
AUG 141990
BOOKCF
districts compatible with surrounding land uses. The properties
to the west and south are also part of the U.S. #1 Commer-
cial/Industrial Corridor: The M-2, Medium Density Residential
Designation, which permits up to 10 units per acre, follows 7th
Avenue south to 8th Place and 6th Avenue south of that point.
Environment
The subject property is not designated *as environmentally impor-
tant or environmentally sensitive by the comprehensive plan, nor
is it within a flood plain as identified by the Flood Insurance
Rate Maps.
Utilities & Services
The subject site is within the Urban Service Area (USA) of the
county. Potable water and sewer are available to the subject
property. Sewer lines are presently in place along 6th Avenue,
and water lines are in place along 6th Avenue and U.S. #1. The
subject property is located within the Indian River Farms Drainage
District.
Transportation System
Eighth Street is designated as a collector road on the county's
thoroughfare plan. This 2 lane undivided road has an existing
level of service of "C" or better. Sixth Avenue is also designat-
ed as a collector roadway, and it too has an existing level of
service "C" or better. U.S. #1 is a five lane principal arterial
roadway which operates at a level of service "C". Eighth Place is
a local street.
ALTERNATIVES & ANALYSIS:
In this section an analysis of the reasonableness of the applica-
tion will be presented. The analysis will include a description
of the potential impacts on the transportation and utility sys-
tems, and any significant adverse impacts on environmental quali-
ty. This section will also consider alternatives for development
of the site.
Compatibility 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 comprehen-
sive plan established standards for: Transportation, Potable
Water, Wastewater, Solid Waste, Drainage, and Recreation. The
adequate provision of these services is necessary to ensure the
continued quality of life enjoyed by the community. The compre-
hensive plan requires that new development be reviewed to ensure
that the minimum acceptable standards for these services and
facilities are maintained.
- Transportation
A review of the traffic potential of this rezoning must be con-
sidered from two perspectives. The first of these is for the 1.95
acre portion to be rezoned. The rezoning concurrency determination
was based on the development potential of this portion of the
parcel. As such, the concurrency determination assumed a develop-
ment of 20,000 square feet of general commercial development which
would produce approximately 2,000 daily trips. These 2,000 daily
trips could be accommodated by the adjoining road network within
the range of the levels of service "C" standards.
The second traffic perspective involves the entire 6 acre parcel.
While the entire 6 acres does not have to be considered in assess-
ing this rezoning request, it must be recognized that the addition
of 2 acres of commercial would greatly enhance the development
potential of the lot. When considered as a whole the traffic
generated from a 6 acre commercial project would be greatly
41
_ ® _
increased and might lead to LOS deterioration. Thus, while this
rezoning action does not constrain the traffic network, the
additional potential could preclude full scale development unless
improvements are made. A detailed traffic study and concurrency
determination will be made as part of the site plan review pro-
cess.
- Potable Water
County water lines are in place adjacent to this site which would
be served by the Oslo Road wastewater plant. This plant is
undergoing a planned expansion to accommodate increased demand.
The County utilities department has determined that this rezoning
would not constrain the county water system.
- Sanitary Sewer
The county provides wastewater treatment at the county owned Vista
Royale Treatment Plant. In addition, an agreement between the
county and City of Vero Beach provides for the county to use some
capacity of the Vero Beach plant. At this time, capacity would be
available; however, a more exact determination of need and avail-
able capacity will be made when a more specific development plan
for the site is reviewed. This rezoning would not lower existing
levels of service.
- Solid Waste
Solid waste service includes waste pick-up
waste disposal at the county landfill. The
ty beyond 2010 with expansion capabilities
demand.
- Drainage
by private operator and
landfill has a capaci-
to accommodate future
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 flooding and
damage. The existing drainage capacity of the subject area is
presently limited, as determined by the Public Works staff. The
site is not within a.drainage district and would have to meet the
county stormwater management requirements.
- Recreation
A commercial rezoning would not negatively impact existing recre-
ation standards.
Analysis
The proposed rezoning represents a change in use from residential
to commercial. In assessing this request, three major issues must
be addressed. These are compatibility with surrounding develop-
ment, consistency with the comprehensive plan and concurrency of
the public facilities.
This site was the subject of a failed rezoning and comprehensive
plan change in 1985. That request was denied on the basis that
the multi -family designation provided a reasonable use of the
property and the extension of the commercial designation along 6th
Avenue would increase pressure for strip commercial development
along that roadway. It is staff's opinion that conditions have
changed since that time.
The greatest change in this area is the completion of Indian River
Boulevard. This roadway provides an alternate to U.S. #1, a
function previously served by 6th Avenue. As a result, 6th Avenue
functions as a collector road rather than an arterial. In addi-
tion, the area between 6th Avenue and the Boulevard has been the
site of several large, high density residential developments.
These two factors provide greater assurance that 6th Avenue will
develop as a residential street. 42
L_AIJG 141990
General commercial development includes offices, services and
retail uses in -scales ranging from small "mom and pop" establish-
ments to full service retail outlets. The constraints on the
intensity include the site size and traffic accessibility, The
overall subject site (6 + acres) is adjacent to existing commer-
cial development on two sides. Therefore, commercial development
would be compatible with similar idevelopment. Property on the
east side of 6th Avenue is presently vacant; however, this area
has had several relatively high density residential developments
constructed in recent years. As one of the few areas of the
county designated and able to accommodate densities up to 10 units
per acre, it is not likely that there will be pressure for commer-
cial conversion. Furthermore, the multifamily development that is
being developed along 6th Avenue is typically found adjacent or
near commercial areas.
The area of greatest concern is the Miller subdivision, immediate-
ly north of the subject parcel and on the west side of 6th Avenue.
The subdivision contains single family homes and duplexes.
Presently, three of the lots on 8th Place face commercially zoned
property, the remaining three face residential property (the
subject parcel). Regardless of the zoning of the subject
property, the Miller Subdivision is a transition area that would
not likely be developed in its present configuration.
Single -Family subdivisions adjacent to commercial areas often
transform from owner occupied units to rental units to
non-residential use. However, as long as surrounding areas remain
viable regardless of use, blighting influences are kept to a
minimum.
The approval of this rezoning request would enhance the desirabil-
ity of the property and ensure the development of a commercial
use. In all likelihood, the development would be oriented to the
8th Street and U.S. #1 corner, to take advantage of the highest
visibility. The CG district contains buffer requirements when
abutting multi -family zoning. These minimum buffer requirements
along with site plan review will address more specific site
related compatibility issues.
The future land use map adopted in February, 1990, adjusted the
boundaries of the U.S. #1 commercial corridor in this area.
Previously, the commercial boundary extended 600 feet east of U.S.
#1 without regard to existing lot lines, uses or streets. While
this provided a clear line of land use demarcation, it resulted in
other problems. Individual lots and parcels with split zoning are
not as likely to develop unless the configuration permits the
reasonable development of the property. The lack of a clear edge
between commercial and residential areas often results in a "wait
and see" attitude before development. occurs in anticipation of
further commercialization. Blocks that are split often experience
decline as residential uses convert to uses which can be accom-
modated in residential structures. The new comprehensive plan
recognized these. shortcomings and adopted commercial boundaries
along streets and lot lines. Other changes that have occurred in
this area are the completion of Indian River Boulevard and the
extension of 8th Street (from 6th Avenue to the Boulevard) which
have relieved the traffic pressure from 6th Avenue.
In addition to consistency with the future land use map, the
proposed rezoning is consistent with the other plan policies and
elements. The rezoning would provide opportunities for businesses
and services to locate in proximity to an area of high residential
concentration.
The change in use from residential to commercial would also not
negatively impact existing services and facilities. Compared to
development of the site for residential uses, establishment of
commercial uses on the site would likely reduce the site demands
for water and sewer but increase the traffic generated. At this
time, the concurrency issue for the site is not a major concern;
however, concurrency will be more extensively reviewed when a
development proposal is submitted for the subject property.
43
CONCLUSION
The rezoning is part of the U.S. #1 Commercial/Industrial Corridor
and is consistent with the comprehensive plan. The small site
area will place limits on the development of the property and
further ensure that its development will be compatible with the
surrounding area. In addition, the CG District has site
requirements which address the compatibility of surrounding
residential development. Finally, the change in use would not
reduce levels service for public services and facilities below the
minimums established in the comprehensive plan.
RECOMMENDATION
Based on the analysis performed, staff recommends that the Board
of County Commissioners approve the rezoning of this property to
the CG General Commercial District.
Director Keating noted that this property was in for
rezoning 5/6 years ago. It is an unusual situation in that it is
a little less than 2 acres, but it is part of a larger site that
fronts on U.S.I. as well as 8th St. and 6th Ave., and the front
part on U.S.I. is already CG. He continued that staff took a
hard look at projects that were bi-sected by Comprehensive Plan
lines. The original plan cut this property at an angle, and in
the new plan, designations go much more with property boundaries.
Commissioner Scurlock asked if we didn't deny this before
because we didn't want it to access 6th Avenue.
Director Keating agreed that it was denied before but was
not sure that access was the primary concern.
Commissioner Scurlock wished to know what has changed since
the last time the Board denied this rezoning.
Director Keating advised that Indian River Boulevard has
been built, and a couple of other projects have gone in on 6th
Avenue consistent with the higher -density zoning. That and the
redrawing of the Land Use boundaries were the major changes.
There was some concern about the single family just to the north.
Commissioner Scurlock asked if we still have the ability to
deny access on or off 6th Avenue and limit it to 8th Street, and
this was confirmed.
AIM 14 1990 44 8
AUS 141990
Commissioner Scurlock then brought
up the question
of
whether they have reserved utility capacity, and Director Keating
answered that the concurrency study indicates utilities are
available but he did not know if the capacity is actually
reserved.
Commissioner Scurlock agreed there is water capacity, but he
did not believe there is any sewer capacity actually available in
that entire corridor, and he did not believe you can pull a
building permit without sewer capacity.
Director Keating agreed that if you are saying the
facilities are not adequate, state law says you can't approve a
Development Order, and state law defines a rezoning as a
Development Order. He further explained that from the staff
level, you just have to know the capacity is there, but it
doesn't actually have to be reserved. When you get to site plan
approval, that is when concurrency dictates that capacity
actually be reserved and be available when a building permit can
be pulled.
Commissioner Scurlock stressed the importance of making sure
that we have our long range plans in order to make sure we are
capable of servicing these areas. He pointed out that we do not
know if we are going to build our own plant or acquire General
Development Utilities, and we only have a nebulous agreement with
the City for capacity at their plant. He further pointed out
that the Strazullas went ahead and paid for their reservation of
capacity for 650 ERUs, but it was noted that they already have
the zoning.
Commissioner Scurlock continued to emphasize that he just
wants to be sure we are careful so that someone who pays for
capacity all of a sudden can't get a permit when he is ready to
build because we haven't built our plant in the meantime.
Chairman Eggert felt what Commissioner Scurlock is
suggesting would amount to a moratorium, and Commissioner
Scurlock noted we could do as we did on Route 60 where the
45
M M M
M
developers could go ahead and put up the money in special
assessments for the purpose of developing this capacity. He
again stressed that you can oversell capacity, but the minute
everybody walks in and says I paid and I want it, then it is
crunch time.
Debate continued at length about the problem of capacity,
and Attorney Vitunac asked Utilities Director Pinto if someone
wanted to reserve capacity on 6th Avenue, would'he take his
money.
Director Pinto believed we are talking about a policy the
Board has to make. He agreed this is a very important issue, but
if we follow what he thinks is being said, there actually isn't
capacity anywhere in the County.
Chairman Eggert felt that concurrency is a much more
potentially dangerous thing than people realize.
Commissioner Bird commented that while he knows that we
don't have a firm agreement the City of Vero Beach, they are
business people; he doesn't see them using up that capacity; and
he doubted they want to get us off the system. He agreed we do
not want to be under this threat and we want to do something, but
in the meantime we have this rezoning request in front of us and
the potential use of water and sewer for CG is probably less than
for RM -10.
Commissioner Scurlock agreed that we can stop them at the
building permit stage, but he just wanted them to be aware of
this.
Administrator Chandler and Utilities Director Pinto both
confirmed that we are moving as quickly as possible to resolve
this problem, and Director Pinto stressed that this zoning issue
is important to Utilities because we design for the zoning that
is in place and size the lines accordingly. It, therefore, is
important that the zoning be in place the way you ultimately
want it to be.
r ,r
AUG 14 1990 46
� �'
AUG 141990 Qr�K 0
- Commissioner Bowman stated that regardless of the water and
sewer situation, she was very much opposed to any more -commercial
on 6th Avenue, especially when it abuts residential.
Chairman Eggert informed those present that we received a
message from a Mrs. Betty Wolfe, resident of 8th Place, opposing
the proposed rezoning. She then asked if anyone present wished
to be heard.
The applicant, William Jarvis, commented that he just hoped
that the Board will follow staff's recommendation and approve the
rezoning to CG.
Ruth Chapman, resident of Rockridge, noted that the staff
memo says this property is not environmentally sensitive nor in
the flood plain, but she believed it is in the flood plain in the
6/8' area. She suggested the Commission go back to the drainage
study done in the early 1980s because that entire area has a
drainage problem. Just yesterday 6th Avenue was flooded; it gets
worse all the time and the traffic gets worse all the time; and
as far as Indian River Boulevard is concerned, it has dammed in
the people west of it all the way over to 7th Avenue. Mrs.
Chapman felt that changing the zoning will make things worse for
this area whether access to 6th Avenue is denied or not.
It was determined that no one else from the public wished to
be heard.
Chairman Eggert commented that if there is any reduction in
the traffic on 6th Avenue because of the extension of the
Boulevard, she personally can't see it.
Commissioner Scurlock noted that when you talk about RM -10,
you are talking about density, but when you are talking about
Commercial, you are talking about intensity of use; so, will you
have more or less traffic with Commercial.
Director Keating advised that from a traffic standpoint, it
all depends on how it builds out as a CG use. It probably will
be more traffic, but with a multi -family residential use, you
probably would have more traffic in the A.M. peak hour while with
47
Commercial, you tend to have more traffic in the P.M. peak hour.
Based on the general concurrency determination, the roads are
adequate.
Commissioner Scurlock again pointed out that the traffic
problem is why this rezoning was denied before.
Commissioner Wheeler noted that the philosophy in regard to
where the zoning lines are drawn has changed in this new Comp
Plan, and Director Keating agreed that we have since realized
that it is easier to deal with property that is not bisected.
That is why the Comp Plan zoning line is now drawn in a different
place so that it follows the property lines.
Commissioner Bird advised that back some years ago when we
established the 600' back from U.S.I. as the depth for the
commercial frontage, he personally had thought it would have made
sense to include the whole property as commercial because leaving
that little 2 acre piece multi -family makes it very hard to
develop. He did not think making this commercial would have that
much.of an adverse effect on the neighborhood or the traffic.
Commissioner Wheeler agreed and further stressed that this
is a major intersection and it is a commercial intersection.
MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by
Commissioner Wheeler, to adopt an ordinance rezoning
the subject property to CG as requested by the
applicant and as recommended by staff.
Attorney Vitunac referred back to the discussion on the
availability of utilities and informed the Board that we have an
agreement with the City that the County has a permanent alloca-
tion of 400,000 gpd of wastewater treatment for the south 6th
Avenue line and a temporary 'allocation of the gallonage that is
being treated in the Hospital Service Area - whatever the County
treats in the Hospital area is available to treat on 6th Avenue
south temporarily. Over and above that, as Commissioner Scurlock
48 Qinr
AUG 141990
p U G
14 1990
aoo�
s 91 01
said, everything
is on a case by case basis which the
City will
treat for us, but they.will give us notice that when they reach
capacity we have a certain time limit to get off their line and.
replace it, and we hold the City harmless for any damages if we
don't get off their line in time.
THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION.
It was voted on and defeated 3 to 2, with
Chairman Eggert, and Commissioners Bowman and
Scurlock voting in opposition.
REZONING - 27+ ACRES W.OF 82ND AVE. S.OF 26TH ST. TO RM -8
(KIMBALL/LLOYD FOR SCHLITT)
The hour of 9:05 o'clock A.M. having passed, the Deputy
Clerk read the following Notice with Proof of Publication
attached, to -wit:
VERO BEACH PRESS -JOURNAL
Published Daily
Vero Beach, Indian River County, Florida
COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER: STATE OF FLORIDA
Before the undersigned authority personally appeared J. J. Schumann, Jr. who on oath
says that he is Business Manager of the Vero Beach Press -Journal, a daily newspaper published
at Vero Beach in Indian River County, Florida; that,the attached copy of advertisement, being
a
in the matter
in the of Court, was pub- -
lished in said newspaper in the issues of
Affiant further says that the said Vero Beach Press -Journal is .e 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 tpurpose of securing this
advertisement for publication in the said newspaper.
Sworn to and subscribed before me this '! day,of A.D. 19Z5�!
(Business Manager) F
(Clerk of the Circuit Court, Indian River C6unty, Florida)
(SEAL) w, .
49
SUW1:CT PWERTr. -
• •�'� � '. ,,,;.,moa_, `
r" r1W
K,1 -VY M
f
Rlf-a . A
Wa
R►t-e
NOTICE - PUBUC NEARING
Notice of hearing to consider the adoption of
e County ordinance rezoning land from A-1,
Agricultural District to RM -8 MultlPle-Famiy
ResldeMlal DlstrlCL The subject property Is Pre-
sently owned by Edgar L Sch1It6 Trustee. and is ;
located west of 82nd Avenue on the south We
of 28th Street and contains apProxlmatey 27.5
acres. The subject property Is gingg In the NE'b !
section of Section 2, Township 1. Range 38E_
yfng and being In Indian Rlrer County. Florida
A public hearing at which parties in Interest
and citizens shall have an opportunity to be '
heard, will be held by the Board of County Com-
missioners of Indian River County. Florida, In the
County Commlesion Chambers of the County
AdmlMstratlon Building, located at 1840 25th
Street, Vero Beach, Florida on August 14, 1090,
at 905 a.m.
The Board of Casty Commissioners may
grant a less Intense zoning district than the dis -
trict requested provided ft Is within the Same
general use category.
Anyone who may wish to appeal any deeiSlon
which may be made at this meeting will need to
ensure that a verbatim record of the proceed -
Inge Is made, which Includes testimony and owl-
dence upon which the appeal Is based.
Indian River County
Board of County Commissioners
By--s-Carolyn K Eggert, Chairman
July 25,1990 729
s
Director Keating made the staff presentation:
TO: James Chandler
County Administrator,
DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE:
I
'R'obert M: Keating, AICD/
Community Development thrector
THROUGH: Sasan Rohani �• �•
Chief, Long -Range Planning
FROM: Cheryl A. Twore
Staff Planner, -Range Planning
DATE: July 25, 1990
SUBJECT: KIMBALL/LLOYD & ASSOCIATES REQUEST TO REZONE
APPROXIMATELY 27.5 ACRES FROM A-1 TO RM -8.
It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal
consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their regular
meeting of August 14, 1990.
DESCRIPTION & CONDITIONS:
This is a request to rezone approximately 27.5 acres from A-1,
Agricultural District (one unit/5 acres) to RM -8, Multiple Family
Residential District (8 units/acre). The property is located on
the west side of 82nd Avenue and south of 26th Street and is
presently owned by Ed Schlitt, trustee. The applicant is planning
to build a condominium development on the site.
On June 28, 1990, the Planning and Zoning Commission voted 6-0 to
recommend to the Board of County Commissioners that the request to
rezone approximately 27.5 acres from A-1, Agricultural District (1
unit/5 acres) to RM -6, Multiple Family Residential District (6
units/acre) be approved.
Existing Land Use Pattern
The subject property is zoned A-1, Agriculture District, and
contains an old citrus grove. A nine acre parcel to the southeast
of the subject property also has A-1 zoning and appears to have
once been part of the subject parcel. This 9 acre parcel is the
site of a proposed catholic church. Property to the north is also
zoned A-1 and in active grove operation.
On the east side of 82nd Avenue are two subdivisions. The Wildwood
subdivision is zoned RS -1, Single -Family Residential District (1
unit/acre). Wildwood has 14 one acre lots and is built -out. West
Side Villas is located :immediately south of Wildwood. This
subdivision, zoned RS -6, Single -Family Residential District (6
units/acre), has 31 one-half acre lots and is also virtually built -
out.
Adjacent property on the south side of the property is zoned RM -
8 and is undeveloped. East of the vacant property is the Ranchland
Mobile Home Park which is zoned RMH-8, Mobile Home Residential
District (8 units/acre) and is occupied by.- approximately 107
dwellings.
50 ROOM 80 PAGF. ��J
AUG 141990
I
AUG 14 1990
17,
Paradise Park subdivision is located west of the subject property.
This subdivision is zoned RS -6 and contains modest homes on
relatively small lots. This subdivision contains numerous vacant
lots. '1
Future Land Use Pattern
The subject property is ,designated M-1, Medium Density, on the
county future land use map. The M-1 designation permits
residential densities up to 8 units per acre. All property.to the
east, south and west is also designated M-1. Property to the
north, across 26th Street and the drainage canal is designated AG,
Agriculture, which permits agricultural operations and residential
development at densities of 1 unit per 5 acres. Also in the
vicinity of the subject property is the I-95/State Road 60,
Commercial/Industrial Node. This area, as its name implies,
permits commercial and industrial zoning designations.
Environment
The subject property is not designated as environmentally important
or environmentally sensitive by the comprehensive plan, nor is it
within a flood plain as identified by the Flood Insurance Rating
Maps.
Utilities & Services
The subject site is within the county urban service area; however,
water and sewer lines do not extend to the site. These lines are
presently in place along S.R. 60, approximately 1/4 mile south.
The site abuts an Indian River Farms Drainage District canal on the
north.
Transportation System
The subject property is accessed by 82nd Avenue which is a 2 lane
paved road. This road is designated as a collector roadway and
operates at a level of service "C" or better. State Road 60, a 4
lane divided principal arterial road, provides access to 82nd
Avenue. S.R. 60 operates at a level of service "C" or better in
this vicinity. The S.R. 60/82nd Avenue intersection is presently
controlled by a flashing signal'. Twenty-sixth Street is an unpaved
local road at this time.
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.
Compatibility 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.
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 the minimum acceptable standards for these services
and facilities are maintained.
51
_ ® M
Transportation
A review of the traffic impacts that would result from the
development of the property indicates that the existing level of
service would not be lowered. The maximum buildout permitted by
zoning would be 220 units which would generate approximately 2,600
daily trips. This volume would maintain the existing LOS "C" of
State Road 60. A more detailed traffic analysis including
intersection improvements will be required as part of the
development review process.
- Potable Water
This area is serviced by the county water plant on Oslo Road. This
plant is presently undergoing a planned expansion to meet increased
demand. The county utilities department has determined that water
services would not be constrained by this rezoning.
- Sanitary Sewer
The subject site is within the county West Regional Wastewater
Service Area. As with potable water, the county utilities has
issued a positive sanitary sewer concurrency determination.
- Solid Waste
Solid waste service includes pick-up by private operator and
disposal at the county landfill. The active segment of the
landfill has a 5 year remaining capacity, and the landfill has
expansion capacity beyond 2010. The solid waste department has
determined that this rezoning would not negatively impact solid
waste services.
- 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. In addition,
development of the parcel will have to meet the discharge
requirements of the Indian River Farms Drainage District.
Together, these regulations limit the potential of on-site and off-
site flooding and damage. A preliminary drainage review by the
Public Works Department has not revealed any drainage deficiency.
- Recreation
A review of county recreation facilities and projected demand as
a result of this rezoning indicated that adopted levels of service
will be maintained. The table below provides an illustration of
park acreage needed to accommodate the projected population of this
site and the existing surplus acreage by park type. No additional
park land would be required as a result of this rezoning.
Park Type Project Demand Surplus Acreage
(Acre)
Urban District
2.42
222
Community
1.45
28
Beach
, 0.73
77
River
0.73
38
ANALYSIS
The proposed zoning change represents a substantial increase in the
density and a change in use. In assessing this request, three
major issues must be addressed, compatibility with the surrounding
5z
AUG 141990
�ooK 80 Fac 9 0�1
AUG 14 1990 nlrk� .cap. dJ
area, consistency with .the comprehensive plan and concurrency of
the public facilities.
The State Road 60 corridor has experienced rapid development in
recent years. This is largely due oto the availability of public
utilities and easy access to I-95 and more developed areas several
miles to the east. These conditions will also encourage additional
development in the corridor. The proposed rezoning raises several
compatibility issues which must be addressed; however, specific
buffering and compatibility issues will be considered during site
plan or PRD review. The inability to review site specific
development concerns at rezoning has precipitated the staff's
development of a "Planned Development" overlay zoning district.
The "PD" district will be part of the revised code to be
implemented by September 1, 1990.
Compatibility is not an issue for the areas to the north and south.
The groves to the north are buffered by the drainage district
canal. The property to the south is undeveloped but zoned RM -8
which would clearly be compatible.
The single family development to the east and west requires special
consideration. Both Wildwood and West Side Villas subdivisions are
large lot, low density developments. Both subdivisions are
virtually built out and contain substantial size homes. Wildwood
is directly opposite the subject property, which will likely have
an entrance lined up with 25th Street. Existing buffering would
consist of 82nd Avenue and existing vegetation in Wildwood which
obscures most of the homes. The portion of West Side Villas which
abuts 82nd Avenue does not have the advantage of dense vegetation.
While not abutting the subject parcel, this area would be impacted
by the increased traffic on 82nd Avenue.
Paradise Park to the west is an antiquated subdivision which has
experienced recent popularity. This subdivision would not share
road access with the proposed development and would not experience
any mixing of traffic. Development in Paradise Park consists of
small homes and lots; however, many homes are built on double lots.
Development is likely to continue because of the reasonable cost
of lots. The blocks which abut the subject parcel contain 5 homes
and are buffered by a row of Australian Pines which have suffered
from freeze damage.
Compatibility is a complex issue which involves physical and visual
separation as well as psychological perceptions. Once zoning is
in place, compatibility is addressed by dimensional requirements,
landscaping and in certain cases the use of additional buffer
requirements.
The comprehensive plan land use map provides overall guidelines for
development by regulating the general use and intensity of land.
The site specific regulation is determined by zoning. In this case
the requested zoning is consistent with the overall guidelines of
the land use map but differs in specific use and density of
surrounding developed property.
Two options exist with regard to this request. The first would be
to approve the request and rely on the existing code and developer
to ensure that the site will be visually and dimensionally
compatible. The other option would be to recommend a zoning
district that would permit a less intense or dense use of property.
The State Road 60 corridor is one of the few areas which has the
necessary facilities and services to support higher density
development than is the norm in the county. The concurrency review
of facilities for the proposed rezoning indicates that these public
facilities and services are not presently constrained or likely to
_be constrained by the proposed rezoning. As with all development,
53
M M M
a more detailed concurrency review will be conducted during
development approval.
The M-2 land use designation permits residential densities up to
8 units per acre; however, the designation is not intended to
confer that density by right. In this case existing zoning on
three sides of the property is both less in intensity and density.
It is also unlikely that these areas will undergo redevelopment at
higher density.
CONCLUSION
The proposed rezoning has been reviewed for compatibility,
consistency and concurrency. It has been determined that the
subject site could be adequately served by public facilities and
services; however, issues of compatibility and consistency cast a
doubt on the proposed rezoning. Since the surrounding residential
development is in place in low and very law densities, new
development must be similar. It is doubtful that multifamily
development at densities of 8 units per acre can be compatible with
single family development at densities of 1-6 units per acre unless
part of a unified development.
The land use map provides guidelines for future development by
providing density maximums for residential development; however,
it is clearly the intent of the comprehensive plan that the actual
development of property be controlled by zoning. Thus, while the
RM -8 district may be justified by the M-2 land use, a closer look
at the subject parcel and surrounding property would suggest that
a lower designation would be more appropriate.
RECOMMENDATION
Based on the analysis performed, staff recommends that the Board
of County Commissioners approve a rezoning of the subject property
to RM -6 instead of the requested RM -8.
Director Keating noted that this rezoning is unusual from
the perspective that when it first went to the P&Z Commission,
staff recommended RM -6 and that is what the P&Z Commission ended
up approving even though the applicant is requesting RM -8.
The Chairman asked if anyone wished to be heard.
Attorney Ralph Evans came before the Board representing the
applicant. He stressed that they asked for a rezoning to RM -8
when they started out, and they still want the RM -8. The reason
for having RM -8 instead of RM -6 is that it gives you flexibility.
They are aware of the properties that are adjacent and want to
make this development compatible with the uses surrounding it.
Mr. Evans noted that success' -is based on the ability to market
your product, and while the plan that has been specifically
developed
at this point does not contemplate
an 8 unit
use,
they
AU C 141990
54
Boor
80
P' u.906
I
AUG 14199® 80 {'J".007
feel- an 8 unit use gives them the flexibility to provide a
product that will result in a marketable development.
Attorney Evans stressed that every issue that has to be
considered by this Board in making this decision has been
satisfied. The only issue remaining is one of compatibility, and
as the staff memo points out: "Compatibility is a complex issue,
involving physical and visual separation as well as psychological
perceptions, and once the zoning is in place, compatibility is
addressed by dimensional requirements, landscaping and, in
certain cases, additional buffer requirements." Mr. Evans urged
the Board to go with staff's first option, which is to approve
the request and rely on the existing code and the developer to
ensure that the site will be visually and dimensionally compat-
ible, but he urged that the Board reconsider the P&Z recommenda-
tion and give them the benefits of RM -8. Mr. Evans further
pointed out that the restrictions in the Code are almost
identical for RM -6 and RM -8. He believed the only difference is
in the open space.
Chairman Eggert informed the Board that one of the zoning
notice letters sent out went to an Anthony Ciacoda, and he said
that he couldn't make this meeting, but he wanted this to remain
zoned A-1.
Grace Derascavage, 8180 24th St., expressed her firm
opposition to any zoning above 2 units to an acre. She also
questioned the inspection of the traffic on 82nd Avenue, which
obviously was done at the low point of the season. She further
pointed out that there are presently 40 families in the half mile
along Ranch Road, and the proposed rezoning would put over 200
families into this area, which would seriously impact the area,
and destroy its peace and quiet. Mrs. Derascavage felt this
amounts to spot zoning and that it is inappropriate.
Gary Elliot, West Side Villas, noted that he lives within
300' of the proposed subdivision. Wildwood Subdivision, which is
next to West Side Villas, has beautiful homes on one acre lots
55
and where he lives they are on 1/2 acre lots. All the traffic
will be coming out 82nd Avenue, and he has heard rumors that the
Catholic Church is planning to build just to the south; that 3
doctors from Fort Lauderdale want to put a medical facility in
the vicinity; that the truckstop at the intersection is going to
be enlarged; and that a Red Lobster Restaurant is coming in. Mr.
Elliot continued to stress concerns regarding the traffic and
expressed his opposition to the requested rezoning; he would
prefer something more in the range of 2 or 4 upa, and felt more
study should be done in the area.
Jim Young, Wildwood Subdivision, advised the Board that when
he originally developed Wildwood Subdivision, he was told it
could not be approved for less than 1 acre lots and it was
stressed that they wanted to preserve the character of low dens-
ity. He is aware that one of the limiting factors when he
developed was the lack of utilities, and while he appreciates
that now has changed, he would like to hold out for the lowest
density that the Commission can put in. He would hate to pull
out on Ranch Road and face 180 families coming out from the other
side.
Bernard Benson, 8165 24th St., opposed zoning to RM -8
because it would be incompatible with the subdivisions in this
area, plus the fact that the intersection of 82nd Avenue and SR
60 is already very hazardous. He preferred a density of 2 upa.
It was determined that no one else wished to be heard, and
the Chairman closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Bird believed we had a similar situation with
Grove Isles where we wanted to protect the adjacent residential,
and we got them to agree to put in a strip of single family as a
buffer. That worked out -very well, actually the single family
sold quicker than the multi -'family, and possibly that should
considered here also.
Director Keating
pointed out that
in that case
you had
AUG
141990
56
BOOK
0 F,�F.
AUG 14 1990
properties
that: werie. boick to back, and here you have
82nd
Avenue
in between.
Commissaoner Biird noted that wg have a Comp Plan in the
county which afliaws rel to a certain density in certain areas, and
he felt that Ff we: arra really serious about providing affordable
housing, we need to. I�aok closely at areas where we do have the
infrastructure to. support densities in the higher range and can
meet the cancurrency tests.
Commlisswameit S-cmirtock stated that he does not concur with 8
upa and felt TD wWa %emild be what he could support. His home
happens to be llocatteA finthe area right next to Lake in the
Woods, which hs a r a:litti3-fami Iy subdivision. That has worked out
we i i , and he 6:: T-hoiirr we can do certain things to control the
impacts. The a ehapi&r obviously does want to sell his units;
so, he has an LmzmtIva to develop an attractive subdivision, and
Commissioner' ner' s-Kack bell i eyed that through the site plan process
we wi 6 i do evenVt*iiiwg ire. can to mitigate any impact.
MMOU VMS.KADE.by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by
C.mm�s.s,imer Bowman, to adopt Ordinance 90-15 approving
a rezarrInqta I ,6 for the subject property and to
direct tie. Tr"a sportation Planning Committee to take
a thews Vook at. the 82nd Avenue/SR 60 intersection.
Ran gienevzV.. djiis- ss,si on it was noted that no site plans have
been su ¢tted' a -s yet for a Red Lobster or some of the other
projects rwm.red to be-. coming into this vicinity.
C issiagn-er• fteel*ler commented that he I ives further out on
82nd Avem.re, and haspefixilly as that area develops, the numbers
wi I G i.aic,r,e.a,s..e ta where, that state wi I I approve a traffic light at
that iinterrsectti cam.. Iffle personally believed that whatever happens
at that RnttersectUmni,, restaurant, church, etc. , wi I I be an
improve rrntt owe:rr whfat~ V's there now.
M
57
M
M
Commissioner Scurlock stressed his only concern is that we
do not want to allow pumping when digging for any lakes as that
can draw down any wells in the area.
THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION.
It was voted on and carried unanimously.
ORDINANCE NO. 90-15
AN ORDINANCE OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, AMENDING THE
ZONING ORDINANCE AND THE ACCOMPANYING ZONING MAP FROM
A-1, AGRICULTURAL DISTRICT TO RM -6, MULTIPLE FAMILY
RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT, FOR THE PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED
ON 82ND AVENUE, SOUTH OF 26TH STREET, AND DESCRIBED HEREIN,
AND PROVIDING FOR EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission, sitting as the
local planning agency on such matters, has held a public hearing
and subsequently made a recommendation regarding this rezoning
request; and
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River
County, Florida, did publish and send its Notice of Intent to
rezone the hereinafter described property; and
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners has determined that
this rezoning is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan of
Indian River County; and
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners has held a public
hearing pursuant to this rezoning request, at which parties in
interest and citizens were heard;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED, by the Board of County
Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, that the Zoning of
the following described property situated in Indian River County,
Florida, to -wit:
Tract 1, Section 2, Township 33 South, Range 38 East as shown
on the last general plat of lands of the Indian River Farms
Company, filed in the office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court
of St. Lucie County, Fldrida, in Plat Book 2, Page 25; said
lands now lying and being in Indian River County, Florida,
less.road rights-of-way; less and except the southeast quarter
thereof.
Be changed from A-1, Agricultural District to RM -6, Multiple Family
Residential District.
58
AUG 141990
r AUG
14 1990
All with the meaning and intent and as set forth and described in
said Zoning Regulations.
Approved and adopted by the Board of County Commissioners of
Indian River County, Florida, on this 14th day of August , 1990.
This ordinance was advertised in the Vero Beach Press -Journal
on the 25th day of July , 1990 for a public hearing to be
held on the day of August 14 , 1990 at which time it was moved for
adoption by Commissioner Scurlock , seconded by Commissioner
Bowman , and adopted by the following -vote:
Chairman Carolyn K. Eggert Aye
Commissioner Gary C. Wheeler Ayo
Commissioner Richard N. Bird Aye
Commissioner Margaret C. Bowman Aye
Commissioner Don C. Scurlock AQ
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
BY:
Caroly K. Egger hairman
LEASE AGREEMENT FOR TOWER SITE W/BELLSOUTH MOBILITY
Emergency Management Director Doug Wright reviewed the
following memo:
TO: Boa.rA_of County Commissioners
FROM: Dou4z right, Director
Emergency Management Services
DATE: July 31, 1990.
SUBJECT: APPROVAL OF BELLSOUTH MOBILITY TOWER SITE LEASE
It is respectfully requested that the information contained herein
be give formal consideration. by the Board of County Commissioners at
the meeting scheduled for August 14, 1990.
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
On July 24, 1990, the Board of County Commissioners considered the
attached Lease Agreement which was presented for approval. It was
determined that the amounts proposed for the lease were insufficient
and the Board directed staff to research the rate structure further
for possible 'increases over the term of the lease. Staff was also
directed to negotiate further with BellSouth Mobility to ascertain
if additional funds could be obtained for the site since the guy
wires were actually taking up additional space beyond the 2,475 feet
contained in the lease agreement for the equipment structure.
Research revealed that BellSouth Mobility is currently constructing
another tower site in the Clewiston area. BellSouth Mobility is
paying $4,800 per year for this site and staff determined that would
be the starting point for negotiations if BellSouth was still
interested in the proposed site in Indian River County.
59
Staff met with a representative from BellSouth Mobility on July 31,
1990, regarding the proposed lease agreement. While the
representative initially opposed an increase in the lease agreement,
the meeting ended on a very cooperative basis and the following are
the new rates which were negotiated by staff pending formal approval
by the Board of County Commissioners.
The rates which were negotiated are per year with increases effective
at the end of each of the five year increments. Staff would -not
deviate 'from the proposed 15% increase in the rate structure at the
end of each five year extension and BellSouth finally agreed.
ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS
A review of the new proposed rates for the lease agreement reflect
an increase, of 7.4.89% over the term of the lease. The new rate
structure appears to be appropriate for use of the property since
more than 2,475 feet is actually encumbered to a degree for the guy
wires.
BellSouth is very interested in the site and.advised that they are
incurring additional costs in zoning changes and engineering expenses
as well as a survey for the County pursuant to the Lease Agreement.
Discussion with BellSouth also revealed that there will be nine (9)
guy wires connected to three (3) guy wire supports. The three guy
wire supports. will be standing eight feet- tall with the nine guy
wires connected to the top *of the supports. This will allow for
vehicles to be driven under the wires. Each of the three supports
will be protected by small chain link fence enclosures to preclude
vehicles from damaging the tower guy wires.
BellSouth Mobility has also agreed to cooperate with Solid Waste
Disposal District staff in locating the guy wire supports so that
minimal interference will be experienced with operations.
RECOMMENDATION
-Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners approve the
negotiated lease agreement with BellSouth Mobility and authorize the
Chairman to execute the required documents.
Director Wright informed the Board that the Risk Manager
wants one thing added to the insurance, and BellSouth has agreed
to add that. Also SWDD Manager Ron Brooks has indicated his
agreement with the proposed 'lease.
Commissioner Bird felt what is proposed is enough money
unless it makes the site unusable for county purposes.
A I I C 141990 60 BOOK Pg F. 4a
L_
INITIAL
PROPOSAL
SECOND PROPOSAL
NEW PROPOSAL
(January
28, 1988)
(July 24, 1990)
(August 14, 1990)
1st
Five Years
$2,400
$3,600
$4,800
1st
Extension
$2,760
$4,140
$5,520 -
2nd
Extension
$3,174
$4,761
$6,348
3rd
Extension
$3,650
$5,475
$7,300
4th
Extension
$4,198
$6,297
$8,395
The rates which were negotiated are per year with increases effective
at the end of each of the five year increments. Staff would -not
deviate 'from the proposed 15% increase in the rate structure at the
end of each five year extension and BellSouth finally agreed.
ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS
A review of the new proposed rates for the lease agreement reflect
an increase, of 7.4.89% over the term of the lease. The new rate
structure appears to be appropriate for use of the property since
more than 2,475 feet is actually encumbered to a degree for the guy
wires.
BellSouth is very interested in the site and.advised that they are
incurring additional costs in zoning changes and engineering expenses
as well as a survey for the County pursuant to the Lease Agreement.
Discussion with BellSouth also revealed that there will be nine (9)
guy wires connected to three (3) guy wire supports. The three guy
wire supports. will be standing eight feet- tall with the nine guy
wires connected to the top *of the supports. This will allow for
vehicles to be driven under the wires. Each of the three supports
will be protected by small chain link fence enclosures to preclude
vehicles from damaging the tower guy wires.
BellSouth Mobility has also agreed to cooperate with Solid Waste
Disposal District staff in locating the guy wire supports so that
minimal interference will be experienced with operations.
RECOMMENDATION
-Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners approve the
negotiated lease agreement with BellSouth Mobility and authorize the
Chairman to execute the required documents.
Director Wright informed the Board that the Risk Manager
wants one thing added to the insurance, and BellSouth has agreed
to add that. Also SWDD Manager Ron Brooks has indicated his
agreement with the proposed 'lease.
Commissioner Bird felt what is proposed is enough money
unless it makes the site unusable for county purposes.
A I I C 141990 60 BOOK Pg F. 4a
L_
r- -1
AUG 14 1990 ROOK 60 u,r 91:I
Commissioner Scurlock advised that he can support this lease
with the assurance that the Solid Waste Disposal District has
signed off on it.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Bowman, the Board unanimously authorized
the Chairman to sign the proposed lease with BellSouth
Mobility
COPY OF SAID LEASE IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF CLERK TO THE
BOARD. ORIGINAL HAS BEEN SENT TO BELLSOUTH FOR INITIALING.
MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT W/CITY OF VERO BEACH for CRASH FIRE RESCUE
VEHICLE AT AIRPORT
The Board reviewed memo from Emergency Management Services:
TO: James Chandler
County Administrator
i
THROUGH: Douce Wright, Director
Emergency Management Services
FROM: John Kinn, Deputy Director -:5
Emergency Management Services
DATE: August 9, 1990
SUBJECT: MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT WITH THE CITY OF VERO BEACH FOR
THE CRASH FIRE RESCUE VEHICLE LOCATED AT VB AIRPORT
It is respectfully requested that the information contained herein
be given formal consideration by the Board of County Commissioners
at the next scheduled meeting.
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS:
The South County Fire District is seeking approval from the Board
of Fire Commissioners to authorize the City of Vero Beach
Maintenance Garage as the primary vehicle maintenance location for
the VB Airport's Crash Fire Rescue (CFR) vehicle. The basis for the
agreement is due to the size and roadability of the CFR unit.
61
This unique. vehicle is specifically designed for aircraft
firefighting, and for this reason, its design exceeds the maximum
lengths normally recognized for vehicular traffic. This vehicle
weighs 47,000 pounds, is 33 feet long, 14 feet tall, and nearly 9
feet wide. Should the IRC Fleet Management be the primary
maintenance and fueling location, special arrangements must be
obtained each time this unit leaves Fire Station No. 3, which is
located at 2900 43rd Avenue.
ALTERNATIVES.AND ANALYSISs
In attempting to meet the airport demands for a CFR unit, the City
of Vero Beach was the recipient of an Airport Improvement Program
Grant whereby the City contributed to the purchase of this unit and
therefore retains ownership. But, the inter -agency agreement.
between the City and the Fire District identifies that the District
is responsible for the insurance and maintenance costs associated
with the vehicle.
The City's Maintenance Facility has recently relocated to Airport
West, which is adjacent to the Airport Fire Station. Richard Breen,
Director of VB Airport, has identified that FAA regulation FAR 139
states that Airport CFR vehicles may not be out -of -service longer
than 48 hours. Given this constraint, he has stated that should the
Fire District decide to use the City's Maintenance Facility that
he will commit to priority service related to repairs, preventative
maintenance, and fueling for this unit in an effort to remain in
compliance. Additionally, the CFR unit can access the City's
Facility without traveling on public roadways.
This vehicle is mechanically quite complex in that it incorporates
two engines and an advance hydraulic and electrical system
requiring special mechanical training. In acceptance of the vehicle
bid, the manufacturer provides the referenced specialized
mechanical training at their expense. The training seminar is held
for one week at the manufacturer's plant located in Wisconsin.
Staff received notice from the manufacturer Tuesday, August 6th
that they have made available two openings .in their next training
program scheduled to begin August 20th in anticipation that the CFR
unit will be delivered to the Fire District mid-September. The next
expected training program will occur some time in the late spring.
Given the short notice, a decision is requested to determine which
mechanics, City or Fleet Management, are to receive, the specialized
training and to allow travel arrangements to be* made for those
personnel attending the mechanics school.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the District Board of Fire Commissioners
approve and authorize the City of Vero Beach Maintenance Garage as
the primary vehicle service- and fueling location for the Crash Fire
Rescue vehicle.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Bowman, the Board unanimously approved and
authorized the City of Vero Beach Maintenance Garage
as the primary vehicle service and fueling location
for the Crash Fire Rescue vehicle as recommended by
staff.
ROOK 0
AUG 14 1990 62
AUG 141990
4000 89 ",1..915
PROPOSED PARKING LOT NORTH OF ADMINISTRATION BUILDING
The Board reviewed memo from the General Services Director:
DATE: AUGUST 7, 1990
TO: HONORABLE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
THRU: JAMES E. CHANDLER
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
FROM: H.T. "SONNY" DEAN, DIRECTOR
DEPARTMENT OF GENERAL SERVICI'Al
SUBJECT: PROPOSED PARKING LOT
NORTH OF ADMINISTRATION BUILDING
BACKGROUND:
On May 22, 1990, at a regular Board meeting, staff recommended
construction of a parking lot north of the County Administration
Building on property located north of 26th Street, across the canal
and east of 19th Avenue, due to the City of Vero Beach construction
on 26th Street and 19th Avenue, which will eliminate parking on the
two new thoroughfares. '
The Board instructed staff to look at the alternatives for
construction of available parking area.
1. Culvert the canal that runs parallel to 26th Street, owned by
Indian River Farms Water Management District and constructing a lot
on their property. The Water District was agreeable to culverting
the canal provided we assumed full responsibility of maintenance and
the pipe must be to their specifications. It was estimated the cost
to install the specified culvert and construct parking spaces would
be in excess of $650,000.
2. Purchase the remaining three (3) parcels of Block 6 and construct
a parking lot. An appraisal was made of these properties with a
value of $67,000. This is $17,000 over what was presented in our
memorandum to the Board in May. With the additional monies for
_ purchase of the property, total cost is estimated at $220,000,
depending on design cost.
ANALYSIS:
The City of Vero Beach has notified us that construction on 26th
Street and 19th Avenue will begin sometime in late August or early
September. The new parking requirements will be initiated at that
time.
RECOMMENDATIONS•
Based on the available information, staff recommends alternative 2.
It is requested that a formal offer be made to the property owners
based on the appraised value, and proceed with the condemnation
process should it be necessary. i
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Commis-
sioner Bird, the Board unanimously approved Alternative 2;
directed staff to make a formal offer to the owners and
proceed with condemnation if necessary.
63
IA
L
CANCEL CONTRACT & REFUND MONEY - STREETLIGHT SURFSIDE TERRACE
The Board reviewed memo from OMB Director Baird:
TO: Members of the Board
of County Commissioners
DATE: August 8, 1990
SUBJECT: CANCEL CONTRACT AND
REFUND MONEY FOR STREETLIGHT
AT SURFSIDE TERRACE/AlA
FROM: Joseph A. Baird
OMB Director
DESCRIPTION OF CONDITIONS
On January 15, 1990 the Board of County Commissioners authorized Indian River County
staff to enter into an agreement with Mr. Robert Powell to have a light installed at the
entrance of Surfside Terrace and AlA. Under the condition of the agreement, Mr. Powell
was to pay $180.00 annually until 1998.
On February 6, 1990 the Board of County Commissioners decided that they would pay for
all streetlights facing AlA. Mr. Powell has requested that he be refunded the $180.00 and
the contract canceled since the streetlight at Surfside Terrace faces AlA.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends Mr. Powell be refunded the $180.00 and the contract be canceled
between Mr. Powell and Indian River County for the streetlight.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Wheeler, the Board unanimously canceled the
contract with Mr. Powell for the streetlight and
authorized staff to refund Mr. Powell the $180.00.
PROPOSED 1991 HOLIDAY SCHEDULE
The Board reviewed the following schedule of holidays as
submitted by Jack Price, -Personnel Director:
64
L_
AUG 141990
AUG 14 1990 RooK 8.0 F'AC,t. 9i b
...................................................................
To: James Chandler,
County Administrator
Date: July 27, 1990
From: Jack Pric , Personnel ' Sub: 1991 Holiday Schedule
...................................................................
PROPOSED SCHEDULE OF HOLIDAYS FOR INDIAN RIVER COUNTY EMPLOYEES FOR
1991. FOR CONSIDERATION BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
HOLIDAY
NEW YEAR'S DAY
GOOD FRIDAY
MEMORIAL DAY
INDEPENDENCE DAY
LABOR DAY
VETERAN'S DAY
THANKSGIVING DAY
DAY AFTER THANKSGIVING
DAY BEFORE CHRISTMAS
CHRISTMAS DAY
COUNTY OBSERVANCE
TUESDAY, JANUARY 1, 1991
FRIDAY, MARCH 29, 1991
MONDAY, MAY 27, 1991
THURSDAY, JULY 4, 1991
MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 2, 1991
MONDAY, NOVEMBER 11, 1991
THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 28, 1991
FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 29, 1991
TUESDAY, DECEMBER 24, 1991
WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 25, 1991
Note: Constitutional Officers Property Appraiser and Supervisor of
Elections will observe the above schedule. Clerk will also except
may not observe Day before Christmas. Tax Collector and Sheriff
will observe Martin Luther King day in January in addition.
Commissioner Wheeler wished there was some way to get the
concurrence of all the Constitutional Officers on these holidays.
Administrator Chandler wished to note for the record that we
are still negotiating with the Firefighters and they have a
proposal for additional holidays. Our proposal has been in
opposition to that request, and he just wanted the record to show
that this is not final as relates to the Firefighters until the
negotiations are concluded.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Bird, the Board unanimously adopted the
Holiday Schedule for 1991 as set out above.
65
a � �
REMAINING R&B DIV. ROAD RESURFACING PROJECTS
The Board reviewed memo from the Public Works Director:
TO: James E. Chandler,
County Administrator
FROM: James W. Davis, P.E.,L�
Public Works Director
SUBJECT: Remaining Road and Bridge Division
Road Resurfacing Projects
REF. MEMO: Albert VanAuken, Road and Bridge Supt. to
James Davis dated Aug. 3, 1990
DATE: August 7, 1990
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
Approximately $219,000 is remaining in the 1989/90 Road and
Bridge Division budget for resurfacing of county roads.
Previous resurfacing projects which have been approved by
the Board have been completed. At this time, staff presents
the attached list of projects to expend the remaining funds.
RECOMMENDATIONS AND FUNDING
Staff recommends that the attached list of road resurfacing
projects be approved and that funding not to exceed $219,000
be from Road and Bridge Fund 111-214-541-035.31.
----------------------------------------------------------
August 3, 1990
TO: James W. Davis, Director
Public Works Department
FROM: Albert L. Van Auken, Supt.0
Road & Bridge Division
SUBJECT: Resurfacing
------7------------------------------7--------------------
Below is a list of estimated resurfacing costs:
58th Ave 33rd ST - 26th St.
(28' Wide) Widen & Resurface .5 Mile 20,625.00
66th Ave 33rd St - 26th St.
(28' Wide) Widen & Resurface .5 Mile 20,625.00
49th
St
58th Ave - 35th Ave
(28'
Wide)
Widen & Resurface
1.5 Mile
74th
Ave.
9th St. S.W.-Landfill
Entrance
Resurface
.5 Mile
9th
St SW
74th Ave - 8th Ave
(24'
Wide)
Resurface
2.0 Mile
14th P1.
(20' Wide)
43rd Ave - Cul D Sac
Resurface 220.'
Total
AUG 141990 66
61,875.00
20,900.00
69,900.00
1,000.00
194,925.00
r- -1
AUG 14 1990 R00K A„r�
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Wheeler, the Board unanimously approved the
foregoing list of road resurfacing projects as recom-
mended by staff.
REMOVAL OF DEAD TREES IN COUNTY R/W
The Board reviewed memo from Public Works Director Davis:
TO: James E. Chandler,
County Administrator
FROM: James W. Davis, P.E.,
Public Works Director,
J
SUBJECT: Removal of Dead Trees in County Right -of -Way
REP. MEMO: 1) Albert VanAuken to James Davis
dated 7-26-90
2) James Davis to Joseph Baird dated 7-16-90
DATE: August 7, 1990
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
There are several
right-of-way areas in the county
where
dead
trees exists
due to last winters freeze damage.
Three
critical areas are
as follows:
1)
Wabasso area
along Old Bridge
Road (87th Street)
from
US1 to CR510
- 58 Pine trees
2)
South Old Dixie Highway area
- approx. 70 Silver
Oak
trees
3)
1st Street SW
at 20th Avenue -
Approx. 10-11 Pine
trees
The Road and Bridge Superintendent recommends that these
trees be removed prior to the upcoming active hurricane
season.
ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS
The Road and -Bridge Division has approximately $41,750
available in the Garbage and Solid Waste line item 034.33.
The Public Works and Budget Department has recommended a
line transfer of funds from this line item 034.33 to line
item 111-214-541-033.49 (other contractual services) to fund
this work. To receive competitive prices, the Road and
Bridge Superintendent has contacted three local tree service
contractors to submit bids for the work. The County has
competitively bid this type work on an annual contract,
however, the annual contract holder is estimating, based on
his hourly contract rate, a cost of $61,900 to remove these
trees. By awarding this work to L-1 Tree Services, the
County can save $22,225. Since there remains only eight
weeks in the current fiscal year and the most active storm
season is upon us, staff is of the opinion that formal
re -bidding this work would result in a five week delay and
that this work should be performed -as soon as possible to
avoid fallen limbs causing property damage.
67
r
Alternative No. 1
Authorize the staff to issue a purchase order to L-1
Tree Service in the amount not to exceed $39,675 for
removal of the dead trees, subject to proper insurance
certificates received.
Alternative -No. 2
Issue a work order with the County's annual contract
holder A-1 Tree Experts, in the amount of $61,900 to
remove these trees. This alternative would result in a
higher cost.
Alternative No. 3
Re -bid the work by formal bidding. This alternative
would delay the work by approximately five weeks. Due
to a predicted high activity hurricane season, these
trees should be removed as soon as possible.
RECOmmENDATXCNS AND FUNDING
It is recommended that Alternative 1 be approved. Funding
to be from 111-214-541-033.49 (Road and Bridge Div -
Contractual Services).
Chairman Eggert assumed that lack of insurance is what
knocked out Able Tree Service, and this was confirmed.
Commissioner Bowman questioned the large disparity between
what we now are paying our annual contractor and the amount of
some of these bids.
Director David agreed there is a great disparity in the
bidding, and while he is not quite sure of the reasons, he
believed some of it is due to the fact that some of the companies
are very busy. Our annual bid is more of an hourly rate.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Wheeler, the Board unanimously approved
Alternative No. 1 as recommended by staff.
PROFESSIONAL SERV./LAND MANAGEMENT PLAN REVISIONS & MODIFICATIONS
TO FRDAP GRANT (TREASURE_ SHORES PARK - WORK ORDER #1)
The Board reviewed memo from the Capital Projects Manager:
AUG 141990 _ 68 ,E �.99 -
K Q���If [parr
r AUG 141990
TO: James Ra Chandler,
county Administrator
T UE : James V. Davis , P -E I E, ,
Public Works Director
FROM: `L-rry Z. Thompson, P.E.
Capital Projects Manager
T�rr
MOO 80 ,,c 921
S . Professional Services for Land Management Plan
vions and Modifications to the FRDAP Grant
for Treasure Shores Park
®M . Dtunnam, Department of Natural Resources
- to Roger Cain dated June 1, 1990
DAME: 2mgurt 1., 1990 FILE: treasure.agn
On June 5, 1396, the Indian River County Board of
Commisslamezz amwq.gtal the FRDAP grant from the Department
of Natural Mommmmms and directed staff to proceed with
Phase 31 deyelutt Treasure Shores Park.
The attacled aetlaw from the Bureau of Land Management
Services dataff Zmmm IL,, 1990, suggests that approval of the
Land 71m for Treasure Shores Park may be
delayed- 2he law& Vanagement Plan must be approved by the
Land Nanagmem&_ Adwdsmzy Committee (LMAC) before the tracts
that the Leases from the State of Florida may be
developed or lly altered in any way.
In Gxder to pzaoea& with Phase I development of Treasure
Shores Para FRDAP grant deadlines, the Land
Managemeut Flm and EMDAP Grant must be revised so that all
Phase I conatzmaticmtakes place on County owned land.
C® mon of fatzra phases of Treasure Shores Park can
not precead zmtll tho Land Management Plan is approved. The
County must re.zze and re -submit the management plan to the
LDMC for reomisiAemak1ban. The revised plan must include a
det ed bidlogAaal Ivey and written responses to comments
cantadzIn the1, 1990 letter from Dawn Dunnam to
Rogex Calm.
A survey cxmw,,has started to collect data for a
boumdax7 and topegrag&ic survey of the county owned portion
of Tteasume Shares Mmrk. Based on the biological assess-
ment® rte Cbnmii:R.tazk will field stake roadway centerlines,
and 'fit!' tlie plamed improvements with the existing site
condi-ti- The Cmsultant will coordinate with the
County's s. on what data is required for
pre tioff P N construction documents.
In order to aeconpllsir the work described above, - the Public
Warms ZqpaztmexVL P prepared the attached Work order #1
between tea. SMLA& Aam=iates, Inc. and Indian River County.
The Nott - -Exceed. pm1naz for this work are as follows:
Part l - R.LalGggLAssessment $ 5,915.00
Part 2 ordination 2,390.00
Part 3 - FZDAP&. Management 2,847.50
Plana Rewizla=
Tial. $11,152.50
69
The Consultant will be paid for the actual cost of services
rendered, on an hourly rate basis, up to a maximum total of
the Not -to -Exceed price for each part.
ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS
The alternatives are as follows:
Alternative No. 1
Approve the attached. Work Order #1 under the Master
Agreement between Brad Smith Associates, Inc. and Indian
River County. The total Not -to -Exceed price for the
work is $11,152.50.
Alternative No.2
Issue a request for proposals and select a firm to
perform the services in accordance with CCNA
procedures. This alternative may delay the project
implementation.
RECOMMENDATIONS AND FUNDING
It is recommended that Alternative # 1 be approved whereby
the attached Work Order #1 is approved. Funding to be from
Account 311--210-572-033.13
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Bowman, the Board unanimously approved
Alternative No. 1 and authorized the Chairman to sign
Work Order No. 1 to Master Agreement w/Brad Smith
Associates, Inc.
SAID WORK ORDER IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF CLERK TO THE BOARD.
AMNDT NO. 2 - ENGINEERING SERV. AGREEMENT (KINGS HWY. IMPRVMTS)
The Board reviewed memo from Capital Projects Manager Terry
Thompson:
70
141990rA
AIM, C7QN{GE
L___ -
AUG 141990 Roos
TO: James E. Chandler,
County Administrator
THROUGH: James W. Davis, P.E.,
Public Works Director
FROM: Terry B. Thompson, P.E.
Capital Projects Manager
SUBJECT: Amendment No. 2 Professional Engineering
Services Agreement - Kings Highway (58th Avenue)
Corridor Improvements
DATE: August 6, 1990 FILE: AMENDII.AGN
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
Gee & Jenson is under contract with Indian River County to
perform professional services which include a corridor
improvement study and right-of-way map for 58th Avenue from
Oslo Road to SR60.
The County and Gee & Jenson recently met to review the issue
of what form would be adequate and proper for delineating
the land to be acquired for the proposed widening of 58th
Avenue. After discussing the subject, we agreed that a
Parcel Location Map showing the tracts of land and
ownership, and legal descriptions with sketches of the
parcels of land to be acquired would be adequate. A Parcel
Location Map will require less effort than a Right -of -Way
Map prepared in accordance with Florida Department of
Transportation standards.
The attached amendment revises the manner in which the
services to be provided will be executed and modifies the
compensation for the effort. The compensation due the
engineer for the 58th Avenue Study is reduced by $10,559.
This, subtracted from the current contract amount of
$151,561 (which includes $91,994 for 58th Avenue and $59,567
for CR510/AlA Intersection Improvements) will result in a
new contract amount of $141,002.
ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS
The alternatives are as follows:
Alternative No. 1
Approve the amendment to decrease the scope of work.
This alternative will provide the County with ownership
information and legal descriptions for acquiring
right-of-way at a $10,559 savings to the County.
Alternative No. 2
Deny the request and continue with the existing scope
of work to provide a Right -Of -Way Map in accordance
with Florida Department of Transportation Standards.
RECOMMENDATIONS AND FUNDING
Alternative No. 1 is recommended whereby Amendment No. 2 is
approved and the Chairman is authorized to sign the
amendment. Funding for this project is from Account #
101-214-541-099.92
71
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Wheeler, the Board unanimously approved
Alternative No. 1 and authorized the Chairman to sign
Amendment No. 2.
SAID AMENDMENT IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF CLERK TO THE BOARD.
HEDDEN PLACE WATER DIST. SYSTEM ASSESSMENT (1ST TWO RESOLUTIONS)
DATE:
The Board reviewed memo from the Utilities Department:
AUGUST 6, 1990
TO: JAMES E. CHANDLER
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
FROM: TERRANCE G. PINTO
DIRECTOR OF UTIL SERVICES
SUBJECT: HEDDEN PLACE
WATER DISTRI TION SYSTEM ASSESSMENT
IRC PROJEC &R,9P.E. 0 -08 -DS
PREPARED H. D. "DUMk
AND STAFFED ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEER
BY: DEPARTMENT OF UTILITY SERVICES
BACKGROUND
A petition has been received to provide water service to residents
of Hedden Place, a single street west of 60 Oaks Lane and south of
State Road 60. This project will ultimately serve approximately 20
homes on the block. Design of this project has been completed and
it is ready to go out for bid.
ANALYSIS
This is an assessment project and will be paid for through
assessment of property owners along the proposed water line route.
The first two of four resolutions necessary for this type project
are attached for Board approval. Also attached is the assessment
roll for the area to be assessed, and the amount of each assessment
based on estimated costs.
RECOMMENDATION I
The staff of the Department of Utility Services recommends that the
Board of County Commissioners approve the attached Resolutions I and
II so that a public hearing date for the preliminary assessment may
be set.
AUG 14 1990 72 n:,,. 11�,;.
AUG 141990
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Wheeler, the Board unanimously adopted
Resolutions 90-91 and 90-92,,as follows:
RESOLUTION NO. 90-91
A RESOLUTION OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY PROVIDING FOR
A WATER MAIN TO BE INSTALLED IN REDDEN PLACE;
PROVIDING THE TOTAL ESTIMATED COST, METHOD --OF
PAYMENT OF ASSESSMENTS, NUMBER OF ANNUAL INSTALL-
MENTS, AND LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF AREAS SPECIFICALLY
SERVED.
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Indian
River County has determined that the improvements herein
described are necessary to promote the public welfare of
the county and has determined to defray the cost thereof by
special 'assessments against the properties specially
RESOLUTION NO. 90-92
A RESOLUTION OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY SETTING A TIME
AND PLACE AT WHICH THE OWNERS OF PROPERTY ON
HEDDEN PLACE AND OTHER INTERESTED PERSONS MAY
AWUR REF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
AND BE HEARD AS TO THE PROPRIETY AND ADVISABILITY
OF CONSTRUCTING A WATER MAIN, AS TO THE COST
THEREOF, AS TO THE MANNER OF PAYMENT`JHEREFOR, AND
AS TO THE AMOUNT THEREOF TO BE SPECIALLY ASSESSED
AGAINST EACH PROPERTY BENEFITED THEREBY.
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Indian
River County has, by Resolution No. 90-gi, determined that
It is necessary for the public welfare of the citizens of
the county, and particularly as to those living, working,
SAID RESOLUTIONS W/ASSESSMENT ROLL ARE ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF
CLERK TO THE BOARD.
73
r
TAKEOVER OF ROSELAND PLAZA UTILITIES
The Board reviewed memo from Utilities Director Pinto:
DATE: AUGUST 6, 1990
TO: JAMES E. CHANDLER
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
FROM: TERRANCE G. ..PINTO
DIRECTOR OF UTILITY ERVICES
PREPARED HARRY E. ASHE
AND STAFFED ASSISTANT DI ARO'OF UTILITY SERVICES
BY:
SUBJECT: TAKEOVER OF ROSELAND PLAZA UTILITIES
BACKGROUND
Roseland Plaza Utilities (RPU) operates under Franchise Resolution
No. 79-51 granted by Indian River County (County) on May 23, 1979.
RPU serves 17 commercial customers within the Roseland Plaza
Shopping Center. The wastewater treatment plant is a 0.012 million
gallons per day (MGD) extended air treatment process wastewater
plant. The water treatment plant is an 0.032 MGD water plant; it is
an aeration/chlorination type plant with a raw water feed. RPU
wishes the County to take over the utilities, and as a result, the
County has been negotiating the acquisition as set forth in
Resolution 79-51.
ANALYSIS
The County's policy has been to take over such privately held
utilities and to expand its regional and subregional water and
wastewater facilities. Takeover of this system will assist the
County in implementing the policy. The wastewater system will be
connected to the North County Sewer System upon completion of the
project. The Department of Utilities Services will continue to
operate the water treatment plant until completion of the North
Regional Water System to serve the area. Based upon 1989 actual
data, 14 of the 17 customers will realize a substantial reduction in
monthly charges with 3 of the 17 experiencing increases of .05%,
2.96%, and 13.85%.
RECOMMENDATION
The staff of the Department of Utility Services recommends that the
Board of County Commissioners approve the proposed takeover
agreement.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Wheeler, the Board unanimously approved the
proposed agreement with L. T. Von Stein, C. H. Von Stein,
and Sam Mufson, Trustee, DBA Roseland Plaza, and author-
ized the signature of'the Chairman.
SAID AGREEMENT WIATTACHMENTS IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF CLERK TO
THE BOARD.
74
AUG 1.4199a
AUG
14 1990
BOOK
SEA -OAKS
WW TREATMENT PLANT EXPANSION CONTRACT W/KIMBALL
LLOYD
Director Pinto reviewed the following:
DATE: JULY 31, 1990
TO: JAMES E. CHANDLER
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
FROM: TERRANCE G. PINTO P
DIRECTOR OF UTIL Y SE ICES
SUBJECT: SEA OAKS WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT
EXPANSION PROJECT
IRC PROJECT NO. US-90-02-DC/ED
PREPARED JOHN FREDERICK LANG
AND STAFFED ENVIRONMENTAL SPECIALIST
BY: DEPARTMENT OF UTILITY SERVICES
BACKGROUND
The Sea Oaks Wastewater Treatment Plant, a .21 MGD facility, was
purchased from the franchise utility Sea Oaks Utility Company, in
order to provide a regional facility for the North Beach area. The
existing clarifiers at the facility will support a .8 MGD plant and
an engineering selection process was begun so as to provide for
expansion design services. The engineering selection committee
ranked Kimball/Lloyd and Associates, Inc., as the first firm to be
contacted for engineering services for this project.
ANALYSIS
The firm of Kimball/Lloyd has provided a conceptual layout of the
plant expansion to .8 MGD, a more efficient use of the existing
facilities. Proper insurance documentation has been provided, for
these services. A cost estimate for construction, engineering
services and total project cost have also been provided.
Engineering costs for the project fit within the FmHA Form No.
1942-19 median fees for professional engineering services
guidelines. A listing of personnel categories for billing purposes
is included.
The construction estimate is $2,162,000.00, the engineering basic
services upset limit is $152,000.00, and additional services are
estimated at $101,100.00, for a total estimated project cost of
$2,415,000.00.
RECOMMENDATION
The Department of Utility Services recommends that the Board of
County Commissioners approve and execute the attached contract and
proceed to expand the Sea Oaks .21 MGD wastewater treatment plant
into the .8 MGD North Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant.
Funding for this project will be provided from the wastewater impact
fees account and/or bond funds.
Director Pinto pointed out to the Board that although this
isn't spelled out in the contract, the award of the contract to
this company was based on Mr. Lloyd's participation in the design
of this plant, and he felt that should be noted.
75
s � �
Chairman Eggert believed there was a question about
something being both basic and additional, and she assumed that
was taken care of.
Attorney Vitunac reported that his office pointed that out
the the Utilities Department, and Director Pinto advised that the
fee was inclusive of all, and there was no additional.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Bowman, the Board unanimously approved the
proposed contract with the firm of Kimball/Lloyd as
recommended by staff with the inclusion of the proviso
that Mr. Lloyd be involved in the design of this project.
SAID CONTRACT W/ATTACHMENTS IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF CLERK TO
THE BOARD.
PRISONER MEDICAL EXPENSES (DWIGHT D. DENMON)
Attorney Vitunac reviewed the following:
TO: Board of County Commissioners
FROM: Charles P. Vitunac, County Attorney
DATE: July 23, 1990
RE: DWIGHT D. DENMON
Pursuant to §901.35, Florida Statutes (a copy of which is
attached), the County is ultimately responsible for the
medical expenses of person's who are under arrest and who are
treated at the hospital.
In 1987 one Dwight Denmon was shot during an armed robbery
attempt and was treated in Indian River Memorial Hospital
while under arrest. The Hospital has billed the County
AUG 14 1990
$20,253.53 for the cost of Mr. Denmon's treatment. The
matter was sent to County Administrator Charles Balczun for
a recommendation, and the bill was not paid while the matter
was investigated. The Hospital has recently reactivated its
claim. Due to the length of time since the accident, I
suggested that I could recommend to the Board of County
Commissioners that the County pay one half the expense in
full settlement of the claim. The attorney for the
Hospital, Mr. Robert Nall, agreed to this.
If the Board agrees, the appropriate action would be to
authorize the County to pay the Hospital a check in the
amount of $10,116.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval to pay Hospital
the amount of $10,116.
Commissioner Wheeler asked if there is any way over the long
term to tie such an individual up to where they would owe us the
money.
Attorney Vitunac was not sure there is. He noted that even
if a rich prisoner who is in jail under your custody has medical
expenses, the County pays them after you go through the pro-
cedures of the law. The law says you go after the prisoner first
and his insurance, and failing that, the County pays. Most
generally these people are long gone deadbeats.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Bowman, the Board unanimously authorized
staff to pay the Hospital $10,116 as full settlement
of their claim for treatment of Dwight Denmon.
77
Ift
REPORT ON PROPOSED AMENDMENT OF EXISTING TCRPC POLICY RELATIVE TO
UPLAND HABITAT PRESERVATION
Chairman Eggert
referred
the Board to
the
following
Policies: Policy
10.1.2.2.:
All develop ent projects
5 acres
or
larger,
excluding
agr culture
overations,
shall
set
aside
through selective
clearing
an
micro -siting
of
u ld
s an const uctio acts
sties
a in mum
o 15
percent
of the total—cumulative
acreaae
of nat<i-ve
plant
communities which
occur on -rite
(e.g.,
flatwoods.
xeric
scrub ' coastal/trcopiaal hammock, etc.) . In --no case.-
however.-
ase.hiowever must the require set aside -areas - eggeed 10
....ray
percent of the to -t 1 project site proverty acreage.-
such—set aside areas shall be preserved in_ viable
co it on with intact- cap-o-cap-o-py. undekstory. and ground
rover and shall be protected by-' the filincl of
conserve iivn easements. The preserved set aside areas)
shall be allowed as credit toward other county land
development regulations such as landscape. buffers open
space requirements and minimum yard setback
reguiremepts.
where presery tii.on of 15%of th native upland plana
rommu sties on site is not feasible dive site"-ecific
characte stics the countyshall permit off-site
preservatio and/or habitat creation (type -for -type)- as
an alte-native to on-site 15% preservation Moreover.
as .an incentive to preserve contiguous t—a-0—to which
provide more habitat value than 1—in—ear buffer set aside
areas. the county shall allow a percent-agLere�etion to
A minimum of 10% of_ the cumu ative native plant
communit)r--acx_eaae, for trtose -nreserve.--arems tat are set
Aside as a contiguous tract.
Development projects proposed for lands currently
consisting o native upland plant commu ities may, as an
alternative to 15 percent preservat on of the—on-site
community, pay a'fee equivalent to fthe averag a�.ssessed
value of one acre of the pazticula 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 o site (Local Governments, 'DCA TCRPC
Private sector.) 78
AUG 14 1990
r AUG 14X990
POOP 600
-1
J. .
Policy 10.1.2.35: All Impaet fees paid to the .Counties
and described in Policyies 10.1.2.27--lGr1ravar-rand
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,
TCRP.)
Policy, -1-06 1,2 5• FOr-thS. purpose 21 -RK -eventing_ natives
up and communities —and—the plant and animal species
associated with such Communities fro becoming
regi-o-nally threatened or endangered all regional
development should preserve the ma imum amount of each
native upland plant community that is reasonably
possible This shall be -presumed -to have occurred where
25 percent of each native upla plant communitywhich
occurs o site has been set aside and nresery d. where
habitat is set aside in one or more preserve areas each
of which is greater than 20 acr s in size, -this policy
shall be presumed to have been met _w hete only 20 percent
of the native uplands wbLich occur, on site has been set
aside and preserved.
Chairman Eggert pointed out that where Policy 10.1.2.2. used
to read "shall," it now reads."In no case, however must the
required set aside areas exceed 100 of the total project site
property acreage." In Policy 10.1.2.35, all reference to
"impact" fees was deleted, and the Chairman further noted that in
Policy 10.1.2.5 where they refer to "all regional development,"
she believed that referred to DRIs, but it is not made clear and
she felt we need to be assured that is what it means and that is
doesn't just mean "districtwide."
Commissioner Bird agreed he would like to understand what
79
M
the intent is and asked Asst. County Attorney Collins what his
interpretation would be.
Attorney Collins stated that he would interpret it to mean
DRIB, but he would want that confirmed.
Commissioner Bird noted that they put the strict require-
ments on the DRIB, but it seems other projects have very little
constraints.
Chairman Eggert felt that continues to be a concern, and
Attorney Collins believed the reason the TCRPC made the
distinction was that Director Keating and others told them about
the difficulties of applying these 5 and 10 acre set asides to
small subdivisions, and their thinking is that in the DRIB they
have a large project with a little more flexibility in the
design.
Attorney Collins thought that it is important to note that
the existing TCRPC policy puts us in an impossible situation in
terms of compliance with our Comprehensive Plan. Either their
adoption of our County policy or their adoption of the last
proposal staff made will allow us to comply because at the last
meeting, they modified that proposal to say that local regula-
tions, even if they don't meet the 25% set aside, will be
acceptable until you get to the stage where only 200 of the
original habitat remains. Presumably if we start applying these
regulations as we go along protecting 150 of each, we won't be
approaching those threshholds. If we do get to the point where
only 200 of the original was left, then they would start applying
their 25% rule, and if we ever got to where 10% was left, they
would say go out and start buying it. Even their staff proposal
as modified would be much better than what is existing.
Chairman Eggert noted that the objection to that was the
question of exactly how and When those percentages kick in, and
there were massive objections to having these percentages kick in
at
certain times.
She then referred
the Board to the TCRPC staff
AUG141990
80
�) �r�
AUG 141990
recommendation for Policy 10.1.2.4, as follows, stressing that it
states that conversion of the ag land to an urban use shall not
be allowed to occur for at least 20,years after land clearing:
golicy' 10.1.2.4.:_ Where eemmercial agricultural
development is proposed for lands which currently exist
as native upland plant communities, and where the
proposed agricultural. development would require
elimination of that currently existing habitat,
conversion of this agricultural. land to an urban land
se suer --c eve->:opme --s xerl-� -- 1 -}--sem
Commissioner Bird found that addition totally unacceptable.
Chairman Eggert agreed that revision is not to her liking,
and Commissioner Scurlock felt we should just tell them to "take
a hike."
Engineer Darrell McQueen referred to the new policy where
they talk about "threatened or endangered." He believed it was
said at that meeting last Friday that there was a guideline for
when it becomes "threatened" and when it becomes "endangered,"
and he asked if they have taken that 5% in local and 7%. in
regional out of their definitions.
Director Keating noted that we have a definition when they
talk about endangered or threatened plants and animals, but when
you talk about communities, he felt Mr. McQueen has a good point.
Mr. McQueen continued to discuss threshholds and the 50 or
7% being based on the historic acres. He noted that if that is
so, he believed in the Treasure Coast region scrub is at 210; so,
we are right at the threatened threshhold, and everything on the
Barrier Island is at 10; so, it is already endangered.
Director Keating noted that we have a problem with their
lumping tropical hammocks in with their definition of coastal
strand.
Mr. McQueen went on to express his concern about the changes
earlier pointed out in regard to "must" instead of "shall;" what
they mean by "regional development;" and no conversion of ag land
81
to urban use for at least 20 years, which he felt should be
modified to a 5 year timeframe. He also felt that paragraph
should -be expanded so that Ag had the same provision for cashing
out their fair share.
The Board continued to conjecture as to just what the TCRPC
will do, and Commissioner Scurlock noted that this is a dynamic
process and all we can do is direct our representatives to go to
the Council and represent the spirit of what this Commission is
saying.
Chairman Eggert recapped items of concern to establish our
main points.- She believed it was the feeling of the Committee
that we do support land acquisition but that it should be left to
the local municipality or county to decide what way to do that.
We need a clear understanding of regionally threatened and
endangered, and she believed the Council already has said that
will depend on the national or state lists. She asked the
Board's direction in regard to AG set aside or pay as they
develop, and the Board indicated they favored "pay upon
development."
POTENTIAL APPROACHES TOWARDS SETTLEMENT W/DCA RE COMP PLAN
Asst. County Attorney Collins reviewed the.following:
82 MR" F} �F 9� x
AUG 14 1990
r-AUG141990
TO: Board,of County Commissioners
ROI_,IK V r C.
FROM: William G. Collins II, Assistant County Attorney
DATE: August 14, 1990
RE: Potential Approaches towards Settlement with
DCA Over Comprehensive Plan Noncompliance
Discussions with the DCA staff and recent correspondence
from Secretary Pelham have indicated that DCA will do no
negotiating toward a settlement on the issue of our Plan's
noncompliance until such time as some concrete proposals are
submitted to them. They have characterized our efforts to
date as an attempt to justify our position rather than an
attempt to remedy the deficiencies DCA has pointed out.
Principle Issues Raised by DCA:
1. Inconsistency with the Treasure Coast Regional Planning
Council Native Upland Vegetation Rule.
2. Allocating 11.6 times more land area for urban
development than is projected to be needed over the
next 20 years.
3. Agricultural densities at 1 unit per 5 acres not
advancing the state goal to preserve productive
agricultural land use.
RECOMMENDATION: I would suggest that you authorize the
Chairman, Administrator, Planning Department, and Attorney's
Office to forward the following proposals to DCA in an
attempt to work out a settlement agreement over our
Comprehensive Plan before the September 9th break -off date
in negotiations.
A) Preserve pine flatwoods through acquisition or other
means, to address the Treasure Coast objection to our
native upland vegetation protection policies.
B) Roll back the 25% Increase in urban population
allocations under the new plan. Return to the land
uses in our plan, as it existed in 1985, for the urban
fringe areas.
C) Propose ten -acre agricultural zoning west of 1-95 (with
the exception of the immediate area around Fellsmere)
with the further provision of the possibility of
transfer of development rights into the "roll back"
area (See B above) along with other rural preservation
techniques as may be suggested by our Planning
Department.
83
"ROLLBACK" TABLE
The table below indicates the general nature of the changes
In our newly adopted Comprehensive Plan.
Square Miles
FLORIDA
Population
Changed
Density
Change
Change.
4-5/8
2-1/2 ac lots
to 3 du/ac
+ 17,692
10-1/2
2-1/2 ac lots
to 1 ac lots
+ 9,274
4-1/2
5 ac lots to
1 acre lots
+ 5,229
3-3/4
5 ac lots to
3 du/ac
+ 15,456
1-3/4
5 ac lots to
6 du/ac
+ 14,941
7-1/2
3 du/ac to 6
du/ac
+ 33,120
1/2
6 du/ac to 8
du/ac
+ 1,472
POPULATION INCREASE
+ 97,184
The net effect of these changes was (assuming maximum
build -out and a household size of 2.3) to increase the
potential population which would be accommodated within the
unincorporated portion of Indian River County by 25% or
97,184 people.
POSSIBLE LOSS OF STATE REVENUE
IF WE DO NOT COMPLY WITH
COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN
TOTAL
(1) HALF -CENT SALES TAX $3,619,246
LESS = AMOUNT FOR DEBT SERVICE ($1,398,890)
TOTAL $2,220,356
84
AUG 1419' 90
Flo
`•�C,t -
FLORIDA
STATE
PROPOSED
STATUTE
1990/91 REVENUE
COUNTY GAS TAX
206.60
$437,253
STATE REVENUE SHARING
210.2
$1,841,783
HALF CENT SALES TAX
218.61
$2,220,356 (1)
SUB -TOTAL
$4,499,392
DISCRETIONARY SALES TAX
212 PART 1
$5,103,500
TOTAL
(1) HALF -CENT SALES TAX $3,619,246
LESS = AMOUNT FOR DEBT SERVICE ($1,398,890)
TOTAL $2,220,356
84
AUG 1419' 90
Flo
`•�C,t -
, 4_ s4P1
AUG 141990aoF Vn� C4
Attorney Collins felt the argument put forward that density
is needed to support the ability of AG to get loans applies in
the areas close in to urban services, but when you get out in the
more remote areas, this is not a factor., and that is why he would
propose to go back with the 1 unit per 10 acres AG zoning west of
1-95 as set out in recommendation C.
Commissioner Bird understood that we are looking for a
compromise, but the fact of the matter is that, in the old Plan,
everything west of 1-95 was 5 upa since 1975 and you could almost
count on two hands the number of residences built out there. He
believed that you are not going to see residential development
out there at 1/5, 1/10 or 1/40.
Attorney Collins noted that staff is looking for some
direction as to whether to stop trying to find some middle ground
or to increase our efforts. He advised that he has talked to the
DCA's attorneys about this, and he thought what what he has
proposed in his memo probably would be acceptable to them.
Attorney Collins informed the Board that Charlotte County had 1
upa through their AG. Their expert contended that as the Census
Bureau defines it, urban densities are 1,000 people per square
mile and that works out to about an acre and a half lot or
smaller; so, anything where you have lot sizes of 11 acres or
I.ess, they would consider urban. Their expert also testified
that rural densities are 200 people per square mile, which works
out to about 7-1/3 acres per lot; so, anything above that, such
as 10 acre lots, is clearly rural, and we can get away from the
Urban Sprawl issue.
Chairman Eggert commented that she wouldn't have too much
trouble going back to the 1985 Plan because we fought it out and
she thought it worked well just so long as we can get that Route
60 urban corridor and the 512 urban service area when we get out
to the 1-95 nodes.
Director Keating suggested that the Board just give him and
Attorney Collins authorization to negotiate and tell them
M
85
M
M
M M
generally what the Board will support. He did feel we need to
keep higher densities in some areas, particularly in the south of
the county where we have the wastewater system, but felt we can
cut back the urban service area a little bit in some other areas
and meet some of DCA's complaints. He believed that west of the
marsh area we can have lower densities without much objection.
Commissioner Scurlock felt staff can just -argue their points
as close to our position as possible, but Commissioner Bird
stressed that he would hate to cut a deal with the DCA without
having another public hearing with the AG interests.
Chairman Eggert asked if Attorney Collins has talked to the
people involved about changing to 1 unit to 10 acres west of
1-95, and if so, what was their reaction.
Attorney Collins advised that he hasn't talked to a large
sample, but those he talked to.seemed to feel it is realistic.
Chairman Eggert then asked about the nodes at the major 1-95
intersections, and Director Keating felt that we can sit down
with the DCA and explain that is high and dry land with services
available and explain our policies that restrict it.
Commissioner Scurlock believed the only areas that may
develop are by those nodes, and that the rest of it at, even at a
density of 1/40, won't mean anything today. When that land is
ready to develop, then we can go back in with a Comp Plan
amendment and argue that out.
Commissioner Bird continued to stress that the 1-95 corridor
is what will develop in the future, and the Board agreed that the
areas that will develop are at the 512, SR 60 and Oslo nodal
areas.
Attorney Collins asked for direction, and Commissioner Bird
believed the Board has indicated that staff should negotiate
along the lines we have discussed, make the best deal possible,
and then bring it back to the Board for their decision.
86 13 da �� ��f
AUG 141990
r
AUG 14 1990
BOOK.
'9
There being no further business, on Motion duly made,
seconded and carried, the Board adjourned at 1:05 o'clock P.M.
ATTEST:
Clerk
87
Coll rman