HomeMy WebLinkAbout9/25/1990BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
AGENDA
REGULAR MEETING
SEPTEMBER 25, 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 A. M. 1. CALL TO ORDER
2. INVOCATION -
3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - Comm. Margaret C. Bowman
4. ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA/ EMERGENCY ITEMS
w
5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Minutes of Regular Meeting of August 21, 1990
6. CONSENT AGENDA
A. Received and placed on file in the Office of the
Clerk to the Board:
Inspection Report - County and Municipal
Detention facilities - 2nd, Annual Routine
Inspection of.l;R.C. Jail, dated Aug.1, 1990
Copy of Corrective Action Plan submitted by
IRC Sheriff's Office, dated August 31, 1990
B. Annual Report - Environmental Control Office,
Environmental Control Hearing Board
( Memorandum dated 9/11/90) -
C. County Administrator's Salary-
(Memorandum
alary-(Memorandum dated 9/18/90)
D. -Misc. Budget Amendment 074
(Memorandum dated 9/19/90)
E. Anti -Drug Abuse Grant Contracts
( Memorandum dated 9/18/90)
SEP 2 5 1994
9:05 a. m.
BOOK
6. CONSENT AGENDA CONT'D
F. Spring Place, Summer Place, and Oceanaire
Heights Subdivision Water Distribution
System
( Memorandum dated 9/18/90)
G. South U.S. 1 Force Main -'Ph. 11, IR Blvd.,
(Wal -mart to V.B. Wastewater Treatment Plant)
(Memorandum dated 9/14/90)
H. IRC Bid #90-102/Furnish & Install Utility Bldg.
( Memorandum dated 9/17/90)
7. CLERK TO THE BOARD
None
8. A. PUBLIC DISCUSSION ITEMS
None
B. PUBLIC HEARINGS
1. Ty Tarby Request to Amend the Comprehensive
Plan and Rezone 156 Acres
( Memorandum dated 9/17/90)
2. Proposed Development Order for the Indian
River Mall (DeBartolo) Developmept of
Regional Impact (DRI)
( Memorandum dated 9/17/90)
9. COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S MATTERS
Joint Purchase of Oslo Road Property Between the
County & St. Johns River Water Management Dist. _
( Memorandum dated 9/17/90)
10. DEPARTMENTAL MATTERS
A. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
None
B. EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT
1. Termination of Lease Agreement With City
of Sebastian for EMS ALS Station
( Memorandum dated 9/18/90)
C. GENERAL SERVICES
None
D. LEISURE SERVICES
None
E. OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
None
10. DEPARTMENTAL MATTERS CONT'D.
F. PERSONNEL
1. Contracts -Insurance
( Memorandum dated 9/19/90)
2. Excess Insurance Renewals: 1990-91
(Memorandum dated 9/13/90)
G. PUBLIC WORKS
1. Vero Lake Estates Drainage Study
(Memorandum dated 8/29/90)
(Study available for review in BCC Office)
2. 10th Court SW
(Memorandum dated 9/6/90)
(Map available for review in BCC Office)
3. R -O -W Acquisition, Oslo Rd. /Solari/
International Citrus Corp.
( Memorandum dated 9/12/90)
4. Misc. Intersections Phase 1116, Professional
Services Agreement, Second Amendment Kimball/
Lloyd 8 Assoc., Inc.
(Memorandum dated 9/7/90)
S. Resolution to Provide for the Paving and
Drainage Improvements to:
42nd
Ave. from 6th
St.
to 8th St.
42nd
Ave. from 10th St.
to 12th St.
44th
Ave. from 16th
St.
to Pinewood Sub.
13th
Ave. from 12th
St.
to 14th St.
2nd
St. from 23rd Ave.
to 24th Ave.
(.Memorandum dated
9/10/90)
H. UTILITIES
1. Agreement - I.R.C. & Myrtle M. Smith
Temporary Water Service
( Memorandum dated 9/12/90)
2. Agreement - I.R.C. 6 Ricky F. Sarcinello
.Temporary Water Service
( Memorandum dated 9/12/90)
3. Ind. Riv. Farms Water Control District
Lease Agreement for Canal R -O -W
( Memorandum dated 9/11/90)
4. No. Co. Water Distribution System, Ph. I -
Agreement between Owner (I . R. C.) 8 Engineer
(Post, Buckley, Schuh E. Jernigan, Inc. }
(Memorandum dated 9/19/90)
S. Engineering Firm Selection - Eng. Study 8
Design of Sewer Collection System to Service
the Area East of St. Rd. 1 (No. Co. WW System)
( Memorandum 9/11/90)
SEP 2-51990
SEP 2 5 1990
11. COUNTY ATTORNEY
Condemnation of Lots 4 & 5, Blk. 6, Booker T.
Washington S/D, Westside of 18th Ave., South
of 27th St.
(Memorandum dated 9/18/90)
12. COMMISSIONERS ITEMS
A. CHAIRMAN CAROLYN K. EGGERT
B.- VICE CHAIRMAN -RICHARD N. BIRD
C. 'COMMISSIONER MARGARET C. BOWMAN
D. COMMISSIONER DON C. SCURLOCK, JR.
E. COMMISSIONER GARY C. WHEELER
13. SPECIAL DISTRICTS
SOUTH COUNTY FIRE DISTRICT
Authorization to Waive Bids E Purchase Fire
Rescue Boat from GSA . Contract to Preclude
Price Increase Effective Oct. 1, 1990
(Memorandum dated 9/18/90)
BOOK
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.
- 7i
Tuesday, September 25, 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,
September 25, 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; and Virginia
Hargreaves, Deputy Clerk.
The Chairman called the meeting to order, and Commissioner
Bowman led the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag.
ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA/EMERGENCY ITEMS
Chairman Eggert wished to add under her matters as 12 A
various dates we need to make note of, and she asked that a Grant
for Transportation Disadvantaged be placed on the.Agenda under
;Commissioner Bowman's matters as 12 C.
ON MOTION by_Corrmissioner Bird, SECONDED by Commis-
sioner Scurlock, the Board unanimously approved the
addition of the items described above to the Agenda.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
The Chairman asked if there were any additions or correc-
tions to the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of August 21, 1990.
There were none.
SEP 251990
BOOK i FADE 440
I
S E P 2 5 1990
BOOK 81 FLE 441
i
i
I
ON MOTION by Commissioner Wheeler, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Scurlock, the Board unanimously approved
the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of August 21,
1990, as written.
CONSENT AGENDA
A.' & B. - Reports
The following were received and placed on file in the Office
of Clerk to the Board:
Inspection Report - County and Municipal
Detention facilities - 2nd Annual Routine
Inspection of I.R.C.Jail, dated Aug. 2, 1990
Copy of Corrective Action Plan submitted by
Sheriff's Office dated August 31, 1990.
Annual Report - Environmental Control Office,
Environmental Control Hearing Board.
C. County Administrator's Salary
The Board reviewed memo from Chairman Eggert, as follows:
TO: Board of County
Commissioners
FROM: Carolyn R. Eggert 141
Chairman L•
DATE: September 18, 1990 FILE:
SUBJECT: County Administrator's
Salary
REFERENCES:
I would like to recommend for your approval, in addition to the
4.5 percent county -wide cost of living raise, a merit raise of 3
percent for the County Administrator. This would raise his
annual salary from $73,500 to $79,012 as of October 1, 1990.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Bird, the Board unanimously approved a merit
raise of 3% for the County Administrator, raising his
salary to $79,012 as of October 1, 1990.
2
D. Miscellaneous Budget Amendment - #074
The Board reviewed memo from OMB Director Baird, as follows:
TO: Members of the Board
of County Commissioners
DATE: September 19, 1990
SUBJECT: NIISCEIJANEOUS BUDGET AMENDMENT 074
CONSENT AGENDA
FROM: Joseph A. Baird
OMB Director
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
The attached budget amendment is to appropriate funding for the following:
1. The number of single streetlights increased during the 1989/90
fiscal year. Revenue and expenses are both more than
-- anticipated.
2. Laurel Court streetlight expenses are more than anticipated
because in the past the electric utility was billing some of the
lights on another bill and an adjustment had to be made. An
entry taking the short -fall of $400.00 from the
M.S.T.U./Contingencies is attached.
3. The Board of County Commissioners earlier in the year approved
the irrigation system utilizing effluent for the citrus grove in
which the short -fall would be paid from Utility Impact fees.
4. Increase in the Rental Assistance budget since it seems
expenditures will exceed present budget and we would like to
.increase it $9,415.00.
5. Fleet Management both revenues and expenses are exceeding our
original budget and we would like to -increase the budget
$60,000.00. This is mainly attributable to increased fuel sales.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends* that the Board of County Commissioners approve the attached budget
amendment .
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Bird, the Board unanimously approved Budget
Amendment #074 as recommended by the OMB Director:
[BOOK � f'q�cA2
SEP 2 5 1990 3
r
SEP 2 5 1990
TO: Members of the Board
of County Commissioners
FROM: Joseph A. Baird
OMB Director
Entry !
Gk
6QG Fr GE 4
SUBJECT: BUDGET AMENDMENT
NUMBER: 074
DATE: September 19. 1990
!SINGLE LIGHT DISTRICT
!Other Contract -Donations !187-000-366-090.001$ 2,800!$ 0
!EXPENSE !
!Electric Services 1187 -28D -541-034.311-S-' 2 80015 0
1
2. !REVENUE ! i
'LAUREL COURT STREETLIGHTING
CITRUS GROVE
SECTION 8 - RENTAL ASSISTANCE
;FLEET MANAGEMENT
iaa-uuu-mat-ye
188-280-541-0?
004-199-581-05
004-199-581-05
—UUU—jdl9
-nnn-iga-
—000-jdv-
-222-564-
-222-564-
-222-564-
-222-564-
-222-564-
-977—KAA—
4
w
Qlw L"
E. Anti -Drug Abuse Grant Contracts
The Board reviewed memo from Randy Dowling, Assistant to the
County Administrator:
James E. Chandler September 18, 1990
T�' County Administrator DATE: FILE:
ANTI-DRUG ABUSE GRANT
SUBJECT: CONTRACTS
Randy Dowling
FROM: Asst. to County AdministratoREFERENCES:
BACKGROUND
The Board of County Commissioners, during its June 5, 1990 regular meeting,
approved the Substance Abuse Council's recommendations regarding the
projects to be funded with the state's Anti -Drug Abuse Grant and authorized
staff to proceed with the grant application. The grant application was
reviewed by the Florida Department of Community Affairs which requested
that formal contracts between the County and two of the service providers be
executed prior to final grant approval. The Board of County commissioners
approved those formal contracts during its September 18, 1990 regular
meeting. Upon the advice of the County Attorney's office, the remaining two
service providers should also have formal contracts executed for internal
county use.
The five projects and their corresponding funding for FY 1990-91 are:
1) Substance Abuse Advisory Council Administrative Expenses - $16,000.
2) Indian River County Jail Substance Abuse Counseling Program - $51,695.
This program will be administered by New Horizons. of the Treasure
Coast, Inc.
Intervention /Aftercare Program - $51,695. This program will be
administered by New Horizons.
4) First Start Program. - $28,688. This project will be administered by the
Indian River County School Board.
5) Just Say No Program - $23,263. This project will be administered by
the Just Say No Council of Indian River County, Inc.
The grant's total funding request is $171,341. Of the total request; the
state's 75% allocated share is $128,506 and the County's 25% matching share is
$42,835. The County's matching share is budgeted for in the FY 1990-91
general fund.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Board Chairman execute the two attached contracts
between the County and the Substance Abuse Advisory Council and the Just
Say No Council of Indian River County, Inc.
•I
SEP 12 51990
r� A
,ROOK 81 PALE
SEP -2 5 1990 BOOK pry
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Bird, the Board unanimously authorized the
Chairman to execute agreements with the Substance
Abuse Advisory Council and the Just Say No Council
of Indian River County, -Inc., as providers under the
provisions of the.state's Anti -Drug Abuse Grant.
SAID AGREEMENTS ARE ON FILE A N THE OFFICE OF'CLERK_TO THE BOARD.
i
F. Spring Place, Summer Place, and Oceanaire Hghts. Water Distri
bution system
The Board reviewed memo from Capital Projects Engineer
McCain:
DATE: SEPTEMBER 18, 1990
TO: JAMES E. CHANDLER
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
FROM: TERRANCE G. PINT .�.
DIRECTOR OF UTILITY SERVICES
PREPARED WILLIAM F. McC Moop
AND STAFFED CAPITAL PROJE
BY: DEPARTMENT OF U Y SERVICES
SUBJECT: SPRING PLACE, SUMMER PLACE, AND OCEANAIRE
HEIGHTS SUBDIVISION WATER DISTRIBUTION
SYSTEM
IRC PROJECT NO. UW -89 -09 -DS
BACKGROUND
The Department of Utility Services is preparing the final payment to
Derrico Construction for the above -listed job and will be bringing
this to the Board in the near future. Therefore, we are now
proceeding with the final assessment for this project and are
seeking approval of Resolution No. 4.
ANALYSIS
The preliminary assessment was in the amount of $513,360.00, with a
cost per square foot of $0.154900942. The final assessment is in
the amount of $330,802.00, at a cost per square foot of $.099815999.
This equates to about a 35% reduction in the assessment. (See
attached Resolution No. 4 and accompanying assessment.)
RECOMMENDATION
The staff of the Department of Utility Services recommends that the
Board of County Commissioners approve Resolution No. 4 for the final
assessment role on this project.
6
0
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Bird, the Board unanimously adopted Resolu-
tion 90-146 certifying "as -built" costs for installation
of a water distribution system in Summer Place, Spring
Place, etc.
RESOLUTION NO. 90- 1Q6
A RESOLUTION OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY CERTIFYING
"AS -BUILT" COSTS FOR INSTALLATION OF A WATER
DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM IN SUMMERPLACE AND SPRING
PLACE, AND OTHER CONSTRUCTION NECESSITATED BY SUCH
PROJECT; PROVIDING FOR FORMAL COMPLETION DATE, AND
DATE FOR PAYMENT WITHOUT PENALTY AND INTEREST.
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Indian
River County determined that the Improvements for the
property located with boundaries as described in this title
were necessary to promote the public welfare of the county;
and
WHEREAS, on April 3, 1990, the Board held a public
hearing at which time and place and the owners of the
property to be assessed appeared before the Board to be
heard as to the propriety and advisability of making such
Improvements; and
WHEREAS, after such public hearing was held the County
Commission adopted Resolution No. 90-42, which confirmed the
special assessment cost of the project to the property
specially benefited by the project in the amounts listed In
an attachment to that resolution; and
WHEREAS_, the Director of Utility Services has certified
the actual "as -built". cost now .that the project has been
completed are less than in confirming..Resolution No. 90-42,
NOW,. THEREFORE,- BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that:
10. Resolution No. 90-42 is modified as follows: The
completion date for.the referenced project and the last day
that payment may be made avoiding interest and penalty
charges is ninety (90) days after passage of this
resolution.
2. Payments bearing interest at the rate of 12% per
annum -may be made in five annual installments, the first to
SEP 2 5 1990 ROOF 81 4AGL 4461
BOOK "Z
be
� Z
be made twelve (12) months from the due date. The due date
Is ninety (90) days after the passage of this resolution.
3.. The final assessment roll for the project listed in
Resolution No. 90-42 shall as be shown on the attached
Exhibit "A."
4. The•assessments, as shown on the attached Exhibit
"A," shall stand confirmed and .remain legal, valid, and
binding first liens against the property against which such
assessments are made until paid.
5. The assessments shown on attached Exhibit "A" to
Resolution No. 90-42 were recorded by the -County on the
public records of Indian River County, and the lien shall
remain prima facie evidence of its validity.
This resolution was moved for adoption by Commissioner
Scurlock �. and the motion was seconded by Commissioner
Bird and, upon being put to a vote, the vote was
as follows:
Chairman Carolyn K. Eggert Aye
Vice -Chairman Richard N. Bird Aye
Commissioner Don C. Scurlock, Jr. Aye
Commissioner Margaret C. Bowman Aye
Commissioner Gary C. Wheeler Aye
The Chairman thereupon declared the resolution duly
passed and adopted this 25 day of September , 1990.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
INDIAN R VER COUNTY, FLORIDA
By ,
Attest o yn/ K. gert
airman
e y a o
C e q
RESOLUTION 90-146 W/ASSESSMENT ATTACHED IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE
OF CLERK TO THE BOARD.
8
I
G. South U.S.1 Force Main (I.R.Blvd. Phase If - WalMart to WW
Plant) Resolution #4/Final Assessment Roll
The Board reviewed memo from the Utilities Department:
DATE: SEPTEMBER 14, 1990
TO: JAMES E. CHANDLER
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
FROM: TERRANCE G. PINTnT DIRECTOR OF UTILVICES
PREPARED WILLIAM F. McCAIN
AND STAFFED CAPITAL PROJECTS EN ER
BY: DEPARTMENT OF UTIL S
SUBJECT: SOUTH U.S. 1 FORCE N - PHASE II
INDIAN RIVER BOULEVARD (WAL-MART TO VERO BEACH
WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT)
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY PROJECT NO. US -89 -01 -CCS
BACKGROUND
On September 4, 1990, the Indian River County Board of County
Commissioners approved the final payment request to Owl and
Associates for the aforementioned project. We are now proceeding
with the final assessment for -this project and are seeking approval
of Resolution No. 4.
ANALYSIS
y
The preliminary assessment was in the amount of $339,995.58, with a
cost per square foot of $.026344. The final assessment is in the
amount of $228,884.00, at a cost per square foot of $0.017734823.
This equates to about a 32% reduction in the assessment. (See
attached Resolution No. 4 and accompanying assessment.)
RECOMMENDATION
The staff of the Department of Utility Services recommends that the
Board of County Commissioners approve Resolution No. 4 for the final
assessment role on this project.
ON MOTION by. Commissioner Scurlock,.SECONDED by Com-
missioner Bird, the Board unanimously adopted Resolu-
tion 90-147 certifying "as -built" costs for installation
of a sewer force main east of I.R.Boulevard from U.S:01
to V.B. wastewater treatment plant.
9
NOOK 4S
SER 2 5 1990
BOOK �I PAGE 40
RESOLUTION NO. 90- 147-
A RESOLUTION OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY CERTIFYING
"AS -BUILT" COSTS FOR INSTALLATION OF A SEWER
FORCE MAIN ON THE EAST SIDE OF INDIAN RIVER
BOULEVARD FROM U.S. #1 TO THE CITY OF VERO BEACH
WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT, AND OTHER CONSTRUCTION
NECESSITATED BY SUCH PROJECT; PROVIDING FOR FORMAL
COMPLETION DATE, AND .DATE FOR PAYMENT WITHOUT
PENALTY AND INTEREST.
WHEREAS, the Board- of County Commissioners of Indian
River County determined that the Improvements for the
i
property located with boundaries as described In this title;
were necessary to promote the public welfare of the county;
and
WHEREAS, on January 1, 1990, the Board held a public'
hearing at which time and place and the owners of the
property to be assessed appeared before the Board to be
heard as to the propriety and advisability of making such;
Improvements; and
WHEREAS, after such public hearing was held the County
Commission adopted Resolution No. 90-1, which confirmed the
special assessment cost of the project to the property
specially benefited by the project in the amounts listed In
an attachment to that resolution; and
WHEREAS, the Director of Utility Services has certified
the actual "as -built" cost now that the project has been
completed are less than in confirming Resolution No. 90-1,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that:
1. Resolution No. 90-1 is modified as follows: The
completion date for the referenced project and the last day
that. payment may be made avoiding interest and penalty
charges is ninety (90) days after passage of this
resolution.
2. Payments bearing interest at the rate of 12% per
annum may be made in five annual installments, the first to
be made twelve (12) months from the due date. The due date
Is ninety (90) days after the passage of this resolution.
10
s � �
T. The final assessment roll for the project listed in
Resolution No.. 90-1 shall as be shown on the attached
Exhibit "A."
4. The assessments, as shown on the attached. Exhibit
"A," shall stand confirmed and remain legal, valid, and
binding first liens against the property against which such
assessments are made until paid.
5. The assessments shown on attached Exhibit "A" to
Resolution No. 90-1 were recorded by the County on the
public records of Indian River County, and the lien shall
remain prima facie evidence of its validity.
This resolution was moved for adoption by Commissioner
Scurlock and the motion was seconded by Commissioner
Bird and, upon being put to a vote, the vote was
as follows:
Chairman Carolyn K. Eggert Aye
Vice-ChNirman Richard N. Bird Aye
Commissioner Don C. Scurlock, Jr. Aye
Commissioner Margaret C. Bowman Aye
Commissioner Gary C. Wheeler Aye
The Chairman thereupon declared the resolution duly
passed and adopted -this 25 day of -September 1990.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
INDIAN VER COUNTY, FLORIDA
By
Attest T rolyn K.rt
�� -- - hairman
40
Pe y Bart
erk rn
RESOLUTION 90-147 W/ASSESSMENT ROLL ATTACHED IS ON FILE IN THE
OFFICE OF CLERK TO THE BOARD.
1 1 (��NKhvtju
SEP 2 5 1990
_I
W
WIW
BOOK 81 PAE 5;I
H. Bid #90-102 __Furnish & Install Utility Buildings
The Board reviewed memo from CPO Manager Mascola:.
DATE: September 17, 1990
TO BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
THRU: James E. Chandler, County Adminis ator
H.T. "Sonny " Dean, Director
Department of General rvi
FROM: Dominick L. Mascola, CPO Manager
Division of Purchasing
SUBJ: IRC BID #90-102%Furnish &'Install Utility Building
BACKGROUND:
On -request from the Solid Waste Division, the bid To Furnish
& Install Two (2) Utility Buildings was properly advertised and
12 (Twelve) Invitations to Bid were sent out. On August 22, 1990
bids were received. Three (3). vendors submitted proposals for
the commodity.
ANALYSIS:
Staff has reviewed the submittal to ascertain' adherence to.
specifications. Thurmans was the lowest bidder, and met all
requirements.
T; TTVMTMIl .
Monies for this project will come from Capital Budget of the
Landfill Under Other Buildings. The funds available are
_ $10,000.00.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends the Award of a Fixed Contract for $9,840.00 to
the lowest bidder, Thurmans for the subject project.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Bird, the Board unanimously awarded Bid
#90-102 to the low bidder, Thurmans, for 2 Utility
Buildings installed in the amount of $9,840, as
set out in the following Bid Tabulation and approved
a fixed contract to Thurmans for same as recommended
by staff.
12
® � s
Tww.+4 Asn W4=•^.l
Recommended, Award s
BOARD OF COMM COMMISSIONRP_S
18402&hsaed.vao1ch.no;&=W
_w
�4'•� - I— T.�....�..: -a.,o„
zE ;�
�1-0R10.
9,840.00
Date- 8/22/90
PURCHASING DEPT.
BID TABULATION •._.
Submitted By Dom�ick L Mascola
PURCHASING MANAGER
Bid No. 90-102 Date Of Opening 8/22/90
Bid Title Fu dBh h Install Utility Building
1. 1Ynnsmas
$9,840.00
-
2775 North U.S.01
Ft Pierce, F1 34946
2. James A Smalley Utility B•dp $11,956.00
P.O. Bog 989
Wabasso, F1 32970
3. D.W.S. Co Inc
3180 Digin Hwy N.&
•Palm Bap, F1 32905
PUBLIC HEARING - AMEND COMP. PLAN 6 REZONE 156 A. (TY TARBY/MALL)
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:
R�(JK 81 r uC 4�2
13
SEP2 5 1990
VERO BEACH PRESS -JOURNAL
Published Daily
Vero Beach, Indian River County, Florida
COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER: STATE OF FLORIDA
Before the undersigned authority personally appeared J. J. Schumann. Jr. who on oath
says that he is -Business Manager of the Vero Beach Press -Journal. a daily newspaper published
at Vero Beach in Indian River County, Florida; that the attached copy of advertisement, being
in the matter of
In the �!" , Urt, was pub&
lished in said newspaper in the issues of
Affiant further says that the said Vero Beach Press-Joumal is a newspaper published at
Vero Beach, in said Indian River County. Florida, and that the said newspaper has heretofore
been continuously published in said Indian River County, Florida. each daily and has been
entered as second class mail matter at the post office in Vero Beach, in said Indian River Coun-
ty, Florida, for a period of one year next preceding the first publication of the attached copy Of
advertisement; and affiant further says that he has neither paid nor promised any person• firm
or corporation any discount, rebate. commission or refund for the purpose of securing this
advertisement for publication in the Said newspaper.
$worn to and subscribed before me this _ G+, _ _ day o
(Business Manager)
(SEAL) (CMM-O"tree•OtrcvT(`CotHY Indiianflivep'Countyporida)
ROM Public, Stara of Florida •
My Commission Dtpiros June 29, 1977
BOOK E 4 5
SOM - _ 1
am
l m
III Subject Propertya.1il i
Isis f i � 1:
NOTICE — PUBLIC NEARING
Nag" of hearing to consider the 9010/1111011 Of
a County ordinance rezoning land from: R" 1
tiAuhlpie-FamNy Resident! I District. RS4. SO- i
gie-Famuy Raaideritial DUMB and Mt. Agrlalll-
turd Dlalnet to CG. General Commercial
The subject property Is Owrned by TY Ti.
trustee, and Is located on the north 8160 of
eisa The`` niv9cT'oto'3br14�tw..:
tion J, Towmnlp 335. Range 39E "M aid
being in Indian River County.
A public hearing at which parties In interest
and citizens "I have an "W-nW to be
heard. will be hold by the Board Of County Cop►
misstoners of Indian River County. Florida. In it4
County Commission Chambers Of the County
Administietion Building. located at 180 25th
SueeL Vero Beach. Florida an Tuesday. SIP
[ember 28.1990, at M. a.m.
The Board of County CommlwlOnan may
grant a less Intense zoning district than the dr
tnet requested provided It Is within the same
general use category.
Anyone who may wish to appeal any decltlon
which may be made at this meeting will need M
ensure Mat a verbatim record of the Proceed -
Ings Is mads, which IncludM teetimeny and asl-
denee upon which the appeal b basad
Indian River County
Board of County Commissioners
Br-s-Caroyn K EggwL COaUman
SopL 0,199D 712M .
NOTICE OF CHANGE OF LAND USE'.
AND AMENDMENT TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
The Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida,
will consider adopting on ordinance to amend the use of land within the
unincorporated portions of Indian River County. A public hearing on the
proposal will be held on Tuesday, September 25, 1990, at 9205 a.m. in
the County Commission Chambers of the County Administration Building,
located at 1840 25th Street, Vero Beach, Florida. At this public hearing
the Board of County Commissioners will make a final decision to amend
the County's Comprehensive Plan. The proposed amendments are
Included in the proposed ordinance enfltledr '
AN ORDINANCE OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA,
AMENDING THE LAND USE ELEMENT OF THE COMPREHENSIVE
PLAN BY ENLARGING THE S.R. 60/58TH AVENUE COMMERCIAL
NODE FROM 160 ACRES TO 316 ACRES; AND AMENDING THE
TRAFFIC CIRCULATION ELEMENT AND CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT
ELEMENTS; AND PROVIDING CODIFICATION, SEVERABILITY AND
EFFECTIVE DATE.
Also, at this same meeting, the Board of County Commissioner will
consider the approval of a development order (D.O.) for the Indian River
Mall (DeBartolo) Development of Regional Impact (D.R.I.).
Interested parties may appear and be heard at the public hearing
regarding the approval of this proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment.
The plan amendment application may be inspected by the public of the
Community Development Division offices located on the second floor of
the County Administration Building located at 1840 25th Street, Vero
Beach, Fldrida, between the hours of 8:30 a.m. and 500 p.m. on
weekdays.
Anyone who may wish to appeal any decision which may be mode of
this meeting will need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings
Is made, which includes testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is
based.
Indian River County
Board of County Commissioners
Byi-s-Carolyn Eggert, Chairman
14
Community Development Director Keating made the staff
presentation, as follows:
TO: James Chandler
County Administrator
DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE:
o ert M. Keating,
Community Developm Director
THRU: Sasan Rohani r•e
Chief, Long -Range Planning
FROM: Cheryl A. Twor
Staff Planner
DATE: September 17, 199
SUBJECT: TY TARBY REQUEST TO AMEND THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND
REZONE 156 ACRES
It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal
consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at its regular
meeting of September 25, 1990.
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS:
Ty Tarby, Trustee, has submitted a request to amend the Comprehen-
sive Plan and rezone -property. The subject property is located on
the north side of S.R. 60 between 58th and 66th Avenues. The
request includes 156 acres of a 214 acre parcel.
The request entails changing the existing land use from M-1,
Medium -Density Residential (up to 8 units per acre) to General
Commercial Node, and rezoning the property from A-1, Agricultural
District (1 unit/5 acres); RS -6, Single -Family Residential Dis-
trict (6 units/acre.); and RM -6, Multi=Family Residential (6
units/acre) to CG, General Commercial District. This request is
considered an expansion of the State Road 60 and Kings Highway
Commercial Node from 160 acres' to 316 acres.
The purpose of this request is 'to secure the necessary land use
designation and zoning for.a regional -shopping center. The Edward
J. DeBartolo Corp. is proposing to construct a 707,000 square foot
regional mall and 440,000 square feet of peripheral commercial.
space. The entire project has been reviewed as a Development- of
Regional Impact• (DRT) .
Amendments to the comprehensive plan must meet the requirements of
Florida Statutes and the administrative rules of the Department of
Community Affairs and Chapter 800 -of the County Code of Laws and
Ordinances. In addition to meeting these requirements, any
changes to the land use map must be consistent with and related to
the other plan elements. In some cases a land use change will
require concurrent changes to other plan elements.
The process of amending the comprehensive plan includes three•
public hearings:
*Planning and Zoning Commission consideration.and
recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners.
SEP 2 5 1990 5ROOK F,, � 3;
BOOK 81 rgE
E 2`;5 X99
'Board of County Commissioners transmittal public hearing,
authorizing staff to transmit amendment of the comprehensive
plan to the Florida Department of Community Affairs (DCA).
°Board of County Commissioners adoption public hearing on the
request.
On January 11, 1990, the Planning and Zoning Commission, acting as
the Local Planning Agency,- conducted a public• hearing. for the
purpose of making -a recommendation to the Board -of County Commis-
sioners regarding this request. 'At that meeting the Planning and
Zoning Commission voted 6 to 1 to recommend approval of the
request as presented by staff, with one change. Staff had recom-
mended that, since adequate acreage had already been designated
for general commercial uses which were not part. of a regional
mall, the inclusion of 50 acres for peripheral -commercial activity
be balanced by the removal of 50 acres elsewhere in the node.
This was to result in no net gain in commercial acreage other than
80 acres required for *the mall. The Planning and Zoning Commis-
sion deleted this portion of the staff recommendation.
On February 27, 1990, the Board of County Commissioners voted 5-0
to transmit the proposed land use amendment and rezoning requests
to the Florida Department of Community Affairs (DCA). The Depart-
ment of Community Affairs has submitted comments back to the
county to be included with the proposed requests. Much of DCA's
concern focused on two issues: affordable housing and traffic
improvements. These and other DCA comments and a corresponsing
response is attached as a matrix. All comments by DCA have been
addressed in this analysis or are addressed as a part of the DRI.
Existing Land Use Pattern
The subject property contains several land uses. Largely devoted
to citrus, the property includes the largely undeveloped
Whistlewood subdivision, as well as several residences located
along the S.R. 60 frontage. The northeastern part of the parcel
contains a wetlands area. As depicted on the attached map, the
property has three zoning designations. The western 1300 feet and
the area between the Whistlewood and Wallace Acres subdivisions to
a depth of approximately 500 feet from S.R. 60 are zoned A-1. The
remainder is zoned RM -6 except for a portion of the wetland area
which is zoned RS -6.
Property to the north, across 26th Street is planted in citrus and
zoned A-1. Property east of this area is zoned RS -3, and contains
undeveloped land, single family residences and the Pine Netto Park
subdivision.
Adjacent property on the south side of 26th Street is zoned A-1 to
a distance of 1300 feet east of 66th Avenue and planted in citrus.
East of this area, property is zoned RM -6, but is largely undevel-
oped. A small portion along S.R. 60 is zoned A-1. There are also
several residences in this area. East of the subject property to
58th Avenue, property is zoned RS -6. This area contains a church
and the Rivera Estates subdivision. Rivera Estates contains
approximately 72 lots and is substantially built out. The remain-
der of the area to the east of the subject property is undeveloped
and zoned RM -6, and CG, General Commercial. A bank is located at
the corner of 58th Avenue and S.R. 6U. The east side of 58th
Avenue is occupied by the Ryanwood Square Shopping Center. This
108,000 square foot shopping center contains a grocery store, drug
store and smaller specialty service establishments found in
neighborhood or small community type shopping centers. This
center serves the daily needs of residents to the west and south
of Vero Beach and is the largest center not located in the U.S. #1
corridor.
16
Along the south side of S.R. 60, land uses are split between
agriculture and residential uses. The easternmost 40 acres are
zoned CG but have been recently planted in citrus. Immediately
west is a 20 acre grove zoned A-1. West of the grove is Sixty
Oaks; this planned development is zoned RM -6 and contains 60
residences. West of Sixty Oaks is an unplatted residential area
zoned RS -6. The three streets in this area (Charlotte, Flora and
Hedden) contain approximately 54 lots ranging in size from 1/4 to
2 acres. Verona Estates, located west of this area, is also zoned
RS -6. The southern half of this subdivision is devoted to ag-
ricultural uses. Immediately south of these residential areas are
the Vero Beach campus of the Indian River Community College and an
agricultural research center. The remainder of the south side of
S.R. 60 is zoned and used for agriculture.
Along the north side of S.R. 60 and surrounded by the subject
property is a small area with commercial and residential zoning.
Four lots in Wallace Acres subdivision with S.R. 60 frontage are
zoned RM -6; the remaining 8 lots have RS -6 zoning. West of
Wallace Acres is a 2 acre parcel zoned CL, Limited Commercial
District, containing a small appliance store.
West of the subject property, across 66th Avenue is Vista Planta-
tion. The development is zoned RM -4, Multiple -Family Residential
District (4 units/acre) and contains on-site recreation facilities
including a golf course along the project perimeter. A small
neighborhood commercial center is located at the corner of S.R. 60
and 66th Avenue.
The closest commercial/industrial node to the subject parcel is
the S.R. 60/I-95 node, which begins approximately 2 miles west of
the subject parcel at 82nd Avenue. Two small neighborhood
commercial nodes are 4n proximity to the subject parcel at S.R. 60
and 66th Avenue.
Future Land Use Pattern
The Future Land Use Map in the 1990 comprehensive plan designates
property west of 58th Avenue between 16th Street and 26th Street
as M-1, Medium -Density Residential.. The M-1, designation permits
residential densities up to 8 units/acre. This plan also
designates a 160 acre commercial node at S:R. 60 and 58th Avenue.
This node encompasses the 4 corners of the intersection and
extends along the south side of S.R. 60 east to 43rd Avenue. A
few properties along the north side of S.R. 60 near 43rd Avenue
are also included in the node. (see Land Use Map)
Transportation System -
SSR. 60 forms the.southern boundary of the project. This roadway
is classified as a principal arterial- in the Traffic -Circulation
Element of the Comprehensive Plan and is a four lane divided
highway west of 58th Avenue. East of this intersection, S.R. 6D
is a-6 lane divided road. At the present time the level of
service on SR 60 is B. The widening of this road to 6 lanes from
58th Avenue to 82nd Avenue is included in the comprehensive plan
as a recommended improvement by the year 2010.
Sixty-sixth Avenue, which forms the western boundary of the
property, is classified as a minor arterial. This road is pres-
ently a paved two lane road north of S.R. 60. This roadway
becomes Schumann Drive and connects with U.S. #1 in Sebastian.
South of S.R. 60, 66th Avenue is an unpaved road. Additional
right-of-way for the segment between 53rd Street and 12th Street
is identified as needed by 1992.
i
CE
SEP 40 51990 17
[BOOK 81 pgt � d
East of the property, 58th Avenue is classified as a principal
arterial and is a two lane paved roadway from 9th Street S.W.
(Oslo Road) to CR 510, south of Sebastian. The Traffic Circu-
lation Element of. the comprehensive plan recommends this roadway
for widening to 4 lanes from 12th Street to 33rd Street by 2010.
Twenty-sixth Street, along the north of the. property, is
classified as a collector. This -two lane dirt road is not iden-
tified in the plan for improvements; however, the existing
right-of-way is identified -as being deficient. An additional 50
feet of right-of-way is estimated as needed by 1995.
The Traffic Circulation Element includes normal intersection
improvements along with other scheduled improvements;.however, the
plan.does identify intersection improvements -at 58th Avenue and
S.R. 60.
Environment
The subject property does not contain "environmentally important"
uplands (coastal hammock or xeric scrub), as designated by the.
Conservation Element of the Comprehensive Plan. Moreover, the'
property does not fall within a 100 year flood zone.
There are, however, several environmental issues. The northeast
portion of the area proposed for rezoning contains an environ
mentally sensitive wetland system. This area encompasses approxi
mately 26.5 acres of the 156 acre site.
There are also several examples of specimen and endangered vege-
tation on the subject property, including the recognized "champion'
tree" Simpson Stopper cluster, and a cabbage palm hammock which
supports an endangered fern colony. These areas are generally
shown on the accompanying map.
Soils on the subject property are generally of the
Winder -Riviera -Manatee type which are wet, poorly drained soils.
The constraints of building on these soils include the use of fill
to change the soil conditions and raise the elevation above the
water table and the use of engineering and building techniques to
compensate for the wet soils.
Specific identification and protection of isolated and individual
resources have been addressed in the DRI and site plan approval
process.
Infrastructure
Infrastructure includes public utilities such as water, sewer,
drainage and solid waste. The subject property is within the
limits of the existing Urban Service Area. As such, these util-
ities are generally available at the site.
Water to the subject site is provided by a 16" distribution main
with water treatment provided at the South County Reverse Osmosis
plant. This plant's capacity presently exceeds demand.
Sanitary sewer service is provided by the County West Regional
Treatment Plant. Wastewater is carried by a 10" force main. This
treatment plant is presently operating below capacity and is
designed to permit future expansion.
The site is presently drained on-site and off-site by a series of
drainage canals maintained by the Indian River Farms Water Control
District. The district provides drainage for a major portion of
the developed eastern and southern county. The wetland area of
the site could also be incorporated into on-site detention/
18
retention areas. Any proposed development for the site must meet
the requirements of the county, the drainage district, and St.
John's River Water Management District.
Solid waste for the county is disposed_ at the county landfill in
the southern portion of the county. Collection is by private
hauler. The life of the existing landfill, with planned ex-
pansions, exceeds the planning period horizon of 2010.
ALTERNATIVES & ANALYSIS
In this section, an analysis of the reasonableness of the appli-
cation will be presented. The analysis will include a description
of the current and future land uses of the site and surrounding
areas, potential impacts on the transportation and utility sys-
tems, and any significant adverse impacts on environmental quali-
ty. The analysis will also assess the request for consistency
with the policies and objectives of the new comprehensive plan.
The analysis will examine the request and identify the impacts to
the surrounding property, the infrastructure, and the environment
as well as other impacts which could be expected to occur if the
request is granted. In addition, the requested change will be
reviewed in terms of the impact the land use change would have on
the other elements of the comprehensive plan. Since this request
involves a DRI, the analysis must consider the more detailed
information available in the DRI application for Development
Approval (ADA) and the proposed DRI development order (D.O.).
In the past, staff has applied a 3 part test to evaluate the merit
of comprehensive plan amendments. According to this test, an
amendment could be approved if it meets one of the following: 1)
to correct an oversight, 2) to correct a mistake, 3) to
accommodate changes affecting the subject property. This analysis
will evaluate the request based upon these criteria.
1. Development Potential
The starting point for the analysis is the development potential
of the parcel under the current and proposed land use desig-
nations. This development potential will.be used throughout the
analysis to identify' the impacts on the various man-made and
natural systems.
The current M-1, land use designation permits up to eight dwelling
units per acre. Assuming' the density provisions were maximized,
the current development potential of the 156 acre parcel would be
1248 units.
The development potential for commercial property is not as easily
determined; however,. assuming development at the .maximum allowed
in the CG district,- the site would permit a building envelope of
2,718,000 square feet (40%). This maximum lot coverage would be
reduced to ensure that the necessary parking, loading,_ access,
open space and drainage requirements are met. The DRI, as
proposed by the DeBartolo Corporation, includes slightly over 1.1
million square feet of commercial development.
Since the subject parcel is the proposed site for a regional
shopping facility and because of the scope of such a facility, a
DRI review is being conducted along with the land use and rezoning
amendment analysis. The DRI Application for Development Approval
(ADA) and the staff review of the application have addressed the
potential impacts of the.proposed project as well as site specific
issues and required improvements.
SEP 2 5 1990
ROOK F';qE 459
Commercial Land Use Needs
In analyzing the request for the land use change and rezoning,
staff has focused on several key issues. One issue is regional
mall land availability. The Urban Land Institute estimates that
shopping centers require about 10 acres of site for each 100,000
square feet of building area. Since regional malls are usually
750,000 s -quare feet or larger, a regional mall would therefore
require a site of at least 75 acres. Site requirements, of
course, are also influenced by local land development.and site
plan regulations. that determine the required parking, loading,
circulation, open space and drainage areas needed to support this
size shopping facility. Using this standard, the subject parcel
would be adequate for a regional.shopping facility.
According to the Future. Land Use - Element of the Comprehensive
Plan, there are 679 acres designated as commercial in 12 existing
commercial nodes. Of this total, 4.4% (305 acres) is presently
vacant. This does not include commercially designated land in the.
U.S. # 1 Commercial/Industrial Corridor or commercial/ Industrial
nodes. Overall, approximately 50% of the 5363 acres in all
commercial and industrial nodes is presently zoned commercial. It
must be pointed out that this supply is designated for a 20 year
period.
General commercial land is also available in the SR 60/Kings
Highway node. The subject node contains 160 acres and is zoned CL
and CG. Land uses within the node are as follows: Vacant land -
58 acres; Agriculture - 40 acres; Residential - 37 acres; and
Commercial - 25 acres.
The 40 acres devoted to citrus are unlikely to be developed
commercially in the near future, since much of it has been recent-
ly planted. In addition, the residential areas are largely
grouped and buffered from existing commercial uses, raising
questions concerning the likelihood of their conversion to commer-
cial uses in the near future. Furthermore, while no formal
proposal has been submitted, staff has been approached concerning
the option for residential development on the south side of S.R.
60, between 58th and 43rd Avenues. Thus, while this node has a
relatively large amount of land capable of development, all of the
land in the node is not likely to be developed commercially.
Further review of commercially designated lands reveals that,
other than the large commercial/industrial nodes located along the
interstate, only one node contains an adequate supply of vacant
land (over 75 acres) which is also in a configuration suitable for
a regional mall facility. Therefore, accommodating a mall in the
urbanized area of the- county would require redesignating property
to a commercial classification. Policy 1.20 of the Future Land
Use Element of the County's comprehensive plan requires that nodes
be designated at a size determined by their use, service area
population, existing land use pattern, availability of
infrastructure, and other demand characteristics. Based upon the
land use pattern of the area, the node's centralized location, and
its close proximity to the population center, expanding this node
boundary would provide for an efficient land use pattern and for
the maximum use of transportation and public facilities, while at
the same time decreasing sprawl or strip development, which would
occur in other nodes if their areas were increased to accommodate
the acreage necessary for the subject request. These character-
istics show that expansion of the node would be consistent with
Policy 1.21 of the Future Land Use Element of the Comprehensive
Plan.
Two other future land use element policies must be considered in
this analysis. These are policies 1.22 and 1.23. While the first
prohibits node expansion closer than 1 1/2 miles to an existing
20
® M
node, the other prohibits expansion
developed unless otherwise warranted.
the expansion would keep the node more
closest existing node. Policy 1.23 is
area to accommodate a regional mall in
expansion otherwise warranted.
of a node less than 70%
Policy 1.22 is met because
than 1 1/2 miles from the
also met since the lack of
existing nodes makes this
Overall, the amount of land designated for commercial use in
relation to projected commercial land use needs is a major issue
in the state at this time. For example, the Department of Commu-
nity Affairs has taken a hard look at land use plans submitted by
local governments. One of the major concerns and objections
raised by the DCA has been the designation of land in excess of
that which is needed to accommodate projected need. To that end,
DCA has determined that land acreage should generally total no
more than 125% of the projected need over the planning timeframe.
The county plan identifies a commercial need of 3180 acres and an
industrial need of 1478 acres by the year 2010. This total
represents a need of 4658 acres for the entire county. The
application of the 125% rule results in total designation of 5823
acres. The county plan identifies 5363 acres in the unincor-
porated county. The five municipalities have identified another
1924 acres within these corporate limits. This results in a total
of 7287 acres or 156% of projected need by 2010. While in excess
of DCA's ideal 125% factor, this amount indicates that there is
not gross over allocation of commercial acreage in the county.
The proposed site was originally included as part of the county's
comprehensive plan, since the subject property has been under
consideration as a regional mall site for some time. On the
direction of the Board of County Commissioners, the site was
removed from the plan so that the land use for suci"i -an important
project could be reviewed in greater detail and to provide for
additional public input. Based on the previous board action, this
request for amendment is deemed worthy of review.
As adopted, the comprehensive plan already includes an area for a
regional mall; that mall site is along U.S. #1 at 53rd Street. It
is generally accepted that, despite the rapid population growth in
the county, the population base is only sufficient to support one
such facility. Despite the fact that one mall has already
received initial approval and that only one mall .can survive in
the county, several- reasons exist for the consideration of this
request. First, there are no guarantees that the Harbortown
Center will be built. Prior to construction certain public
infrastructure improvements must be completed or contracted,
leases must be obtained, and financing secured. 'Therefore, the
advantage enjoyed by the Harbortown Center is the land use,
zoning, and DRI approval. Second, the prospect of competing mall
sites reduces the chance of speculation by!holding commercially
dlesignated land -and increases the_ chance of a mail being
constructed in the near future.
The staff recognized during the land use plan amendment review
process for the Harbortown Mall that there is probably no one best
site for such a facility and provided opportunities for competing
proposals to be reviewed. As with the Harbortown Center, staff
feels that the subject property should not be used for. general
commercial development which does not have the size requirements
of a mall. Because this request is part of a DRI, the county has
certain control which is not available in a normal rezoning or
plan amendment. That control involves conditioning the DRI
development order. In this case since the county does not want
the subject property available for general commercial use (for
which there is sufficient land currently available), the staff
feels that the development order should provide sufficient time
2
P 2 5 19
SEP 2 5 1990
BOOK 81 FREES
for the county to redesignate and rezone the property if a mall is,
not constructed. Both DRI requests have such conditions. As a
result the development orders remove the incentive for either[
developer to realize an economic gain by obtaining a commercial'
land use designation and then selling the property for general
commercial use.
2.- Project Needs
The second issue involves the overall land needs for the project
as they relate to the existing. land use classifications. As!
identified in the DRI, the proposed mall will occupy 73.8 acres;'
peripheral commercial development will occupy 51.2 acres, and;
wetland and stormwater detention lakes will. occupy 26.5 acres.:
Staff has concerns with the need for 77.7 acres for non -regionals
mall activities. Since.commercial designation and zoning are note
required for the wetland and stormwater area, that 26.5 acres;
could be removed from the request without. jeopardizing the!
project. This - would also guarantee a buffer between the!
commercial and residential areas, provide greater assurance that
the wetland would be preserved and provide a natural limit for;
future commercial expansion. The peripheral commercial
development request, however, has various implications for the,
overall land use pattern of the area which must be addressed.
It is customary for regional malls to attract commercial uses -
which complement the facility but are not required as part of the'
larger facility. These may include but are got limited to auto
repair centers, multi -screen cinemas, restaurants, gas stations,
lodging facilities and office space. Since these are more or less
accessory to the main facility and not required, staff is
concerned with the request and justification for 51.2 acres for
such uses. The future land use needs analysis of the
comprehensive plan indicates that the supply of commercial land
exceeds the projected need over the planning period. Therefore,
justification is needed for the additional commercial designation.
A brief review of the project master plan indicates that the mall'
is to be located along the western edge of the property and set
back approximately 500 feet from SR 60. This configuration
results in approximately 18 acres of proposed peripheral commer-
cial located west of the easternmost mall entrance and the remain-
ing 33 acres located east of the mall site, including approxi-
mately 3 acres north of the wetland area and thus physically
separated from the main area of the site. Despite the relatively
large amount of land designated for peripheral commercial uses
(51.2 acres), these uses are tied to the regional mall in a manner
that would make their development unlikely in the absence of the.
mall. In addition, one of the advantages of the DRI process is
that the Development Order addresses the timing of the various
facilities and requires phasing to ensure that the peripheral
commercial is not developed in the absence of the mall.
3. Relationship with Existing Development
The third issue is the relationship of the proposed mall with the
existing development pattern of the county. Large facilities such
as the one proposed must be located in proximity to the population
they serve. As the county continues to grow, development has no
choice but to move west. This pattern is evidenced by the growth
that has occurred along the SR 60 corridor, including several of
the largest residential developments in the county. The site is
also in close proximity to Vero Beach and the southern area of the
county which contains the highest portion of the county
population. The area is also directly linked to the Sebastian
area by 58th and 66th Avenues. This location in close proximity
to the county population center could result in shorter trip
lengths for vehicle trips.
® M
M M
4. Impact on Surrounding Land Uses
The fourth issue is the impact on area land use patterns. It is
likely that a facility such as proposed would act as a catalyst
for additional development in the vicinity. With the county's
nodal approach, however, future commercial development would have
to occur only in established nodes.
There are also issues of compatibility which need to be,addressed.
The first of these is the direct impact on residential areas
adjacent to the project, including Wallace Acres and Rivera
Estates. At a minimum, these areas will be protected by buffers
required between commercial and residential districts. This can
be augmented by site designs which maximize the use of landscaped
green areas to ensure that these areas are not only screened
visually but also buffered from lighting, traffic noise and fumes.
Entrances, perimeter landscaping and external traffic improvements
will need to be designed to not only provide for efficient and
safe circulation but to lessen the impact on existing development
along the external perimeter of the area. These issues are
addressed more closely in the DRI development order.
Relationship to Comprehensive Plan
A land use change of the magnitude of that proposed is likely to
change the condition and needs of other services and facilities
that have been addressed in the comprehensive plan. These changes
to other plan elements are influenced by the timing of the
development associated with the proposed land use change as much
as with the change itself. In this case, the improvements
associated with this land use change will be required by 1995. An
analysis of the effect of the change on other plan elements
follows.
° Population Projections
The proposed land use change will not greatly impact the overall
population projections of the county or county sub -areas. Because
of the magnitude of the proposed* project and the number of jobs
created, the timing of residential population growth may be sped
up.
° Housing
Unemployment is moderately high in Indian River County. As of
July 1990, the unemployment rate was 11.3% for the.. County. The
proposed request will provide approximately 2,329 new jobs for the
area. It can be expected that the proposed project will provide
jobs -for some of those presently unemployed as well as providing
opportunities for secondary wage earners currently unable to find
jobs. Both factors- may favorably affect the affordable housing
problems by increasing household income.
Housing Element Objective 1 of the comprehensive plan states that
the county shall provide means to reduce the cost of housing
development and construction such that affordable housing is
available to 60% of the very low, low and moderate income groups
by 1990. The result of the proposed request will be an increase
in job opportunities for income groups of the very low to moderate
range. This is consistent with Objective_ 1 of the comprehensive
plan. Recognizing that the proposed project will create the need
for some additional affordable housing, the DRI development order
requires the applicant to assess housing needs created by the
proposed project and develop a.plan to address these needs.
SEP23 51990 23 BOOK 81Ala 4 1521,
° Traffic Circulation
BOOK 81 WAGE 46"
The greatest impact on the county as a result of the proposed
Indian River Mall is likely to be on the road network. The total
number "of trips generated by the project is likely to exceed
35,000 trips per day. In order to, assess the impact on the
system, an analysis, was done to identify the expected traffic
distribution and determine the improvements that would be required
to maintain county level of service standards. Detailed
information regarding the. project's impact on the traffic
circulation system, including project volumes by roadway segment,
service level analysis by segment, and intersection analysis-, are
found in the DRI ADA.
A staff analysis was done to verify applicant's traffic
information and conclusions. The analysis was done .by using the
Florida Standard Urban Transportation Model Structure (FSUTMS)
computer program which was also .used in the county's Traffic
Circulation Element. This model simulated the effects of the
proposed mall on the county's future roadway network for the years
1995 and 2010. The model was first updated to reflect the
existence of the project in the base population and employment
data.
When the model is "run", automobile trips are assigned to road
segments based on the attractors and generators. A comparison of
the traffic volumes to roadway capacities is used to identify the
projected level of service on any road segment. It is then
possible to identify the specific improvements that would be
required. This review shows substantial traffic generated as a
result of this project. Where projected volumes are shown to
exceed a roadway's capacity at the adopted level of service,
necessary improvements are identified. The improvements that are
required as a result of this project are shown on the following
tables. Several of these improvements have already been
identified in the comprehensive plan; however, the timing of these
projects changes considerably with the proposed project. These
changes will prevent the degredation of service levels below
acceptable minimum standards.
The improvements reflected in the tables below are proposed as
amendments to the traffic circulation element. Tables 4.7.2 and
4.7.3 of the Traffic Circulation Element will be amended to
incorporate the referenced improvements. These tables also
identify the projected roadway network classification, volume, and
level of service for 1995 and 2010.
W'..' a CODM W Ogg) 5Z10, 4
Roadway
Existing Condition
Comp Plan
Project
to Proposed Condition
Timing
Require
S.R. 60:66th Ave -58th Ave
Fran 4 lane div. to 6 lane div.
by 2010
1993
58th Av:26th St. -12th St.
Fran 2 lane South to 4 lane div.
2010
1993
of SR 60 and North
of Ryanwood Drive-
way
I
43rd Ave: SR 60 to 12th St.
Fran 2 lane to 5 lane or 4 lane
2010
1993
div.
26th St:66th Ave -58th Ave
Fran unpaved 2 lane to 2 lane
19951
1993
paved
16th St.: Old Dixie to US1
Fran 3 thru lanes to 4 thru lanes
2010
1993
with turn lanes with turn lanes
if needed, may
monitor
1 the Traffic Circulation Element identifies the need to acquire an additional fifty (50)
feet of right-of-way by 1995; no other improvements are identified.
24
M M
INTERSECTION PROPOSED ADDITION
SR 60/58th Avenue ° northbound 58th Ave:additional left
turn lane
° eastbound SR 60:add right turn lane
1993
1993
SR 60/43rd Avenue
°
northbound 43rd Ave:additional left
1993
turn lane
°
eastbound SR 60:add right turn lane
1993
SR 60/20th Avenue
°
no design changes
required
SR 60/66th Avenue
°
westbound SR 60:
add right turn lane
1993
SR 60/Access B*
°
southbound Access
B: 1 right turn lane
1993
2 left turn lanes
1993
°
eastbound SR 60:
3 through lanes
1993
1 left turn lane
1993
°
westbound SR 60:
3 through lanes
1993
1 right turn lane
1993
SR 60/Access C*
°
northbound access
C: 1 left/through/right
1993
turn lane
°
southbound access
C: 2 left turn lanes
1993
°
eastbound SR 60:
1 left turn lane
1993
2 through lanes
1993
1 through/right turn lane
1993
°
westbound SR 60:
3 through lanes
1993
1 right turn lane
1993
1 left turn lane
1993
* Project driveways having a signalized intersection with SR 60: all improvements are new.
In addition to the above referenced improvements, the following
intersections will be monitored to see if and when signalization
is warranted:
a. 26th Street/northern mall access driveway
b. 26th Street/58th Avenue (monitored until December 31, 1995
for developer's responsibility)
C. 26th Street/66th Avenue (monitored -until December 31, 1995
for developer's responsibility)
These improvements are based on project information provided by
:the applicant through the proposed DRI ADA and development order
(DO). Throughout the DRI review process, the staff has reviewed
;the applicant's information and has determined that the
!improvements proposed will serve to maintain roadway level of
;service standards.
Infrastructure
,The Infrastructure element of the comprehensive plan addresses
potable water, sanitary sewer, solid waste, and drainage. All of*.
these services are currently available to serve the subject site..
!With respect to -both water and sewer, it can be expected that
demand will be reduced by the proposed change, compared to what it
would be if the site were developed as currently designated in the
comprehensive plan.
.Water demand for 1248 residential units X 250 gallons per day
'equals daily demand of 312,000 gallons. The proposed facility of
1.1 million square feet equals 221 equivalent residential units
with a demand of approximately 50,000 daily gallons. The south
!county R.O. Plant is currently operating at a capacity of 1.6 MGD.
;This capacity will be increased to 5.3 MGD by 1991.
,Demand for Sanitary Sewer services is computed at 250 GPD per
!equivalent residential unit. This results in the same demand as
;potable water. The West County Regional Wastewater Treatment
;Plant is presently treating 300,000 gpd. The plant is designed
'for a capacity of 1.0 MGD.
25
EP25 1990
boor F',,;t4611
BOOK 81 FACE 46
As identified in the comprehensive plan, the solid waste;
generation rate for residential units is 1.6 waste generation'
units. For 124.8 dwellings the demand would be 1,996 Waste'
Generation Units. Commercial waste generation rates are l;
unit/100 square feet, resulting in 11,000 WGUs for the 1.1 million;
square foot facility. The landfill has the capacity to
accommodate these wastes without -comprehensive plan changes.
Offsite drainage for the -site is provided by the Indian River
Farms Drainage District. However, the maximum discharge rate;
adopted by the Indian; River Farms drainage District is 2" in 24
hours; therefore, the remaining rainfall must be retained onsite
before release into the canals. The project's design for 19.51
acres of onsite retention canals and wetlands will be capable of,
accommodating the remaining rainfall.
Based on these reviews, no changes are needed to the,'
Infrastructure Element.
° Recreation
The Recreation Element computes demand for facilities on a
population based formula. Since the proposed change is not
increasing residential units, there is no increase in demand or
required changes to this element.
° Mass Transit
Mass Transit is presently not available
Paratransit is available for those
disadvantages. Large scale uses such a
mall will serve as attractions which will
feasible in the future.
° Capital Improvements
in Indian River County.
with transportation
s the proposed regional
make mass transit more
As indicated in the traffic circulation section of this analysis,
several roadway and intersection improvements have been identified
as required improvements based on the proposed land use change and
project. Because of the concurrency requirements of the
comprehensive plan, these improvements must be provided concurrent
with the development of the project. If the proposed facility is
not developed, the roadway improvements would revert to their
original timing by the year 2010.
As identified in the Capital Improvements Element, traffic
circulation improvements are funded from a variety of sources.
These include traffic impact fees, gas taxes, 1� local option
sales taxes, and others. The expenditures related to these
sources are programmed for various years. Where a development
project requires that some of these expenditures occur sooner than
programmed to address a potential service level deficiency, the
board must approve this timing change. In some instances the
project developer may be required to pay for certain improvements
whose timing is not consistent with his project needs. As with
all development projects, the applicant must provide all
improvements which are project -related.
Traffic Circulation Policy 1.2 of the comprehensive plan requires
all roadway projects to be evaluated and ranked in order of
priority according to set guidelines. Consistent with policy 1.2,
the proposed improvements were evaluated based upon the
established criteria. As a result of this evaluation, the
proposed improvements qualify for an advancement in the capital
improvements program priority listing. Because all of the
improvements will be funded by the developer with only a partial
impact fee credit and because no proposed projects would be
26
� � r
L.�
displaced which serve to preserve health and safety or correct
existing deficiencies, the proposed improvements meet all the
criteria for top priority.
The following tables specifically identify necessary capital
improvements required by the project.
ROADWAY IMPROVEMENT
COSTS
Roadway/Segment Improvement Length Total
Cost Year
($000) Req
S.R. 60
58th
to
66th Ave.
2
Ln
1.0
mi.
2000
1991
58th
12th
St.
to 16th St.
2
Ln
0.5
mi.
700
1991
58th
16th
to
12th St.
2
Ln
0.5
mi.
700
1993
58th
SR 60
to
33rd St.
2
Ln
0.5
mi.
700
1995
43rd
12th
St.
to 26th St.
2
Ln
1.5
mi.
1500
1995
26th
58th
to
66th Ave.
2
Ln
1.0
mi.
700
1991
Total
6300
INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS
Intersection
Improvement C.P. Timing
Project
Cost $
SR 60/58th Ave
NB dual left ---
EB through/right
WB through/right
U.S. 1/17th St.
WB dual left ---
50,000
EB right
25,000
S.R. 60/66th Ave
Signalization ---
SR 60/58th Ave
EB right ---
SR 60/20th Ave
SB right ---
SR 60/43rd Ave
NB dual left
58th/16th St.
Signalization
100,000
175,000
*Intersection improvements included in roadway improvement costs.
The capital costs for required roadway and intersection.
improvements total an estimated $6.475 million by the year 1995.
To reflect this added cost,.the Capital Improvements budget must
be amended to_identify the funding sources for the $x:475 million
in -traffic related improvements. Since the county has adopted. a -
traffic impact. fee; most..roadway and transportation related
improvements are funded from that source. Other traffic related
improvements are funded through gasoline tax revenues. In this
case, however, the improvements will- be entirely funded by
developer contribution, with only a partial impact fee credit.
The table below identifies that Capital Improvements funding.
Source Amount (Mill)
Development TIF $2.0
Developer Contribution 4.475
Total $6.475
SEP 25 1990 27 � oK � . F'aa
_I
BOOK 81 pm,JE467
The costs associated with roadway improvements will also.be offset
by indreases in revenue as a result of this project. At the
present time many local residents travel outside the county to
purchase goods and services. The development of the mall should
generate additional sales tax revenue. As an attraction, the
project is likely to spin off other development which will add
revenue through traffic impact fees, sales, and property taxes.
The development is also likely to produce some changes to the
existing north/south traffic pattern. As such., improvements in
other areas may .no longer be needed ''or may be delayed. The
attached Table 13.23 from the Capital Improvements Element titled
"Indian River County 5 year Schedule of Improvements, Fiscal Years
1990-91 to =1994-95", and Table 1.3.18 Indian River County Summary
of Revenues and Expenditures Projections by Element Category for
Capital Improvements Fiscal Years 1990-91 through 1994-95",
contains the revisions required by this request.
Conservation
Policies of the Conservation Element of the .Comprehensive Plan
call for measures such as the preservation of a minimum of 15% of
each native plant community which occurs on-site, which
particularly applies to the cabbage palm hammock area of the
property. Additionally, the wetland area on the site is also
subject to specific preservation/mitigation criteria.
Conservation policies will be implemented through the DRI
development order and site plan approval process consistent with
Objective 5 and Policies 5.1(e) and 7.2 of the Conservation
Element of the comprehensive plan. No changes to the
Conservation Element will be necessitated by the plan amendment.
Land Use Options
The land use plan amendment options include: (1) enlarging the
node to 316 acres by including the 156 acre area as proposed; (2)
adding the proposed 156 acres but removing other property from the
node; or (3) adding only a portion of the proposed area. The
first option has the advantage of permitting a large unified
development, but the disadvantage of adding to the oversupply of
commercial land. The second option would provide the same
benefits as the first without appreciably adding to the oversupply
of commercial land. Among the areas which could be considered for
elimination from the node are the 40 acres at the southwest corner
of SR 60 and 58th Avenue, currently planted in citrus or the
triangular area between the south side of SR 60 and the main
canal. The major land uses in this area are residential,
agricultural and vacant land. The difficult aspect of this option
is the downgrading of property which has "enjoyed" a commercial
land use designation and zoning. The last of the three options
would provide the additional commercial acreage required for the
mall and allow the development of property which is already
designated commercial. This option would also have the advantage
of providing multiple uses in the area and at the same time
breaking -up the linear pattern of the node.
CONCLUSION
It has been demonstrated that regional malls are special land uses
which have minimum size requirements and highly developed
infrastructure needs. While it has been clearly shown that there
presently exists an oversupply of commercially designated land in
the county, it has been demonstrated that inadequate sites exist
for a regional mall. Because of these factors, staff acknowledges
the need to redesignate land to accommodate a regional mall. The
subject site meets the criteria for designation of such a mall
site. The location is within an urban service area and is
capable of being served by three major roadways which with
28
- M
improvements will serve the transportation needs of the facility.
The location is also in close proximity to the population centers
of the county. There are several environmental constraints;
however, their. location and magnitude are such that they can
enhance the open space amenities and stormwater needs of the
facility as well as provide buffers for surrounding development.
Based on this analysis, staff proposes that the request be reduced
to 130 acres by removing the 26 acre wetland and upland habitat
area at the northeast corner of the property.
RECOMMENDATION
Based on the analysis, including the Planning and Zoning
Commission's recommendation, and the comments made by the Treasure
Coast Regional Planning Council and the State Department of
Community Affairs (DCA), staff recommends that the Board of County
Commissioners:"
1. amend the Comprehensive Plan to:
a. enlarge the SR60/Rings Highway Node to 290 acres by
including the 130 acre site in the node; and
b. amend the Traffic Circulation and Capital
Improvement Elements to reflect improvements
required by the Indian River Mall project.
2. incorporate within the Indian River Mall Development
Order provisions which prohibit the development of
peripheral commercial development prior to the regional
mall facility development and- provisions which permit
the county sufficient time to change the property's land
use plan designation if the mall is not constructed.
Commissioner Scurlock asked Director Keating if we would be
a
considering a rezoning of this size and magnitude if it were not
a regional mall, and Director Keating stated that we would not.
Commissioner Scurlock further believed the magnitude of this
project constitutes a very significant impact on our infrastruc-
ture and one that would necessitate many modifications to the
;Transportation, Utilities, and other elements of our Comprehen-
jsive Plan. This was also confirmed by Director Keating.
Commissioner Scurlock wished to be sure that this was very
clear on the record.because he has been very firm all along, and -
he believes the Commission has also, on this issue. `We have a
concept and while we have identified a couple of areas in the
county that may accommodate a regional mall, he is very cautious,
as one Commissioner, about going out and rezoning a couple
hundred acres and ending up with another Ryanwood and Vero Mall.
Even though we know of this developer, he wanted to be sure that
legally we have an ability to track this project so that he
i
'
SER25 29
X9 0
� - I
BOOK fry�E 13
i
doesn't take a hike on us and we end up with a hodgepodge of
commercial. Commissioner Scurlock, therefore, wished it clear on
the record that we would not be considering a rezoning of this
magnitude on this property unless it were for a regional mall.
Chairman Eggert believed this was the same as when we di -d
Shopco, and that is why i.n their Development Order, there is a
statement that if the project we.re not done in a certain period
of time, that we would rezone it back to its -original zoning.
Commissioner Scurlock asked the County Attorney if we were
to approve this rezoning and subsequently approve the Development
i
Order and if the developer spent a significant amount of the 8.5!
million proposed, got halfway through his concept and decided it
wasn't feasible, would he be vested in any way to continue on
with a commercial concept not associated with the mall?
Attorney Vitunac stated no, he would not. He would lose his
DRI, and he would have to come back and start all over. As to
the commercial status of the property, we have already signed off
on the D.O. restriction that says that if that DRI does not
occur, the County has 9 months to rezone it, and during that
time, he cannot do any other commercial use of the property. We
are comfortable with that, and that is the whole idea of a DRI.
It gives County Commissioners additional means to protect the
public because the project is of such an immense size that if it
goes wrong, it would ruin the County for generations to come.
Commissioner Scurlock again stressed that he just wants to
establish this for the record and asked the Attorney if he felt
very comfortable that if the developer has made 4 million of the
8 million dollars of improvements and he wants to change his
concept, we can take this back and rezone it, and Attorney
Vitunac stated yes.
Commissioner Scurlock asked if we would have to let the
developer complete that phase, and Attorney Vitunac explained
that the first phase is the mall and unless the developer comes
back in to get a phased project, the Board is in control.
30
- M
Director Keating continued his presentation and noted that
in their analysis, staff looked at the overall land needs. This
project was not considered in the Comprehensive Plan but was
structured to be considered separately. Research showed that
malls generally require about 10 acres for every 100,000 sq. ft.
of mall area; so, there is a need for about 75 acres there. Also
since it is customary to have peripheral development around a
mall, the additional amount of 51 acres that was proposed for
peripheral development was considered a valid request. Director
Keating continued that staff looked at all the commercial nodes
in existence in the County and found there were not adequate
sites to accommodate a regional mall. There is another mall site _.
that has the right zoning and has DRI approval in the county, but
staff's position is that there is no guaranty that mall will be
built. Staff realized there probably is no one best site in the
county for a regional mall; so, there is no reason not to
consider two. The county very probably can't support two mall
facilities, but staff did not feel it was appropriate to prohibit
s
another potential mall site from being designated as long as
adequate safeguards are put in place to keep the land from being
used for other commercial purposes than a regional mall.
Commissioner Scurlock asked about the county's inventory of
existing vacant commercial property, and Director Keating advised
that in the 12 existing commercial nodes, and this doesn't
include the large comnerci*al/i-ndustrial-nodes along the inter-
state, there' -are 679 acres designated as commercial and of that
305 acres presently are vacant and some that are not vacant are -
in non-conforming'uses. Overall countywide, it was determined
that while there is plenty of commerci.ally designated land to'
accommodate the needs for the next 20 years, it is not available
in large enough parcels to accommodate a regional mall.
Commissioner Scurlock noted that, therefore, the question is
not whether or not there is sufficient space to accommodate
retail commercial, but whether or not you want a mall site.
�I
SEP Z 31
SEP 2 5
1990
Boa
47.1
Commissioner Bird
felt as you visit these malls,
you
will
find that most of the stores in them there are drawn there
because of the mall concept and probably would not come here
otherwise.
Chairman Eggert commented that she gathers that by enlarging
the node, you are automatically rezoning because in staff's memo,
they do not mention rezoning to general commercial.
Director Keating felt that.is a good point, anal agreed that
should be in the memo.
Chairman Eggert believed the memo talks about an expansion
of the node to 316 acres and the recommendation says to enlarge
to 290.
Director Keating explained that the request is for enlarging
to 3.16 acres, but in looking at it, staff has recommended that be
reduced to 290 acres and he believed the applicant is now in
agreement with this. We would rather not have the wetlands and
stormwater facilities have a commercial designation, and that
takes out the 26 acres of wetlands and reduces the acreage to be
rezoned from 156 acres to 130.
Commissioner Scurlock had a question that he believed is
relative to the second issue before us today and that is what
hook we have to rezone the property if the applicant doesn't move
forward in nine months. He felt there is a lack of specific
language in terms of identifying any halt in construction, and
noted that we have had a case on the Barrier Island where a
developer has led us on for about 8 years by just setting another
block or moving a wheelbarrow, etc. He, therefore, wants to be
sure that we have language that says if the developer does not
commence construction and move forward in an orderly fashion to
completion, we can rezone the property back.
Attorney Vitunac assured him that we do have that language.
Commissioner Scurlock continued to stress that he wanted to
be sure we have all this before he approves any rezoning, and
32
® M M
IA
Director Keating noted that when you get to the Development
Order, the Board can put in any wording that is appropriate.
Commissioner Wheeler asked if there has been any considera-
tion of any other commercial property not keeping its commercial
status because of the increased size of this project.
Director Keating confirmed that one alternative was to
approve the mall facility itself and 50 acres of peripheral and
look and see if 50 acres somewhere else in the node could be
'reduced so that in essence it would be a no net gain, but P&Z did
not feel comfortable with that.
Commissioner Wheeler believed the intent in the beginning
was to get away from strip zoning. A thing he hates to see with
any mall development is a hodgepodge of strip development follow -
Ing it, and he wondered if there is a way around that.
Director Keating advised that again, the P&Z did not opt for
that. He emphasized that staff evaluate this project in light of
the various Land Use policies in the Comprehensive Plan and found
this mall relates well to the existing development and growth
pattern in the county. He further noted that the Housing Element
is a major issue with the DCA throughout the state. Mall facil-
ities generally employ quite a few people with lower salaries and
may generate the need for more affordable housing. We have
addressed this from a couple of different standpoints. In the
county we have had a higher than average unemployment rate, and
the mall may help that. Another factor is that again there is
the relationship between the proposed amendment and the D.O. for
the mall which includes the condition that'the applicant has to
analyze the affordable housing issue and develop some plan to
resolve that issue.
Director Keating continued to review the various issues
involved, noting that traffic circulation is probably the most
difficult and complex issue involved. The applicant has done an
analysis which the DCA has reviewed, and this can be considered
in the Development Order.
33
Roor 7�
I
L
i
RooK 81 F,, HL 73
Commissioner Scurlock asked if they have reserved capacity
for the project, and Director Keating advised that we just got
the response that water and sewer and landfill capacity are
available. Through the DRI process, the major considerations are
infrastructure. Any time there.is a Development Order (D.O.)
issued, they actually have to have a concurrency determination.
Commissioner Scurlock stressed that if they haven't reserved
capacity, it would be a conditional concurrency, and if we have
to -expand the system, we must have a developer's agreement with
them prior to approving this.
Utilities -Director Pinto informed the Board that in the mall
portion his department reviewed, as far as the structure they are
going to build, they have 424 wastewater units reserved and 274
water units reserved. It was their estimation that was adequate.
Commissioner Scurlock asked if that takes care of the
peripheral areas, and Director Pinto advised that it does not,
and we may need a Developer's Agreement regarding that area, but
he further noted that when the applicant put all this land
together, some of the land they purchased already had sewer and
water obligated to it from the Route 60 assessments.
Commissioner Scurlock had another question in regard to
concurrency as to whether they exceeded transportation levels at
43rd Avenue and do we have a Developer's Agreement for any
improvements needed there.
Director Keating explained that the D.O. actually will
constitute the Developer's Agreement; it identifies what the
developer has to do and in what time frame. The DRI Develop-
ment Order- commits the applicant to fund the needed improvements.
Discussion continued at length about the "hooks" we have to
guaranty the applicant pays for the improvements to remedy any
impacts they may cause. The question of conditional zoning came
up, and Attorney Vitunac pointed out that the whole idea of a DRI
is conditional zoning under the statutory method, which is
authorized - a DRI is a conditional zoning.
34
- M
Commissioner Bowman brought up the 26 acre wetland area that
is not to be rezoned. She noted that this area is only a wetland
area because of an illegal flowing well. She believed the state
will require it be plugged, and stressed that we want to be sure
we have sufficient surface run-off to preserve that wetland when
the well is shut off.
Director Keating advised that Condition #9 in the Develop-
ment Order relates to wetlands and addresses this problem. He
did not know if it requires plugging of the well or just valving.
Director Keating then went over the staff recommendation
which is as follows:
RECOMMENDATION
Based on the analysis, including the Planning and Zoning
Commission's recommendation, and the comments made by the Treasure
Coast Regional Planning Council .and the State Department of
Community Affairs (DCA), staff recommends that the Board of County
Commissioners:
1. amend the Comprehensive Plan to:
a. enlarge the SR60/Rings Highway Node to 290 acres by
including the 130 acre site in the node; and
b. amend- the Traffic Circulation and Capital
Improvement Elements to reflect improvements
required by the Indian River Mall project.
2. incorporate within the Indian River Mall Development
Order provisions which prohibit the development of
peripheral commercial development prior to the regional
mall facility development and provisions which permit
the county sufficient time to change the property's land
use plan designation if the mall is.not constructed.
Director Keating explained -that one -of the reasons staff did
not give the. -Board a proposed ordinance actually amending the
Land Use Pian and changing the zoning is that they have been
working with the applicant in the last.few days to get a survey
of the wetlands area, and they now have a 2 page legal descrip-
tion that does that. What they would recommend is that the Board
vote to amend the Comprehensive Plan to include the 130 acres and
exempt the wetlands and approve the ordinance which they have
drafted but the Board does not yet have, which says that and has
the proper legal description excluding the wetlands area. They
P 2- 35
799
BOOK 81 PA.,E 4 '5.
would recommend the Board actually approve the redesignation to
General Commercial node, the rezoning to CG, and approve the
amendments to the Traffic Circulatign Element and the Capital
Improvements Element indicated earlier, and they also recommend
that the Board incorporate with the DRI D.O. the language we
talked about before which would allow a 9 month period where if
,the mall didn't go forward or is terminated for any reason, the.
County would have the opportunity to redesignate and* rezone the
property.back to residential.
Commissioner Bird asked if that recommendation was consist-
ent with the written recommendation in the Agenda material, and
Director Keating clarified that the recommendation in staff's
memo does not reference the rezoning and "Rezone to CG" should be
added to their written recommendation as (c).
Chairman Eggert opened the public hearing.
Tom Marsicano, Vice President of Greiner Engineering and
Project Engineer, came before the Board representing the
applicant. He believed the applicant is in full agreement with
everything outlined by Mr. Keating with the exception of two
items listed in the Transportation Improvement section. He
referred to the following table:
ROADWAY IMPROVEMENT
COSTS
Roadway/Segment
Improvement
Length
Total
Cost
($000)
Year
Req
S.R. 60
58th
to
66th Ave.
2
Ln
1.0
mi.
2000
1991
58th
12th
St.
to 16th
St. 2
Ln
0.5
mi.
700
1991
58th
16th
to
12th St.
2
Ln
0.5
mi.
700
1993
58th
SR 60.to
33rd St.
2
Ln
0.5
mi.
700
1995
43rd
12th
St.
to 26th
St. 2
Ln
1.5
mi.
1500
1995
26th
58th
to
66th Ave.
2
Ln
1.0
mi.
700
1991
Total
6300
36
Mr. Marsicano referred to the improvements on 58th Avenue,
and Director Keating advised that the improvement that reads
"58th Avenue - SR 60 to 33rd St." should be corrected to read
"SR 60 to 26th St."
Mr. Marsicano advised that their analysis shows that 58th
Avenue and 43rd Avenue both would operate at LOS "B" without any
improvements; so, the improvement on 58th Avenue from SR 60 to
26th St. is one objection and the other objection is regarding
the improvements on 43rd Avenue from 12th Street to SR 60.
Question arose about the segment of roadway described on
43rd Avenue, and Director Keating advised that table shown on
Page 64 of the backup material has the correct roadway improve-
ments. On 43rd Avenue it is from SR 60 to 12th Street and 4
lane, not 5. He continued that staff is saying King's Highway
should be improved from 12th Street up to 26th Street, and he
believed the applicant is saying 58th (King's Highway) should be
improved only from 12th Street up to SR 60.
Mr. Marsicano stated that with the modification just
described regarding 43rd Avenue, they then have just one area of
disagreement and that is regarding the improvements on King's
Highway.
Traffic Engineer Dudeck reviewed accidents that have
occurred on 58th Avenue and stressed the need to.improve 58th
Avenue in front of the residential area up to 26th Street, noting
i that the applicant only wants to go to 20th (SR 60).
Commissioner Bird asked what we want them to do between 26th.
Street and SR 60 on -58th Avenue; and Mr..Du°deck advised it should
be made 4 lane from 26th Street to join up to the Ryanwood area
where it is already 4 lane.
Public Works Director Davis informed the Board that there is
a situation at the 43rd Avenue project whereby improvements
planned south of 60 will require some pavement widening north of
SR 60 in order to make everything line up at the intersection;
so, instead of improvements being designated from 12th Street to
i
37
F �vt
SEP 1 5 1990
I
BOOK 81 FADE417 7
SR 60, they should be designated from 1.2th Street to a point
north of SR 60 so that appropriate transitions can be accommo-
dated and the intersection can operate properly.
Discussion continued at length in regard to the intersec-
tion., the transition needed, and the possible need to modify'the
bridge. Director Davis emphasized that we cannot leave the
existing bridge in its present g.eometry and have a substandard
transition into the intersection.
After further discussion regarding the bridge, Commissioner!
Scurlock believed we are hearing that the improvement needs to be
made to have sound traffic engineering, and the question is who
pays for it.
Commissioner Bird felt the question is what is fair and
reasonable to put on this developer.
Chairman Eggert wished to know if the cost of a bridge is
included in the improvements shown on the Intersection Improve-
ments chart contained in staff's memo.
Director Davis advised that the 1.5 million which is
programmed for improvements to 43rd Avenue from 12th Street to
26th Street could probably include one bridge if you changed
that, as the developer is requesting, to read 1143rd Avenue from
12th Street to a point 1,000' north of SR 60."
Mr. Marsicano did not disagree with Director Davis' comments
in regard to having the lanes line up at the intersection, but
stressed that they do not want to be led into widening a bridge
that is not necessary or can be avoided if possible. They do
clearly understand, and he will say for the record that the lane -
age must Line up and meet established criteria.
Discussion continued with Director Davis explaining what has
to be done at the 43rd Avenue intersection and stressing that we
do not want to be bound by language that terminates the widening
at SR 60. He preferred language that would state: 1143rd Avenue
from 12th Street to a point 1,000' north of SR 60 to accommodate
the intersection improvements."
38
Commissioner Bird believed that will have some impact on the
businesses there and was not sure whether he was for or against
this at this time.
Commissioner Scurlock found the language acceptable, but
noted the question of who pays for what is something else.
Director Davis advised that we have anticipated a replace-
ment of the Main Relief Canal bridge on 43rd Avenue; we do have
some monies in the next fiscal year to spend on that bridge; and
possibly we could have a joint project there.
Commissioner Scurlock thought it could be made part of the
record that there is an understanding that there will be a fair
share assigned on any bridge replacement required.
Director Davis noted that it would be a little different on
the King's Highway bridge, and Commissioner Scurlock clarified
that he is only talking about that particular bridge on 43rd Ave.
Attorney Michael O'Haire next came before the Board and
wished to point out one option that has been omitted, which is
not to grant the Comprehensive amendment that has been requested
at all. He pointed out that everything staff has said is predi-
cated on an assumption that this community needs or wants a.
regional mall in that location, and he felt this has to be
questioned. Mr. O'Haire stressed that the proposed mall is
described as equivalent to Vero Mall, Luria'.s Plaza, and
Ryanwood, times 3, and there already are such malls approximately
30 miles to the -north of us and -30 miles' to the south.
Attorney O'Haire quoted from comments made. by the.Regional
Planning Council in regard to vacant AG land which has been
designated for commercial use and stressed this is more than
twice the acreage identified as being.needed for commercial by
the year 2010. Further, the developer has stated the market area
for the mall includes all of the county and extends 20 miles
south, and if that is credible, it will be pulling all the St.
Lucie County traffic through our county. Attorney O'Haire noted
that the developer has stated that he expects over 50,000
SEP 2 51990 39 �oaK rA,G� a
— dA
SEP 2 5 1990
Orrice OF TNa
MAYOR
- Nor 8 1 F,,,UL 4 7,0j
shoppers every day and asked the Board to think of the magnitude
of that and what it does to the residential neighborhood. He
next listed the stores already in the County, stressing that we
already have the same stores you would have in the mall, and the
impact of that was never addressed by the applicant. Mr. O'Haire
then referred to the letter sent by the City of Vero Beach -which
expresses concern about the effects of the proposed mall, and
quoted from it as follows:
September 21, 1990
City of Vero .Beach
1053 -20th PLACE - P. 0fi1-]3
VERO BEACH, FLORI x1o,
Tekphon 5 151 \ &
Co
p �a"' �S r
Ms. Carolyn Eggert, County Commissioner
1840 25th Street
Vero Beach, -Florida 32960
Dear Caroline:
During last Tuesday's Council meeting a discussion took place
regarding the affects of the proposed "DiBartola" mall.
Specifically, they are worried about its traffic impact on City
streets and its affect on planning for the downtown area.
The Council asked me to forward the minutes of the meeting to you
and the Commission for consideration. The discussion begins at
the third paragraph.from the bottom of page 6.
Co dially,
Jay Smith
Mayor
40
itMayor Smith.told him that during his comments he made a motion
which was seconded by Ms. Beard, that we come up with a statement
or resolution to the County Commission indicating our concern
about the implementation of the mall on Route 60, and the lack of
traffic studies in the City and calling to their attention that we
are worried about what such a development will do to the planning
for the downtown area plus other existing commercial areas in Vero
Beach. He asked Mr. Doty if he will work with the City Attorney
to come up with such a resolution for Council -consideration at the
next meeting.
Mr. Wodtke said it is his understanding that the County is -going
to make the developer build five lanes between 60 and -12th Street.
Mr. Doty said the only problem is that the County may be acting on
this at'their next meeting which may be prior to our next meeting.
'He suggested.that we might send a letter to the County Commission
asking them to wait for our resolution before considering the
matter.
Mr. Braisted suggested that they direct the City Clerk to record
these comments in the minutes and forward the minutes over to the
County Commission, pending the preparation of a resolution. -
Mayor Smith told Mr. Doty if he would amend his motion to
authorize the Clerk to prepare those minutes with a cover letter
signed by the Mayor, summarizing the concerns of Council, we could
accomplish it in that manner. Mr. Doty said we might not even
need a resolution if that is the sentiment of Council that the
minutes and cover letter are sufficient and he amended his motion
to include that': Ms. Beard seconded the amendment to the motion
and it passed unanimously. l)
Attorney O'Haire felt the Board must abide by the Plan they
s
adopted and pointed out that it requires that they coordinate
with the municipalities. He further noted that the Plan pro-
hibits expansion of a node unless 70% of the node has been
developed, and only 150 of the node in question has been devel-
oped. He, therefore, contended that if the Board.grants the
expansion, they are acting directly in opposition to the policy
in the Comprehensive Plan, and that Plan has the force of law.
i Mr. O'Haire also stressed the adverse effect such an approval
would have on the on-going negotiations with the DCA who have not
yet approved the Comp Plan. He continued to argue the need to go
through all this if we really don't want or need a regional-malA
in this location. He noted that the people who livfe in this area
don't want to put their kids'on a bus on a 6 lane road, and
further noted that he has heard that this proposed project is, in
i
effect, a "spoiler" to protect the developer against the other
proposed mall. He did not know if this is true, but in any
SE P 2 5 1990 41 or F'A
.,t
S E P 2 5 1990
BOOK 81 F;1GE 481
event, the applicant will be land banki.ng and this will have an
impact on things the county needs much more than a mall which
will draw 50,000 people a day. Mr. O'Haire also understood that'
the people at Vista Plantation have been told the widening of ':,
66th.Avenue will not impact the.ir golf course. It will, however;
affect the canal, and he.personally can confirm that the devel-
oper has never contacted the Dra.inage District. Mr. DeBartolo ig
asking the Board to let him,put his mall there and.let the market
drive his plan, but he would suggest that the Board's responsi- j
bility dictates that they don't allow this.
Chairman Eggert believed the City of Vero Beach was made
aware of everything that was going on before this went to the DCA
for review, but Attorney O'Haire felt that while City staff may
have been aware of it, the City Councilmen were not.
Commissioner Scurlock referred back to the canal, the
expansion of 66th Avenue, and the impact on the golf course at
Vista Plantation. He noted that we were assured this widening
could be accommodated and wished to know if this is in question.
Director Keating advised that is one of the items in the
Development Order, and the applicant has specifically said he
would accommodate any future need of widening of 66th Avenue to
-- take care of any problems the residents of Vista Plantation
perceived. There isn't, however, a requirement for the mall to
make general improvements on 66th Avenue other than some widening
that may occur down near the intersection.
Planning Director Boling further clarified that the way the
D.O. condition is worded is to require that whatever is needed to
accommodate future expansion will be provided by the developer,
but it is stated in staff's memo that the Drainage District holds
the key if there is to be any relocation of the canal. We have
structured the D.O. to require that the mall won't be developed
in a way that would preclude the option of expanding the road
toward the mall and away from Vista Plantation.
42
Discussion continued re the 66th Avenue and SR 60 intersec-
tion, and it was noted that possibly only a turn lane may be
required at the mall access drive, not just a general widening of
66th.
Commissioner Scurlock felt that "maybe'! and "probably" won't
do it, and Attorney O'Haire agreed that is exactly the point;
people are being promised things that may not be delivered..
Dick Greco, Vice President of Edward J. DeBartolo Corpora-
tion, commented that it is not a new revelation that DeBartolo is
going to build a mall; they have been appearing here for about
two and a half years. In regard to 66th Avenue, he believed the
residents of Vista Plantation wanted to buy their own golf course ---
from the developer. In fact, a number of them signed up to do
it, but when they realized the R/W available to them was on their
side of the street and if the street were widened at some later
date, it would go up to their cart path, they indicated they did
not wish to buy the golf course until that problem was resolved.
DeBartolo Corporation is very sensitive to that situation, and
a
even though it actually is not their problem, said they would
cooperate in every way to give R/W on their side of the street to.
solve the problem that exists there, and they are now in the
process with the County staff of trying to draw up something that
would work and that will be part of the D.O. so that the County
will be protected and so wil•I the residents. Mr. Greco again
confirm that they assured those -people that they would do
everything [h their power.to help them out even though.this
problem is not something the DeBartolo Corporation is creating.'
-Mr.'Marsicano, Project Engineer, -added that they met with
residents of Vista Plantation and explained what was needed on
66th, which is essentially a 3 lane section, and that's been
agreed to by all the reviewi"ng agencies. The road extends no
further to the west than the existing pavement for their turn
outs.
t.i
L�
r ) 6",)?
i. l'" I Fv� 454o
I
SEP 2 5 1990
BOOK 81 P,4GE
Charles Davis, county resident, noted that he lives about a
mile and a half away from this site. He is a member of the
Regional Planning Council, and he bglieved Mr. O'Haire may have
left the wrong impression as to the Council's attitude because as
he.recal_ls it, their vote -in favor of this was unanimous.
Mr. Davis felt pretty strongly that we need this shopping.
With the exception of some shops on the beach, our shopping in
this community is* not real class, and 'we do have to. -'travel to get
the opportunities offered by a r.egional mall. Mr. Davis also
felt an important factor is the job -factor, and the mall
eventually will employ about 2500 people. He personally has an
office at Ryanwood, which he agreed has not been a smashing
success, and the general feeling he gets from the merchants at
Ryanwood is that this will help them. That will become a service
plaza, and the additional business brought in will help that
area. Mr. Davis further thought that the mall can be a focal
point for development around the area. A shopping center tends
to centralize growth around it. There was some mention of
housing, and he believed this would give us an opportunity, if
the Commission used its zoning power and planning to promote some
zoning that would let us get to some affordable housing which is
really needed in this county. Mr. Davis urged that the Board put
in the safeguards and go ahead and approve this project.
There were boos from the audience, and Chairman Eggert
requested that those present maintain the proper decorum.
John Morrison, 531 Indian Harbor Road, wished to point out
that there is a vast business in our county that encompasses over
100 square miles - the citrus industry, which brings 160 million
dollars a year into this county and employs 200 of all those
employed in Indian River County. This industry is in a difficult
situation at this time because of regulatory impacts coming from
the DCA. The citrusmen's bankers require an alternate of a
density requirement in the event this land some day would be
converted to an urban utilization, and the citrusmen are in a
44
controversy with the DCA because they want to restrict this
density significantly. He pointed out that a good many citrus
groves exist east of 1-95. Obviously a mall encourages growth,
and if you want to lose those groves, all you have to do is
urbanize further. Mr. Morrison did not believe we need any more
shopping here; he did not consider Belk -Lindsey world-class
shopping in any event; and he stated his opposition to the
proposed mall which he did not feel will benefit the county in
,any way.
Carol Johnson, Public Affairs Administrator, for the Chamber
of Commerce, advised that at the TCRPC hearing on the Mall DRI,
the Chamber of Commerce spoke in favor of that approval and
agreed there were some things that should be addressed at the
local level. She wished to congratulate the County staff for
easing up on the local taxpayer's responsibilities by working
with the developer to bring several of our substandard roads up
to a high level of standards, and she pointed out that of the 8.5
million in road improvements being paid for by the developer, the
s
vast majority of those roads already are scheduled for improve-
ment whether a mall is built or not. Mrs. Johnson further noted
that the developer will have on site a large conservation area at
no public expense, and she informed the Board that she could fill
this room with people who have called excited about the mall and
wanting to know how soon it will take place. Mrs. Johnson be-
lieved construction of the mall will provide a.much needed
positive economic impact by requiring well over 1,000 employees,
plus keeping retail.dollars in the county a'nd with the added
bonus of road projects being paid for by the developer. She
urged the Board's approval of the Development Order.
Mildred Long, 2065 63rd Court, Wallace Acres, located right
on Route 60, advised that he'r big complaint has been water and
flooding, and she has been told by the developer that if anything
the Subdivision's water would flow onto their property rather
than vice versa but she hasn't seen that in writing. Mrs. Long
45
mor f'�,�E 481
I
S E P 2 5 1990 BOOK 81
noted that their subdivision is very low, and she maintained that
either the developer or the county or someone needs to put in
drainage ditches. Mrs. Long stressed their drainage problems at!
length and in detail. She noted that although the mall will
bring in more taxes to the county, it will bring in increased
crime and increased traffic as well. She also asked what this
mall will do to the downtown stores, but mainly wanted to have on
record the flooding problem at Wallace Acres. She.additionally
stressed the traffic problem and the difficulty the residents
already have getting out onto Route 60.
Chairman Eggert assured Mrs. Long that drainage and
i
buffering are two very important parts of site plan approval.
Mr. Greco agreed that Mrs. Long has a valid point of
concern, but this will be handled at site plan approval and an
intricate drainage system will be installed, which very probably
will enhance the adjoining property and add to its value.
John Morrison commented that he has been planning and
managing citrus groves in this county for 30 years. This area is
encompassed within the Indian River Farms Water Management
District, and that District was never engineered to take off the
water from urban utilization which is much different than
draining citrus land. He was sure that the shopping center will
be high and dry enough that it will not be inundated, but every-
one else will be.
Diane Titherington, 4325 13th Place, noted that she wrote ,
each Board member a letter opposing this "monster" mall, and she
again urged they not approve this because of the effect it would
have on everyone living west of town.
Tom McKenna, resident of 14th Place between 16th and 16th
Sts. on 43rd Avenue, referred to the statement about the widening
of 43rd Avenue being necessary regardless of the mall and asked
if we have reached a level in traffic capacity now that necessi-
tates 4 laning of that road from SR 60 to 12th Street, or might
having a turn lane run that length suffice.
46
Director Keating advised that 43rd is very close to
capacity. He further explained that we are mandated to adopt a
Concurrency Management Ordinance. That ordinance is in place
now, and it specified that either improvements are to be made at
a certain level or development stopped.
Traffic Engineer Dudeck confirmed that we are above peak LOS
"D" on 43rd Avenue right now without any mail traffic.
Mr. McKenna noted that he is just saying that 3 lanes might
suffice, but Commissioner Scurlock believed 4 laning is on the
horizon whether the mall goes in or not.
Mr. McKenna pointed out that we already have a Penney's in
Vero Beach, and as far as Belk Lindsey and Sears are concerned,
we have them 15 minutes down the road, and he is against having
the mall.
The Board recessed for ten minutes and reconvened with the
same members present. The Chairman asked who wished to speak
next.
Robert Adair, stated that he lives on Cherry Lane approxi-
mately one mile from the proposed mall site. He agrees with
everything that has been said by Attorney O'Haire and Mr. John
Morrison, and he disagrees with the construction of the mall.. He
noted that he lives in the middle of a small orange grove and
spoke about agricultural concerns with drainage, etc. He also
expressed concern about wells in the area as well as the traffic
plan and was*,particularly.concerned about the traffic on 66th
Avenue which goes straight through to Sebastian.
County residents Stephanie DeGraff, Beatrice Patterson, Ann
Cummings, Muriel Roscoe, Anna Scarconi., and Pat Lyster,-all
stated their opposition to the mall for the record.
William Duryea, resident of Vista Plantation, wished to
thank the DeBartolo Company for considering moving the drainage
ditch or accommodating them in some way in the future so the
residents of Vista Plantation would not lose their golf course.
SEP 2 5 1990 47
S E P 2 5 199®
BOOK
. 1 F'AvE 4S
He felt that was very civic minded of them, and he really appre-
ciated Mr. Greco's asking that the Commission give this some
future consideration even if the mall didn't go in.
The Chairman determined that no one else wished to be heard
and thereupon closed the public hearing.
MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by
Commzissionew Bird, to approve staff's recommendation
which was to enlarge the Route 60/Kings' Highway Node
to 290 acres by including the subject 130 acre site
in the node and amend the Traffic Circulation and
Capital Improvement Elements of the Comp Plan to re-
flect the improvements required by the Indian River
Mall project, and to rezone the 130 acres to CG;
this to be contingent on agreements being entered
into with the developer, either through •the DRI process
or whatever the County Attorney finds adequate, re-
garding the reservation for water and sewer capacity
as well as the needed road improvements to mitigate
any transportation impacts, especially noting that the
developer has indicated a willingness to give the
necessary land on the east side of the canal on 66th
Avenue for construction of any improvement needed there.
Commissioner Wheeler noted that he has had some real
internal conflicts with this whole thing. He did believe that
possibly the majority of people in the community want a mall, but
the County Commissioners are elected to.sit here and use their
judgment to make some hard decisions. He has had conversations
with many people in the community and the developers, and he
cannot in good conscience support the proposed rezoning. He ran
for office based on continuing the quality of life that we have
in this community, and he believed the proposed mall will have an
irrevocable effect on that. Although he may be in the minority,
48
he has seen in other towns how big malls can have a devastating
effect and change a way of life, and he cannot vote for that.
Commissioner Bird agreed that there certainly are pros and
cons, and some feel it will help their lifestyle and some feel
that it will hurt. He personally believed that it is only a
matter of time before we do have a regional mall and that it is
just a question of where it will be built. He felt the Route 60
location is a logical place for a regional mall, and he felt the
'Shopco location on U.S.I. is also an appropriate location. His
position from the beginning has been that he would support each
one to the point where the market would dictate which is to be
the successful one. Commissioner Bird did feel that right now
the proposed mall is very important to the economy of this
county. The jobs it will provide are important to the young
people of this county, the money that will be spent on the
construction is very important, and he also thinks of the
millions of dollars that are taken out of this county each year
to be spent in the malls to the north and south of us instead of
v
being recirculated in this county. Other important aspects are
the payment for road improvements and the increase in the tax
base of our county, and that is why he seconded the Motion.
CHAIRMAN EGGERT CALLED FOR THE QUESTION.
It was voted on and carried 4 to 1 with
Commissioner Wheeler voting in opposition.
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT ORDER FOR INDIAN RIVER MALL DRI (DeBARTOLO)
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:
49
SEr'251990
VERO BEACH PRESS -JOURNAL
Published Daily
Vero Beach, Indian River County, Florida
I
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. Poing
i r
a
In the matter of.
In the .. _�_ Court. was pub•
fished in said newspaper In the Issues of v 0
U f
Afflant further says that the sale 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 Coum
Iy. Florida, for a period of one year next preceding the first prrblicatnonat the attached copy of
advertisement: and alfianl further says that he has neither paid nor promised any person, firm
or corporation any discount• rebate, commission or refund for Ih purpose of securing this
advertisement for publication in the Sold newspaper.
Sworn Io and subscribed before me this Jr! .qday M ( � A.D. 19
' `.(BVsiness Manager)
(Glerk of the Circuit CoMI.-IhdIAWRiter County;Floride)—
(SEAL1
i
BOOK 8iFADE
_• _::., .. i •, ' .:., MOM RIVER COUNTY • : •r.. r - .
NOTICE OF PUBLIC NEAMNO
The Board of Calmly Commisstonan Of Indian Rue camty hereby 9Ma 110114* a . PUBLIC:
HEARING to be held at 9:05 a.m. on September 25. 1990, In tl» County Commission Chambers of
the county Administrative
The subftict of the �Building. bested at 1940 25th Street, Vero Beach, Florida.
than R r Mail proasesdr0 g is a by the EDevelopmenJ. . Det Bart�oboCorporation. l firipact for the project to OF Iulown as Io -
General Looation: Bound on the north by 28th Street (Walker Avenue), on Me sauM by S.R. 60, and
an the west by 66th Avenue. .
f �°
•
r I
u C
"`
r
'INDIAN RIVER MALL.'
All documents pertaining to the development request are filed in the Indian River County Planning
Division, 2nd floor of the County Administration Buibmg• located at 1840 25th Street, Vero Beach,
Florida. Documents may be reviewed by Members at the public during normal business haps.
All members of the public are invited to attend and participate in the public hearing.
This aflctal public notice Is hereby given by the Board of Coudy Commissioners of Indian River
Cou;Z Florida, that fire Board intends to conduct a public hearing pursuant to Chapter
380.08(11x•) (b) (e) (d) Florida Statutes and 9J-2023 of the Florida Administrative Code, for the
Development a=onal impact known as Indian River Mall, proposed to contain:
a +1- 700.000 square foot retail regional mall and +/- 400,DDo square feet at other retail
39development
E taWrely on +wlWn unincorporated Barea 5, Township 33 South. Range
This.
Cairn C tone�brs a Indian River (�) days rl advance a the ptione hearing by the Board
County. Florkfa. and b in addition to any required pudic
t ono (mss) and public provisionsna the Code conducted o/ Law and Onlim uthe Board at m of Mian River Candy,
Florida, where applicable.
This notice is being Wombed to the Department of Community Affairs of the State of Florida: the
Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council; SL Johns River Water Management District: Department
of Environmental Regulation: Department of Natural' Resources. Siate of Florida Department of
*Transportation; The City of Vero Beach: the Town of Indian Reser SfbreS; the City of Sebastian, The
Town of Orchid. The Town of Fattamere. and the counties of Brevard, and SL Lucia.
If arty person decides to appeal any decision made on the above matter, ire/she will need a record
of the proceedings. and for such purpose. he/she may need to ensure that a verbatim record a the
Is made. vidnloh I n hides tacrimony and evidence upon wdrfch cin appeal is based. The
Jwvdi tri not Provide or prepare axh raea0. 7t>xi9D
Planning Director Stan Boling noted that the D.O. is
essentially a binding agreement between the developer and the
county. He further noted that in the D.O., unless the Board
specifies otherwise, the process will be that site plans for this
project would be approved by the P&Z Commission and would not be
reviewed by the Board of County Commissioners.
Commissioner Scurlock stated that because this project is of
such significant impact to the county, he would like to have the
site plan& reviewed by the County Commission, and Chairman Eggert
concurred.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Bowman, the Board unanimously agreed that
the Board of County Commissioners should be involved
in the site plan review process for the proposed mall.
50
Planning Director Stan Boling then commenced the staff
presentation, as follows:
TO: James E. Chandler
County Administrator
DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE:
�02be4r]. Keati g AI
Community Dev//elljjop ent Virector
FROM: Stan Boling, KICP
Planning Director
DATE: September 17, 1990
SUBJECT: PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT ORDER FOR THE INDIAN RIVER MALL
(DeBARTOLO) DEVELOPMENT OF REGIONAL IMPACT (DRI)
It is requested that the dat
consideration by the Planning
meeting of September 25, 1990.
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS:
DRI Considerations
a herein presented be given formal
and Zoning Commission at its regular
The Indian River Mall is a large commercial development project
proposed to be located between S.R. 60 and 26th Street, east of
66th Avenue. Its ,scale and scope are such that the project
requires development of regional impact (DRI) -review pursuant to
Florida Statutes Chapter 380.06.
The purpose of the DRI process is to provide a mechanism to review
large projects from a regional perspective, culminating in an
assessment by the regional planning council of the anticipated
multi -county impacts of the project and recommendations to mitigate
any adverse impacts of the project. Supplied to the local
government of jurisdiction, this regional assessment provides a
basis for the local government to draft a development order (D.O.)
for the project. Overall, the. DRI process enables area governments
and agencies that do not have jurisdiction over the project a
chance to review -and comment on'. the project. The DRI process also
enables the Regional Planning Council, State Department of
Community Affairs (DCA) and the project applicant an opportunity
to appeal any local government actions or issued requirements in
connection with the application for DRI approval.
Regional Planning Council Review
The Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council (T.C.R.P.C.) has
coordinated the review of the Indian River Mall project and has
submitted, in the form of official recommendations, an assessment
of the regional impacts of the -project. The Planning Council
coordinated the first part of the DRI review process, following
these general steps:
(11/2/88) 10
(6/26/89) 2.
Pre -application conference with T.C.R.P.C. and other
affected agencies and government entities;
Formal application for development approval (ADA),
which includes proposals, and supporting
information.
19,Z910 51
nL1f K rFK E 9U
u00K
3. Review process involving all affected agencies 'and
government entities submitting comments and
questions regarding the ADA;
4. Responses from the applicant; [note: three rounds
of 'questions and responses ensued];
S. T.C.R.P.C. notification to the County that the
applicant chooses to proceed with review and
consideration of the request;
(8/17/90) 6. T.C.R.P.C. public hearing.on the project; approval
of a report and recommendation regarding the
regional impacts of the project; -
(8/31/90) 7. T.C.R.P.C. transmittal of its official report and
recommendations to .the County.
Local Government Review
(9/13/90) 1. [OPTIONAL] The Planning and Zoning Commission,
after reviewing T.C.R.P.C. ' and County staff
recommendations, makes a recommendation to the Board
of County Commissioners.
2. The Board of County Commissioners:
a. considers the comprehensive plan amendment and,
if it so desires, grants approval of the
request;
b. the Board considers the rezoning request and,
if it so desires, grants approval to the
request;
c. the Board considers the D.O. and, if it so
desires, approves it with conditions.
3. The D.O. is issued by the County as a resolution;
a reference to the D.O. is then recorded in the
public records.
-- 4. The issued D.O. is transmitted to the State,
T.C.R.P.C., and the developer. Within 45 days after
the order is issued, the State, T.C.R.P.C., the
developer, or any other aggrieved party may appeal
the order to the Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory
Commission. This would trigger the D.O. appeal
process set forth in the Florida Statutes.
5. The developer obtains site plan approval for various
phases of the project (only Planning and Zoning
Commission approval required).
6. The County monitors the progress of the project to
ensure that the terms of the D.O. are met. No local
development approvals or permits are to be issued
that conflict with the approved D.O.
7. The developer submits a required annual DRI report
to the County, T.C.R.P.C., and the State. The
report aids in the monitoring of the project's
progress.
Planning and Zoning Commission Review
At its regular meeting of September 13, 1990, the Planning and
Zoning Commission voted 5 to 1 to recommend that the Board of
County Commissioners approve the proposed development order if the
comprehensive plan amendment and rezoning requests _Are approved.
52
® M M
_I
a
Board of County Commissioners Review and Action
The Board of County Commissioners is now to consider the proposed
D.O. and should determine whether, and to what extent, the D.R.I.
would be:
a. consistent with the local comprehensive plan and land
development regulations, and
b. consistent with the report and recommendations of the Treasure
Coast Regional Planning Council.
OVERVIEW OF THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
The proposed project is located between S.R. 60 and 26th Street,
east of 66th Avenue (see attachment #1). The site contains a
variety of existing vegetative communities; large portions contain
old groves interspersed with some large oaks; wetlands with
adjacent hardwood uplands exist along the eastern portion of the
site; a +/- 5.1 acre cabbage palm hammock exists, as well as a
cluster of significant Simpson Stoppers which includes the County's
only recognized champion tree. The project is summarized as
follows:
1. Size of Development
- Total contiguous property owned by applicant: +/- 212.6
acres
- Actual D.R.I. area of development: +/- 156 acres
2. Existing and Proposed Zoning/CLUP: (Actual area of
development)
Existing: A-1 (Agricultural), RM -6 (Residential Multi -family
up to 6 units per acre), RS -6 (Residential Single-family up
to 6 units pdr acre); all within an M-1 (Medium Density
Residential) designated area.
Proposed: all areas to be rezoned to CG (General Commercial)
except the +/- 26.5 acre wetland/detention area along the
eastern boundary of the site; all areas proposed for
commercial zoning to be re -designated as part of the S.R.
60/58th Avenue commercial node.
t3. Surrounding Uses:
North: 26th Street/Groves, residential
I South: S.R. 60/Commercial, residential
East: vacant, residential, commercial
West: 66th Avenue, residential (Vista Plantation)
�4. Proposed Uses:
- Regional Mall Facility ................. 707,544_square feet
- Retail ("power", strip center
and outparcels).......................396,452 square .feet
- Total...............................1,103,996 square feet
5. Development Period: 1990-1993; impact analysis based on
build -out by December 31, 1993.
ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS:
General Approach of the D.O.
,Hundreds of pages of description and analyses are contained in the
ADA and supplemental reports which are incorporated by reference
'into the D.O. [NOTE: all of these materials are available for
inspection at the Planning Division]. The D.O. sets the basic
SEP 2 5 1990 53
SEP 2 5 190
I
parameters of the development and specifies conditions that must;
be satisfied to mitigate any anticipated potential negative impacts
caused by construction and operation of the project.
The proposed D.O. closely resembles the staff report and'
recommendations of the T.C.R.P.C.; few substantive changes have'
been made. The order has been prepared to specifically tie the
conditions to a particular and definable step in the county's!
development approval and monitoring process. Thus, conditions of
the proposed D.O., if approved, -would become part of a standard
checklist that would be reviewed during all steps in the review and
monitoring of the project.- NOTE: for ease of review, County staff,
changes 'to the T.C.R.P.C. recommended D.O.. conditions are;
represented by strike-throughs and underlining.
i
It should be noted that after approval of the Development Order the
proposed uses would require only site plan approval. Thus, unless)
the Board of County Commissioners otherwise dictates (via an added!
D.O. condition), the Planning and Zoning Commission will have final
approval authority for the detailed site planning of this project.;
THE PROPOSED D.O. CONDITIONS
A copy of the recommended D.O. conditions is attached to this
memorandum. The order would be effective for a period of 20 years,
but it would lapse if construction was not initiated within three
years of the effective date. The following is a synopsis and
explanation of the various topics covered in the D.O. conditions.;
1. Commencement of Development
This section states that if construction of any portion of the
project has not commenced within three (3) years of D.O. approval,
then the approval terminates. This section also states that if
construction of the mall portion of the project has not commenced
by December 31, 1993, then the approval terminates. Furthermore,
if the approval terminates for any reason the County will have a
9 month period in which to consider rezoning and redesignating the
land use over the site.
2. Transfer of ADDroval
This section would ensure that the project as a whole would remain
unified as to the commitments, conditions, and obligations of the
development order in the event that portions were sold -off. This
transfer of approval provision is similar to the transfer provision
contained in the county's subdivision and site plan ordinances.
3. Buffering and Open Space
Because of the size of the project and the corresponding massive
parking areas that would be unique to such a project, County staff
expressed concerns to the developer about the importance of
landscaping, as well as the visual impact a regional mall would
have on the community's image, and the S.R. 60 corridor and
adjacent areas. In staff's opinion, buffering should be required
to avoid a strip commercial appearance along the project
boundaries. The wetlands/detention area should provide a buffer
of 'existing hardwood vegetation along the eastern border of the
project and shall be designated as permanent open space. The D.O.
requires buffers (existing and/or planted vegetation) along. the
project's S.R. 60, 66th Avenue, and 26th Street borders. The
buffers would be required where (and when) development comes within
300' of any of these road rights-of-way.
Additionally, buffers are required (by applying the County's land
development regulations) between commercial projects and adjacent
residentially zoned areas. Thus, where preservation of existing
vegetation is insufficient to meet County buffering standards,
54
® M
buffer improvements will be required during the site plan review
and approval process.
4. Air
These conditions and the application of the County's Tree
Protection and Landclearing ordinance will address dust and erosion
problems that could arise during construction. These conditions
will be part of the land clearing and tree removal permits that the
planning division issues prior to development.
5. Historic and Archaeological Sites
This section's condition requires the developer, upon discovery of
artifacts, to contact the State and arrange for preservation of
such artifacts.
6. Wetlands
A mixed hardwood wetland area ( currently re -charged by a flow well)
exists on site and is to be preserved. Approximately 3.2 acres of
wetland area (located south of the primary hardwood wetland) is to
be filled. A wetland mitigation plan is required to be approved
by the County, T.C.R.P.C., Army Corps of Engineers and St. Johns
River Water Management District prior to any work in the altered
wetland area.
Also, the Development Order requires native upland edge vegetation
around all created and preserved wetland areas. Also, any wet
stormwater management tracts will require littoral zone plantings.
7. Habitat Preservation
Approximately 4.7 acres of a +/-5.1 acre cabbage palm hammock is
to be preserved to,ielp meet the T.C.R.P.C.'s and County's native
vegetation preservation policies, to preserve the endangered
handfern plants which are located in the palms, and to function as
possible "credit" area in the wetlands mitigation plan. Approval
of a management plan for the preserve area is also required:
Temporary construction barriers will be required around the Simpson
Stopper cluster and preserve areas to protect these areas from
possible damage during construction.
8. Species of Regional Concern and Exotic'Species
In the event it is discovered that previously unidentified species
of regional concern exist on site, the developer shall cease
.activities that could negatively impact such species until proper
protection measures can be formulated and approved by the County
and the T.C.R.P.C. Also, exotic species are required to be removed
from the project site.
9. Drainage,
Various water quality measures such as filtration, and parking lot
sweeping requirements are included. Also, the Indian River Farms
adopted discharge rate is specifically referenced as a requirement
for this project's stormwater management system.
10 Hazardous Materials and Waste
A hazardous materials management plan is required to be submitted
and approved prior to site plan release.
11. Water Supply and Wastewater
These conditions restrict the use of certain sources for irrigation
water, encourage water conservation, regulate the use of existing
UP 2 5 199055 BOOK F,9�c 4f
SEP 25 1990 BOOK ue�.d
on-site wells, and ensure adequate potable water and wastewater
'treatment capacity and service.
12. Solid Waste
Submission of a solid waste stream reduction/recycling plan is
required along with any site plan application, and must be approved
by the Utilities department.
13. -Police and Public Safety
As within the Harbortown Center Mall (SIOPCO)-development order,
conditions are proposed that require the provision of private
security forces during construction and operation of the mall.- No
special exactions are required in the proposed Development Order.
14. Fire Protection and Health -
This condition requires verification from the South County Fire
District and Emergency Management Department that sufficient
manpower and equipment exists to handle the development impacts.
Emergency Management has indicated in writing that no specific
exactions are required; the Development Order proposes no exactions
for fire protection and health.
15. Day Care
A plan is required to show how employee related day care needs
generated by the project will be handled either on-site or within
close proximity to the site by existing or to -be -constructed day
care facilities.
16. Energy
These conditions require an energy-efficient project design.
17. Transportation
All traffic conditions have been established based on extensive
analysis. As previously stated, the analysis is based upon a
project build -out by December 31, 1993. The development order
conditions specify the roadway and signalization improvements
needed to accommodate the project impacts, and the timeframes for
beginning and completing the improvements. As with other D.O.'s,
a "catch -all" condition is included (#44) which stops the issuance
of all building permits for new construction if the December 31,
1993 date passes prior to build -out completion. An updated traffic
analysis would then be required to be submitted and approved by the
County, FDOT, and TCRPC. Specific construction and timing
provisions for any identified additional traffic improvements would
need to be agreed upon prior to the issuance of any further
building permits.
Traffic condition #38 provides the County with a future option to
expand 66th Avenue (an urban minor arterial roadway) without
removing or impacting existing trees and improvements on the Vista
Plantation site. The proposed Development Order does not and
cannot at this time "finalize" future roadway expansion plans
(which would, of necessity, involve the County, I.R.F.W.C.D., and
the developer). However, the condition precludes the mall from
being developed in a manner that would eliminate a future option
for expanding 66th Avenue away from the existing Vista Plantation
development. The developer has stated that, at this time, it does
not appear that 66th Avenue improvements required for this project
will encroach into the existing "Vista Plantation buffer area".
It should be noted that some "three laning" type of improvements
are already located within existing right-of-way (left turn lanes
at State Road 60 and Vista Plantation entrance driveway).
Note: Please see attachment #2: Traffic Improvements Summary
56
� r
18. Housing
This condition requires that the developer conduct a study showing
that affordable housing demands generated by project employees are
satisfied by existing or to -be -constructed housing stock.
19. Integration with Adjacent Areas and Uses
This condition requires that vehicular and pedestrian accessways
are accommodated and provided to connect the internal mall traffic
network to adjacent properties. Also, this condition requires that
the project provide a bikeway path from the mall to the planned
(and required) bikeway path to be constructed along State Road 60.
SUMMARY
All impacts determined during the ADA review are addressed in the
proposed D.O. with some modifications to the T.C.R.P.C.
recommendations. County staff will continue to coordinate with the
applicant, T.C.R.P.C., and DCA regarding any proposed conditions
that pose concerns to any of the involved parties. It is County
staff's understanding at this time that TCRPC staff has no
objections to the Development Order proposed by County staff.
Furthermore, in county staff's opinion, all Development Order
conditions have now been structured to properly coincide with the
requirements and review/approval timing of the County's land
development regulations.
The Board of County Commissioners is scheduled to review the
comprehensive plan amendment, rezoning, and D.R.I. request at its
September 25, 1990 regular meeting (public hearing).
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners approve the
proposed development order resolution for the Indian River Mall
D.R.I. and authorize the chairman to sign the development order
resolution..
Director Boling next passed out the following pages which
set out the recommended changes to the Development Order:
SEP 2 5 1990
57
BOOK. 01 FADE 4�I
"'S EP .2 5 1990 -
BOOK. F,1E ti�
RECOMMENDED CHANGES TO DEVELOPMENT ORDER AS FOUND IN 9/17/90 PACKET
Current 2.b.: delete "or approved" in next to last line in
paragraph b.
Add new 2.d.:
d. "In the event the developer fails to commence significant
physical development*of at least three hundred twenty thousand.
(320,000)square feet of regional mall facility gross buildings,
area, on or before December 31, 1993, development approval
shall terminate. and the development shall be subject to!
further development -of -regional -impact review by the Treasure'
Coast Regional Planning Council and Indian River County,
pursuant to Section 380.06, Florida Statutes. The developer,
shall notify in writing the Treasure Coast Regional Planning!
Council and Indian River County of the date significant;
physical development has commenced, and shall specifically
identify by reference to an approved site plan the buildings)
and area(s) within the -initial mall construction phase. For,
the purposes of this paragraph, significant physical'
development shall be deemed to have commenced after placement
of permanent evidence of a structure (other than a mobile'
home) on the subject site(s), such as the pouring of slabs or
footings or any work beyond the stage of excavation, land.
clearing, or earthwork.
1. The developer shall complete (as determined by -the county
building division) all structural foundation elements (at,
above, or below grade) for at least three hundred twenty
thousand (320,000) square feet of regional mall facility gross
building area, within two hundred ten (210) days of the
commencement date as noticed by the developer to the Treasure
Coast Regional Planning Council and Indian River County
(reference 2.d., above) for the building(s) and area(s)
specifically identified by the developer as the initial mall
construction phase. In the event the developer fails to
complete construction within the prescribed deadlines, then,
after at least 10 calendar days notice to the developer, the
County may, upon hearing, revoke the mall site plan approval.
The developer shall complete "shell" construction of the
initial mall construction phase within twenty-four (24) months
from the commencement date as noticed by the developer to the
Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council and Indian River
County (reference 2.d., above) for the area(s) specifically
identified by the developer as the initial mall construction
phase. In the event the developer fails to complete
construction within the prescribed deadlines, then, after at
least 10 calendar days notice to the developer, the County
may, upon hearing, revoke the mall site plan approval. For
purposes of this paragraph, "complete shell construction" is
defined as completion of the building foundation, roofing, and
exterior walls as depicted within the approved building permit
plans, as verified by the county building division upon
inspection of the building site."
What now appears as 112.d." in the Board of County Commissioners
packet D.O. would become 112.e."
add new 2.f
"f. Anything to the contrary herein notwithstanding,
of site plan approval for all or a portion of the
the acquisition of required development permits
58
s
upon receipt
project and
and written
M
- M
approval from the Community Development Director, the
developer may commence clearing, grubbing and grading the site
and installing utilities such as the storm water system, water
and wastewater, electric, telephone and the like
notwithstanding the fact that the site plan has not been
released. The activities described herein shall be limited
to the area for which site plan approval and development
permits have been granted."
CONDITION 35: DAY CARE
On the sixth line from the bottom of paragraph 35*change "within
two years" to "within three years".
CONDITION 38: TRANSPORTATION
:38.a to be modified to read:
"The developer hereby agrees to set back any and all development
from the project's western boundary a distance sufficient to
:accommodate a landscape strip (minimum width of 101) and a future
dedication of a strip of right-of-way (from 26th Street to S.R.
60) wide enough to accommodate the ultimate 66th Avenue road
improvement section. Said right-of-way strip shall be dedicated
without compensation to the County upon notification to the
developer by the County that the dedication is needed to
accommodate the expansion of 66th Avenue or the provision of other
improvements. The right-of-way strip and landscape strip shall be
depicted on all site plans covering this area."
ADD CONDITION 49, TRANSPORTATION
New Condition 49 to read:
"The County recognizes that in order for the developer to meet the
requirements of the transportation section of this Development
Order it may be necessary for the developer to acquire road right-
of-way which is currently under private ownership. Upon written
request by developer, County agrees to file a petition in eminent
domain as is necessary to exercise its power of eminent domain to
acquire such right=of-way, subject to court approval of proper
public purpose and public necessity. Should a court enter an order
finding no public purpose or public necessity,. and the
transportation conditions contained herein cannot be satisfied, the
developer must 'file for' and -obtain *modification(s)- to the
development order if the project or a modified project is to
proceed. All' -costs associated with the County's exercise of its
power of eminent domain or its attempt ..to exercise .its power of
eminent domain, including compensation to land owners, shall. be
borne by the developer.
old 51, new 52
1152." INTEGRATION WITH ADJACENT AREAS AND USES
a. In order to minimize trips on the adjacent roadway
network, vehicular and pedestrian access improvements
shall be planned, and accommodated to connect the
internal regional mall facility traffic circulation
network to the "unplanned DRI area" and "not included
parcel" shown on Exhibit G. Said connections shall be
considered to be required improvements that shall be
constructed as the "unplanned DRI area" and "not
included" parcel (see Exhibit G) are developed or re-
developed.
EP 2 5 1990 59 BOOK 01Fa,EK 7k
BOOK
1. The regional mall facility site plan application(s)
shall demonstrate that the mall traffic circulation
network is designed to accommodate the future
connections to adjacent areas.
2. The site plan application(s) for the regional mall
facility shall include a method of providing access
easements sufficient for accommodating the
connection of vehicle/pedestrian accessways to the
regional mall facility traffic network. Said
easement arrangement shall include an easement over
.the portion of the wetland and detention areas as
noted in exhibit•G.
b. Bikeway improvements along S.R. 60, as required in the
adopted Indian River County Comprehensive Bikeway and,
Sidewalk Plan,•shall be -provided along S.R. 60 prior to
the issuance of a certificate of occupancy (C.O.) for the
regional mall facility.
1. Prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy
(C.O.) for the regional mall facility, a 5' sidewalk
shall be provided along at least one access driveway
from S.R. 60 to the regional mall facility parking
area.
Director Boling continued to review the Development Order
itself, referring specifically to 2.b, under Commencement of
Development and Termination of Development and noting that devel-
opment must start by December 31, 1993 or the D.O. approval will
automatically terminate; also, no certificate of occupancy (C.O.)
can be issued for any portion of the project other than the mall
facility itself until a C.O. has been issued for at least 320,000
sq. ft. of the mall facility. He pointed out that the recom-
mended changes he just distributed to the Commission add another
"hook." They provide that once development starts, it has to
proceed towards completion in earnest, and there is a 210 day
timeframe for having the shell of the building done. Director
Boling recapped the specific timeframes set out in the
recommended addition, and noted this is the same as we used in
the Shopco,D.O.
Commissioner Scurlock felt this goes a long way in solving
the problems he has brought up.
Director Boling advised that the new 2.f., in regard to
allowing the developer to commence clearing, grubbing, grading
and installing utilities in the area for which site plan approval
60
M
and development permits have been granted, was requested by the
developer.
Commissioner Scurlock believed this will help them meet
their time schedule, and Board members had no objection to that
addition.
Director Boling continued to review the proposed'D.O. He
felt #5 re Buffering and Open Space is important, and he believed
we are in agreement with the applicant about the buffers; this
also is similar to the Shopco D.O. He further advised that the
wetlands area not included in the rezoning includes more than the
wetlands, and that would have to be designated as open space.
Provision #9 will include the wetlands in the conservation
easement and make sure they maintain that area and not let it be
invaded by exotics. Provisions #24 and #28 re Water Supply and
Wastewater state that the Utilities Service Department has to
verify to the Planning Division before a site plan is released
that capacity is there and the service infrastructure, as well as
the provisions for the effluent disposal.
Commissioner Scurlock noted that this means they are going
to have to pay for the capacity and it'actually has to be on
line. That's why that condition is important because it may be a
situation where all water capacity is reserved and if they need
additional capacity the developer must be on the hook for expand-
ing the portion of the plant to meet their needs.
Director Boling further advised that there is one change.in
Section 35 Day Care which allows them3 years to obtain approval
of a plan to meet the demand for child day°care services rather
than 2 years.
Commissioner Bird commented -that he wanted to be sure we
evaluate what the total needs are so we do not create competitive
conditions with the existing' day care services in the county, and
the Board members agreed.
Planning Director Boling then referred to the modified
language proposed for 38.a., as follows:
61 BUCK
EP 1990
SEP 2 1990
38.a to be modified to read:
"The developer hereby agrees to set back any and all development;
from the project's western boundary a distance sufficient to
accommodate a landscape strip (minimum width of 10') and a future
dedication of a strip of right-of-way (from 26th Street to S.R.
60) wide enough to accommodate the ultimate 66th Avenue road
improvement section. Said right-of-way strip shall be dedicated
without compensation to the County upon notification to- the
developer by the County that the dedication is needed to
accommodate the expansion of 66th Avenue•or the provision of other
improvements. The right-of-way strip and landscape strip shall be
depicted on all site plans covering this area."'
Director Boling -noted that the developer was anticipating
this being a 30' R/W strip, and it may be much more than that.
This is intended to keep the option open to go other than on the
Vista Plantation side. Section 39 deals with the roadway
improvements needed.
Commissioner Scurlock wished to be sure that what we are
saying is that the roadway improvements listed must be totally
completed, not just under contract or the money escrowed, before
a C.O. is issued for any portion of the subject project, and this
was confirmed by staff.
Commissioner Scurlock emphasized that he wanted to be sure
that everyone, both we and the developer, are sure what staff's
position is on this.
Commissioner Wheeler commented that he understood that
Public Works Director Davis could certify the road improvements
as being what he considered "substantially complete."
Director Davis confirmed that basically in road construction
if the pavement is in the ground and everything is completed
except for striping and sod work, the project can be considered
substantially complete and open to traffic. The real issue in
his opinion is getting the projects to contract, and if you can
get the road project to contract, he didn't see why it can't be
built as quickly as the mall can be built.
Commissioner Scurlock believed staff is taking the position
that concurrency requires these improvements to be complete.
Commissioner Wheeler noted that he would like to see the
words"substantially complete" in the D.O., and Director Keating
62
- M M
- M
did not think that is a problem from a concurrency standpoint.
Commissioner Scurlock then brought up the problems that
could occur with R/W acquisition, especially on 43rd Avenue,
because once you exceed your L.O.S. standard, there can be a
moratorium on all building affected by that, not just the mall,
and he felt we should build in some flexibility in that regard if
we can legally do it.
Attorney Vitunac clarified that if the improvement is needed
to handle the impact of the mail, then it has to be ready for
that impact, whatever it is. That means if it is a road, it has
to be able to handle traffic on the day the C.O. is issued.
"Substantially complete" means it can handle traffic but you are
not done with the other parts of it. The only way to get around
that is to change your definition of what is required at a
certain time period by this mall. The law allows you to phase in
the improvements by when they are needed, but as long as you say
you need 43rd for that mall on phase I, you have to have it
ready.
Commissioner Scurlock pointed out that he is looking for
some flexibility not only for the mall but for development in
that entire area. He is perfectly satisfied if we have directed
Jim Davis to go ahead and build the improvement and we are
acquiring the R/W and we are out there actually building the road
but it is not quite on line -yet. He wants that flexibility and
asked how we do'that legally. -
Discussion continued.at length as to how t.his could be
accomplished. Director Keating b"elieved there is still some .
capacity "left in -43rd Avenue, and Director Davis felt if traffic
counts show roadways are operating comfortably, we could issue a
C.O. and have the improvement some months after but tie it to a
monitoring condition.
Questions continued as to how this will relate to concur-
rency and whether we can be certain these improvements can be
completed within
the 3 -year period.
Director Davis expressed
his
SEP 1990
63
Boor
SEP 2 5 1980
BOOK 81 PAGE 9
opinion that this can be accomplished unless we get into a
"taking" situation.
Mr. Greco informed the Board that there are 2 or 3 things in
the proposed D.O. that could be a problem as to the wording, and'
the particular issue the Board Is discussing is probably the'most
important thing to the DeBartolo Corporation. He noted that the
mall is putting only:2.90 of the.total traffic on 43rd Avenue and
i
is going to pay about 1.8 million towards its improvement; so,
when the County is saying "probably" we can get this improvement)
done on 43rd Avenue, or "possibly not," you can imagine the
position that puts the developer
in if you can't get a C.O. until
all these improvements are absolutely finished. The developer
cannot sit there with department stores fully stocked that can't.
open to the public. Mr..Greco stressed that they are not balking
at anything the Board has asked, but they are concerned about the
b
indefiniteness of this situation. The developer is willing to
pay for the improvements and to put the money in some kind of
Letter of Credit, or whatever, but they have a time table for the
mall; they have got the stores; they are going to start as -
quickly as possible; and they must open by 1992. He advised that
they did meet with County Attorney Vitunac yesterday to see if
there was some way to come up with an answer, but no one was
quite sure; so, it was thought that possibly this particular
issue, and one or two others where they have some wording
changes, could be put off for possibly 2 weeks from now and that,
we could take care of everything else and make it contingent on
solving this problem to everyone's liking.
Commissioner Scurlock inquired if Mr. Greco was saying that
he wanted to have approval of the D.O. contingent on appropriate
language to be developed between now and the next couple of
meetings, but Attorney Vitunac believed that Mr. Greco wants to
continue this to a time certain and not approve the D.O. today.
Chairman Eggert raised the question of how we can not do
something with the D.O. today when we have approved the rezoning.
64
She believed the reason for this tracking together was to approve
them at the same time.
Discussion ensued as to how this could be handled, and
Chairman Eggert believed we could approve the D.O. as is and then
amend it if there is a change, and Attorney Vitunac suggested
that better yet - either withhold Board approval of the first
part or make the Board approval conditional on a satisfactory
D.O. being passed by the Board.
Commissioner Bird asked if we couldn't just use wording
stating that "No certificates of occupancy shall be issued for
any portion of the subject project until the roadway improvements
listed have been completed or sufficient funds to assure their
completion have been escrowed."
It was noted that under state law, that is not concurrency,
and debate continued as to how the state would interpret this
wording. Commissioner Scurlock questioned the Length of time it
would take to get a letter from the DCA accepting our wording.
He felt we need to defer this a couple of weeks until we can get
the wording straightened out.
Chairman Eggert noted that the other alternative is to
approve the D.O. as it is with the understanding that on a time
certain it can come back and be amended.
Mr. Greco stated that he would rather not approve it with
this language but would rather work on it for a week or so and go
to Tallahassee with it to get -an answer from the state because
they cannot. -live with it�this way.
The Board continued to discuss whether we should proceed.to
approve -the D.O.'the way it is, and then modify it if we can, and
Attorney Vitunac assured the developer that the approval- with
these conditions doesn't bind them to build the mall.
Mr. Greco continued to stress that he would much prefer to
leave this and come back in 3 weeks; however, after further
discussion with his associates, he guessed it would be okay to
SEP 2 5 199Q. 65 PO(�� ,. P4;r J'' C
SEP 2 5 1999 BOOK 81 FADE
approve it as it is with the understanding a change can be made
within 3 weeks, if possible.
Chairman Eggert noted that she would be happy to give Mr.
Greco a time certain on the Agenda for October 16th if the
CommissLon agreed.
Mr. Greco advised that there are other a few other.things
they have a problem with, and he asked that Mr. Marsicano review
these, ifzthe Board wishes to hear of'them now.
Board members agreed they should be made aware of any other
questions at this point.
Mr. Marsicano informed the Board that the R/W issue on 66th
Avenue is a concern to them. The Order says setback in accord-
ance with whatever is needed. Originally they had indicated this
would be 30' and that was based on their understanding that 2
additional lanes were needed. They would like to have a clear
understanding of the amount of footage, and hoped Mr. Davis can
come up with a specific amount so it can be included in the D.O.
The second issue is the completion issue which the Board has been
discussing. A third concern in conjunction with the completion
issue is an allowance for the potential for staging of Improve-
ments. By staging, he explained that he means if they complete a
portion of the project, they only have the improvements needed to
support it. Their fourth and last concern is in regard to the
Region's recommendation regarding grass swales.
Chairman Eggert confirmed that those items will be scheduled
to be considered on October 16th.
Commissioner Bird asked if we are going to leave all this
open until.then, and Commissioner Scurlock thought we would
approve the D.O. as it is and those concerns can be modified at
the October 16th meeting
Director Keating informed the Board that he has talked to
Mike Busha of the Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council and
was advised that if the Board approves the D.O. today, it would
66
� s �
be necessary to go through the whole procedure with the Region
again in order to amend the D.O.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Wheeler, the Board unanimously continued
the public hearing on consideration of approval- of the
D.O. to the Regular Meeting of October 16th and will
discuss the items described above at that meeting.
JOINT PURCHASE W/ST. JOHNS WATER MCMT. DIST. - OSLO ROAD PROPERTY
The Board reviewed memo from Administrator Chandler:
TO: Board of County Commissioners DATE: September 17, 1990 FILE:
James E. Chandler .
FR . County Administrator
SUBJECT: JOINT PURCHASE OF OSLO
ROAD PROPERTY BETWEEN
THE COUNTY & ST. JOHNS
RIVER WATER
MANAGEMENT DISTRICT
REFERENCES:
BACKGROUND
As you are aware, Commissioner Bowman and staff have been continuing to
explore the feasibility of acquiring the 291 acre parcel known as the "Oslo
Road property" adjacent to the Florida Medical Entomology Lab.
At a meeting on September 14 with St. Johns River Water Management District
staff, they expressed an interest in the property and a strong willingness .to
consider the possibility of a joint acquisition. However, in ' order to pursue
the matter, two appraisals are required. District staff advised they would be
willing to obtain the two appraisals, with the total estimated expense of $8,000
to $10,000 shared equally with the County.
RECOMMENDATION
Authorization is requested to obtain the appraisals with the County's share of
the funding from M.S.T.U.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Bowman, the Board unanimously authorized
staff to obtain the above described appraisals with
the County's share of the funding to be from M.S.T.U.
67
SEP 21
5 1990
r
P 2.5 1990
BOOK
1
TERMINATION OF LEASE AGREEMENT W/SEBASTIAN FOR EMS/ALS STATION
The Board reviewed memo from the Director of Emergency
Services:
TO: Board of County Commissioners
FROM: Doug Wright,`Director
Emergency Services
DATE: September 18, 1990
SUBJECT: Termination of Lease Agreement With
City of Sebastian for EMS ALS Station
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:
On September 13, 1989, the Indian River County Board of County
Commissioners approved The First Amendment To Lease Agreement with
the City of Sebastian for the structure and premises currently
being utilized as an EMS Advanced Life Support Station on Main
Street in Sebastian.
The reason for this type of legal document to be agreed to was
predicated on the fact that the Fellsmere Volunteer Ambulance
Squad, Inc., had entered into the original Lease Agreement. When
the Fellsmere Volunteer Ambulance Squad was unable to continue the
Sebastian operation, the County assumed the service and Sebastian
assigned the original lease to the County.
The Department of Emergency Services is seeking authority to
terminate the referenced lease effective October 15, 1990. The
EMS ALS unit is being relocated to Station #20 on US #1 effective
October 1, 1990, and some time will be needed to remove county
property. The lease provides for a 30 day notice to terminate the
lease. A letter has been written to the Sebastian City Manager
advising him that approval from the Commission was being sought to
terminate the lease on the dated referenced above.
This will provide a substantial savings to the EMS budget since
the Sebastian Volunteer Fire Department has leased the new fire
station to the County for ten years for the sum of $1.00 per year.
ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS:
The. capitil assets, door openers, decoders, communications
equipment, and all other county property is being located to
Station #20 to preclude buying additional furnishings and
equipment. Pursuant to prior approval by the Board, renovations
for a sleeping area have been completed at Station 20 so that
operations can commence on October 1, 1990.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends the Board of County Commissioners authorize the
termination of the First Amendment To Lease Agreement with the City
of Sebastian effective October 15, 1990.
68
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Wheeler, the Board unanimously authorized
termination of the First Amendment to Lease Agreement
with the City of Sebastian effective October 15, 1990,
as recommended by staff.
CONTRACTS - INSURANCE
The Board reviewed memo from Personnel Director Jack Price:
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
To: James Chandler, Date: September 19, 1990
County Administrator
From: Jack Price, PersonnelA4-e� Sub: Contracts -Insurance
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Negotiations with Anthem Life Insurance Company of Florida
(Formerly American General Group Insurance Company) for the coming
fiscal year are complete. Attached for your review and
recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners are specific
elements of the agreement for endorsement by the Chairman.
The Preferred Provider Organization (PPO) is a new feature for the
coming year. Designed to serve as a cost control program
benefitting both the County and individual employees (at employee
option), the agreement guarantees that the County will at least
recover its' cost through reduced claims experience. The agreement
for the PPO element is with American Health Network, Inc. dba
Florida Health Network,'a wholly owned subsidiary of Anthem Life
Insurance Company of Florida.
Also intended to reduce costs is a change in the way claims for
pre-existing conditions are viewed. In the past, claims have been
paid for conditions being treated within 3 months prior to the
effective date of insurance, up to a maximum of $2,500. The
revised "12-12-0" approach means that conditions being treated
within .12 months prior to the effective date of insurance will not
be covered at all until �12 months after the effective date of
insurance.
Thanks for your assistance...
Chairman Eggert inquired if the provision in regard to
claims for pre-existing conditions is just to apply for future
employees, and Administrator'Chandler confirmed that it is. He
explained that actually the way we have been doing this is not
the normal way to handle such claims.
P 8oaK F
69
;SEP 2 5 1990 BOOK 81 F,{, 50Q
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Bird, the Board unanimously authorized
the Chairman to execute the agreements described
above.
COPIES OF PARTIALLY SIGNED CONTRACTS ARE ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF
CLERK TO THE BOARD.
EXCESS INSURANCE RENEWALS - 1990/91•
The Board reviewed memo from Risk Manager Beth Jordan:
TO: James E. Chandler, County Admin' tra r
VIA: Jack Price, Personnel Director •'�
FROM: Beth Jordan, Risk Manage
DATE: September 13, 1990
SUBJECT: Excess Insurance Renewals; 1990-91
Ittached,'please find the renewal invoice from the Florida League
of Cities, Inc., Public Risk Services, for the County's liability
and property coverages for 1990-91 which was forwarded to Joe
Baird, OMB Director, on September 11, 1990. Total premium is
$185,325.00, with a first installment due by October 15, 1990, of
$92,663.00.
As a comparison, the* renewal liability premium of $32,560.00
contrasts with the 1989-90 premium of $43,652.00. The renewal
property premium of $152,765.00 contrasts with the 1989-90 premium
of $154,012.00.
Please contact us if you have any questions.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Bird, the Board approved the renewal invoice
from the Florida League of Cities, Inc., Public Risk
Services for the first installment of $92,663, as
described above.
70
VERO LAKE ESTATES PRELIMINARY DRAINAGE STUDY
The Board reviewed memo from Public Works Director Davis:
TO: James E. Chandler,
County Administrator
FROM: James W. Davis, P.E.,
Public Works Director(;
SUBJECT: Vero Lake Estates Preliminary Drainage Study
REF. MEMO: William B. Messersmith, P.E., Kimley-Horn and
Assoc. Inc. to James Davis dated Aug 3, 1990
DATE: August 29, 1990
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
FILE: VLEDRAIN.AGN
The Vero Lake Estates Preliminary Drainage Study Report is
complete and has been distributed to the Vero Lake Estates
Homeowners Association for review and comment. The
Consultant, Kimley Horn and Assoc., has transmitted copies
of the report to the appropriate State and Regional
Regulatory Permit Agencies, including the St. Johns River
Water Management District and Sebastian River Water Control
Districts. Included in the appendix of the report are the
response comments from those regulatory agencies that
provided written comment.
STUDY RECOMMENDATIONS
M
As a result of extensive computer modeling of the study
area, actual soil investigation and testing, and review of
aerial contour mapping of the - area, the Study
Recommendations are as follows:
1) Implement a $3,535,000 long range Capital Improvement
Program to improve and expand the internal
subdivision's drainage system to. increase storage
volume for water quality needs and improve the system's
hydraulic capacity to mitigate the runoff from a 10
' year/24 hour rainfall. Identified improvements to the
90th Avenue canal (Ditch "D" within the Sebastian
River Water Control District[SRWCD D are not
recommended at. this time due to the request from the
SRWCD for a more extensive watershed study of the
i 20,160 acre area.
It is noted that the fill to be removed from the area
could be sold to generate $2;939,000 in revenues to
offset the .$3,535,000 cost. This fill could be
stockpiled and purchased for use within the subdivision
and surrounding area.
The above costs do not include surveying, construction
staking, or right-of-way and land acquisition. A
yearly budget will be prepared by staff in concert with
road paving in the area.
2) Require all new development to conform to a lot grading
plan and rear lot easement/front lot swale grading plan
so that local drainage systems are constructed on an
ongoing basis.
i
SEP 5 1990 71BoOK F,�cE,
r �
SEP 2X990 coop . cquL
3) Secure the right or title to utilize the existing lakes
and a new lake for stormwater management practices. A
system of control structures and overflow culverts will
be constructed to increase storage of stormwater within
the Vero Lakes Estates Subdivision.
RECOMMENDATIONS AND FUNDING
It is recommended that the Vero Lake Estates Preliminary
Drainage Study dated July 1, 1990, be approved and that the
consultant be authorized to begin the Final Design stage.
Funding to -be from the Vero Lake Estates Subdivision MSTU.
In addition, staff will continue to communicate with the
Sebastian River Water Control District and- property owners
within the Ditch "D" watershed to resolve. improvements to
the Ditch "D"'outfall serving the subdivision.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Bird, the Board unanimously accepted the
Vero Lake Estates Preliminary Drainage Study for the
record and authorized the consultant to begin the
Final Design stage as recommended by staff, funding
to be from the Vero Lake Estates MSTU.
SAID REPORT IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF CLERK TO THE BOARD.
MAINTENANCE MAP - 10TH COURT SW
The Board reviewed memo from County Engineer Roger Cain:
TO: James Chandler
County Administrator
THROUGH: James W. Davis, P.E.
Public Works Director
FROM: Roger D. Cain, P.E.
County Engineer
DATE: September 6, 1990
SUBJECT: 10th Court SW
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
The Board of County Commissioners has approved a special assessment
project to pave 10th Court SW. The county has for at least 4
years, been maintaining this roadway for the length shown on the
accompanying map. According to Florida Statute 95.361(1)(a) the
county can acquire title to the lands maintained as county roads
through the maintenance map procedures outlined in that chapter.
72
The County Surveyor has completed a maintenance map showing what
area the county has maintained and intends to claim as right-of-way
for preparation to pave 10th Court SW. The map as presented meets
the requirements for filing under Florida Statutes when properly
executed.
ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS
Alternative No. 1 - Proceed to not file a maintenance map and
continue to seek donation of one remaining parcel needed for right-
of-way. Staff has been unsuccessful in acquiring the remaining
parcel.
Alternative No. 2 - Approve and file the maintenance map as
prepared.
RECOMMENDATION AND FUNDING
Staff recommends AItervative No. 2, f 111 ng the maintenance map for
.10th Court SW and that the Chairman be authorized to execute the
'original map. At this time funding is not required.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Bowman, the Board unanimously approved
Alternative No. 2 and authorized the Chairman to
execute said maintenance map and staff to file same.
R/W ACQUISITION - OSLO RD./SOLARI/INTERNATL CITRUS CORP.
The Board reviewed memo from R/W Agent Don Finney:
-----------------------------------------------------------------
TO: James E. Chandler
County Administrator
THROUGH: James,W. Davis, P.E.
Public Works Director �1
FROM: Donald G. Finney, SRA 1
Right -of -Way Acquisition Agents
SUBJECT: Right -of -Way Acquisition
*Oslo Road/Solari/International Citrus Corporation
DATE: September 12, 1990
-----------------------------------------------------------------
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
The county requires a 70' x 327.8' additional right-of-way from
the Solari property on the north side of Oslo Road in accordance
with the Thoroughfare Plan requirements.
Mr. Solari is going to dedicate the first ten feet of
right-of-way on the site plan.
He will sell the 60' x 327.8' right-of-way to the county for
$50,000. and he wants reimbursement for the 'appraisal fee of
$1,200.
SEP 2 5 1990 73 nu �. Fti1t�12
OF
SEP 2 5 1990 bl'
The appraised value of the 60' is $61,617.
ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS
The following alternatives are presented:
Alternative No. 1
Do not purchase at the present time, request a reservation and
when four lane widening improvements are implemented, purchase
the land at that time at'the higher land value.
Alternative No 2_ _
Purchase the 60' x 327.8' right-of-way simultaneously with the
dedication of the 10' by site plan. Purchase price to be $50,000
and reimburse the owner for the*$1,200 appraisal fee.
RECOMMENDATION AND FUNDING
It is recommended that Alternative No. 2 be approved and allow
the property owner to use the fence, flagpole, sign and shrubs in
the right-of-way until road construction begins. Funding to be
from Zone 6 Traffic Impact Fee Fund.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Bird, the Board unanimously approved Alterna-
tive No. 2 as recommended by staff and agreed to allow
the property owner to use the fence, flagpole, sign and
shrubs in the r/w until road construction begins.
(RECORDED WARRANTY DEED AND PARTIAL RELEASE OF MORTGAGE NOW ON FILE IN THE
OFFICE OF CLERK TO THE BOARD)
MISC. INTERSECTION, PHASE 1116 (2ND AMENDNT TO PROFESSIONAL
SERVICES AGREEMENT W/KIMBALL/LLOYD)
The Board reviewed memo from County Engineer Cain:
-----------------------------------------------------------------
TO: James Chandler
County Administrator /
THROUGH: James W. Davis, P.E.
Public Works Directc
FROM: Roger D. Cain, P.E.�/� , 90
County Engineer,
SUBJECT: Miscellaneous Intersections Phase IIIB
Professional Services Agreement, Second Amendment
Kimball/Lloyd & Associates, Inc.
DATE: September 7, 1990
-----------------------------------------------------------------
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
Indian River County has a Professional Services Agreement with
Kimball/Lloyd & Associates, Inc. to do the design work for the
74
Phase IIIB intersections being specifically the intersections of:
12th Street and 43rd Avenue, 26th Street and 43rd Avenue, and
45th Street and 43rd Avenue. .
In order to accommodate county work west of the intersection of
43rd Avenue on 41st Street, near the entrance to the Road &
Bridge driveway, it is necessary -for the engineer to extend the
limits of their project further to the west to incorporate the
length of roadway to the proposed new county work. In order to
do that the engineer has quoted an increase in the Professional
Services Agreement fee of $1,040.00, bringing -the total
Professional Services fee for this project to $78,798.50.
ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS
Alternative No. 1 - Not to approve the additional work, this
would leave a gap in the design in the intersection improvement
and proposed county work and would have to be made up either
through another professional services agreement or in-house by
county forces.
Alternative No. 2 - Is to approve the additional work agreement
and increase the professional services contractual fee
accordingly.
RECOMMENDATION AND FUNDING
Alternate No. 2 is recommended by staff. Funding will come from
Account No. 105-214-541-066.51.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Wheeler, the Board unanimously approved
Alternative No. 2 as recommended by staff.
a
SECOND AMENDMENT TO
PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING SERVICES AGREEMENT
FOR PHASE III MISCELLANEOUS INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS
i
i
THIS SECOND AMENDMENT is entered into this 25 day of September
1990, by and between INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, a
'political subdivision of the State of Florida, hereinafter
referred to as "the COUNTY" and KIMBALL/LLOYD AND ASSOCIATES,
INC. of Vero Beach, Florida, hereinafter referred to as "the
ENGINEER".
The COUNTY and the ENGINEER have previously entered into an
agreement or contract dated April
i
SEP 2 5 1990 75
5, 1988 for professional
-SEP 2 5 1990
ROOK 81
engineering and land surveying services in relation to the Phase
III Miscellaneous Intersection Improvement Project referred to as
"the CONTRACT". The COUNTY and the ENGINEER have decided to make
certain modifications to the CONTRACT. i
I. SECTION I - PROJECT LIMITS, PARAGRAPH B, is modified to
add the following:
Additionally extend this portion of the project 700
feet to the west to connect with the improvements to the west.
II SECTION V - COMPENSATION is modified by increasing the
Lump Sum Fee $1.,040.00 to $78,798.50 in consideration of the
increase in the project limits discussed immediately above in
this Second Amendment.
III. Otherwise, the CONTRACT shall control the agreement
between the parties as to the Phase III Miscellaneous
Intersection Improvements Project.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF the parties hereto have executed these
presents on the date first above written.
KIMBALL/LLOYD AND ASSOCIATES,
INC.
1835 20th Street
Vero Beach, Florida 32960
By:
G. William Myers Jr.
Vice President and
.Chief Operating Officer
Attest: GG
Eli beth M. Agosti i
Assistant Secretary
76
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
1840 25th Street
Vero Beach, Florida 32960
By:ZZ_
Carolyn/ . tggerf
Chai
Attest: d"
fy JW 2B7to
ler
� � r
RESOLUTIONS FOR PAVING & DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS
The Board reviewed memo from Civil Engineer Michelle
Gentile, as follows:
-----------------------------------------------------------------
TO: James Chandler
County Administrator
THROUGH: James W. Davis, P.E.
Public Works Director /j
and
Roger D. Cain, P.E.
County Engineer
FROM: Michelle A. Gentile, C.E.T.
Civil Engineer
SUBJECT: Resolution to Provide for the Paving and Drainage
Improvements to:
42nd Avenue
from
6th Street to
1)
42nd Avenue
from
6th Street to
8th Street
2)
42nd Avenue
from
10th Street to
12th Street
3)
44th Avenue
from
16th Street to
Pinewood
Subdivision
13th Avenue
from
12th Street to
4)
13th Avenue
from
12th Street to
14th Street
5)
2nd Street
from 23rd Avenue to
24th Avenue
DATE: September 10, 1990
-----------------------------------------------------------------
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
The County Public Works Department has received petitions
for road paving and drainage improvements for the following:
1)
42nd Avenue
from
6th Street to
8th Street
2)
42nd Avenue
from
10th Street to
12th Street
3)
44th Avenue
from
16th Street to
Pinewood
Subdivision
4)
13th Avenue
from
12th Street to
14th Street
5)
2nd Street
from 23rd Avenue to
24th Avenue
A separate resolution will need to be adopted to hold a
Public Hearing to discuss the advisability, cost and amount
of the assessment against each property owner.
This Public Hearing has been scheduled for Tuesday, October.
23, 1990 at 9:05 A.M. in the County Commission Chambers.
An assessment roll and plat has been prepared and filed with the
Clerkto the Board.
RECOMMENDATIONS AND FUNDING
It is recommended that motions be made to:
1) Adopt the resolution providing for the paving and drainage
improvements for the projects subject to the terms outlined
in the resolution.; The applicable interest rate shall be
12% at the time the final assessment roll is approved.
2) Allocate $257,921.98 from the Petition Paving Account
#173-214-541-035.39.
3) Road Projects will be advertised for bid and constructed by
a private contractor.
4) Adopt a resolution setting the time and place of the Public
Hearing.
S E P 2 5 1990I Ali77 DOOK
S E P 2 5 1990 Boost
Ruth Chapman of Rockridge Subdivision wished to know why
25th -Street from Route I east was eliminated from this.paving,
and Civil Engineer Gentile advised that 15th already has been
approved for paving.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Wheeler, SECONDED by Com
missioner Scurlock, the•Board unanimously adopted
Resolutions 90-148 through 90-T52 providing.for the
paving and drainage improvements for the .projects in
the order listed above and adopted Resolution 90-153
setting the time and place of the Public Hearing on
these projects.
RESOLUTION NO. 90- 148
A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, PROVIDING FOR
CERTAIN PAVING AND DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS TO 42ND
AVENUE (BETWEEN 6TH STREET AND 8TH STREET), IN
CITRUS GARDENS SUBDIVISION, PROVIDING THE TOTAL
ESTIMATED COST, METHOD OF PAYMENT OF ASSESSMENTS,
NUMBER OF ANNUAL INSTALLMENTS, AND LEGAL
DESCRIPTION OF THE AREA SPECIFICALLY BENEFITTED.
WHEREAS, the. County Public Works Department has been
petitioned for Road Paving and Drainage Improvement for 42nd
Avenue from 6th Street to 8th Street in Citrus Gardens
Subdivision.
RESOLUTION NO. 90- 149
A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, PROVIDING FOR
CERTAIN PAVING AND DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS TO 42ND
AVENUE (BETWEEN 10TH STREET AND 12TH STREET), IN
MALALUKA GARDENS SUBDIVISION, PROVIDING THE TOTAL
ESTIMATED COST, METHOD OF PAYMENT OF ASSESSMENTS,
NUMBER OF ANNUAL INSTALLMENTS, AND LEGAL
DESCRIPTION OF THE AREA SPECIFICALLY BENEFITTED.
WHEREAS, the County Public Works Department has been
petitioned for Road Paving and Drainage Improvement for 42nd
Avenue from 10th Street to 12th Street in Malaluka Gardens
Subdivision.
78
RESOLUTION NO. 90-150
A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, PROVIDING FOR
CERTAIN PAVING AND DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS TO 44TH
AVENUE (FROM 16TH STREET TO PINEWOOD SUBDIVISION),
PROVIDING THE TOTAL ESTIMATED COST, METHOD OF
PAYMENT OF ASSESSMENTS, NUMBER OF ANNUAL
INSTALLMENTS, AND LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF THE AREA -
SPECIFICALLY BENEFITTED.
WHEREAS, the County Public Works Department has been
petitioned for Road Paving and Drainage Improvement for 44th
Avenue from 16th Street to Pinewood Subdivision.
RESOLUTION NO. 90- 151
A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, PROVIDING FOR
CERTAIN PAVING AND DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS TO 13TH
AVENUE (BETWEEN 12TH STREET AND 14TH STREET), IN
RIVENBARK SUBDIVISION, PROVIDING THE TOTAL
ESTIMATED COST, METHOD OF PAYMENT OF- ASSESSMENTS,
NUMBER OF ANNUAL INSTALLMENTS, AND LEGAL
DESCRIPTION OF THE AREA SPECIFICALLY BENEFITTED.
WHEREAS, the County Public Works Department has been
petitioned for Road Paving and Drainage Improvement for 13th
Avenue from 12th Street to 14th Street in Rivenbark Subdivision.
RESOLUTION NO. 90- 152
A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, PROVIDING FOR
CERTAIN PAVING AND DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS TO 2ND
j STREET (BETWEEN 23RD AVENUE AND 24TH AVENUE), IN
INDIAN RIVER HEIGHTS SUBDIVISION, PROVIDINGTHE
TOTAL ESTIMATED COST, METHOD OF PAYMENT OF
ASSESSMENTS, NUMBER OF ANNUAL INSTALLMENTS, AND
LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF THE AREA SPECIFICALLY
BENEFITTED.
WHEREAS, the County Public Works Department has been
petitioned for Road Paving and Drainage Improvement for 2nd
Street between 23rd Avenue -and 24th Avenue in Indian River
H eights Subdivision.
RESOLUTIONS 90-148 THRU 90-152 ARE ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF CLERK
TO THE BOARD IN THEIR ENTIRETY.
S E P 2 5 1990 79
MOK 01f'a
SEP 2 5 1990
LOOK 81 PgUF 519
RESOLUTION 90--153
PUBLIC HEARING ,
NOTICE
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the Board of County Commissioners
of Indian River County, Florida, will hold a Public Hearing at
9:05 AM on Tuesday, October 23, 1990 in the Commission Chambers
located at 1840 25th Street, Vero Beach, Florida to discuss the
advisability,•cost an& the amount of the assessments against each
property for paving and drainage improvements, to:
1) 42nd Avenue from 6th Street to 8th Street
2) 42nd Avenue from 10th Street to 12th Street
3) 44th Avenue from 16th Street to Pinewood Subdivision
4) 13th Avenue from 12th Street to 14th Street
5) 2nd Street from 23rd Avenue to 24th Avenue
-PLEASE TAKE FURTHER NOTICE that at the same public hearing,
the Board of County Commissioners shall also hear all interested
persons regarding the proposed assessments contained in the
preliminary assessment rolls for the improvements described
above. The preliminary assessment rolls are currently on file
with the Clerk to the Board.
N
If any person decides to appeal any decision made by the
Commission with respect to any matter considered at this hearing,
he will need a record of the proceedings, and that, for such
purpose, he may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the
proceedings is made, which record includes the testimony and
evidence upon which the appeal is to be based.
NOW'THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, the foregoing
recitals are affirmed and ratified in their entirety.
The foregoing resolution was offered by Commissioner
Wheeler who moved its adoption. The motion was seconded
by Commissioner Scurlock and; upon being
put to a vote, the vote was as follows:
Chairman Carolyn K. Eggert Aye
Vice -Chairman Richard N. Bird Aye
Commissioner Don C. Scurlock, Jr. Aye
Commissioner Margaret C. Bowman Aye
Commissioner Gary C. Wheeler Aye
The Chairman thereupon declared the resolution passed and
adopted this '25 day of September , 1990.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
By.
80 CAROLYVK. EGGER ,Chairman
TEMPORARY WATER SERVICE AGREEMENT (MYRTLE SMITH)
The Board reviewed memo from Capital Projects Engineer
McCain, as follows:
DATE: SEPTEMBER 12, 1990
TO: JAMES E. CHANDLER
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR ,
FROM: TERRANCE G. PINT
DIRECTOR OF UTIL SERVICES
SUBJECT: AGREEMENT
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY AND MYRTLE M. SMITH
TEMPORARY WATER SERVICE
PREPARED AND STAFFED BY: WILLI McCAIN
CAPIT S
ENGINEER
DEPEF Y
SERVICES
BACKGROUND
Myrtle M. Smith has requested that temporary service be installed
from the water line on 43rd Avenue to service her property at 4280
48th Street, Vero Beach, Florida 32967, prior to the installation of
a water main on 48th Street.
ANALYSIS
The Agreement states that the Indian River County Department of
Utility Services (IRCDUS) shall provide temporary water service to
Ms. Smith until such time that a water line is constructed on 48th
Street by assessment. Ms. Smith agrees to pay all fees required to
make this connection. She further agrees to participate in any
future assessment.
RECOMMENDATION
The Department of Utility Services recommends that the Board of
County Commissioners approve the attached Agreement with Ms. Myrtle
M. Smith on the Consent Agenda.
ON MOTION by Commissioner -Scurlock, SECONDED by,Com-
missioner Wheeler, the Board unanimously approved
Expedited Temporary Water Service Agreement with
Myrtle M. Smith as recommended by staff.
SAID AGREEMENT IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF CLERK TO THE BOARD.
81
LIt lJ Fr1�E C®s
P 2 51990
SEP 2 5 1990 5'a
TEMPORARY WATER SERVICE AGREEMENT (RICKY SARCINELLO)
The Board reviewed memo from Capital Projects Engineer
McCain, as follows:
DATE: SEPTEMBER 12, 1990
TO: JAMES E. CHANDLER
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
FROM: TERRANCE G. PIN
DIRECTOR OF U ITYSERVICES
SUBJECT: AGREEMENT
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY AND RICKY F. SARCINELLO
-TEMPORARY WATER SERVICE
PREPARED AND STAFFED BY: WILLIAM F. MCC N
CAPITAL PROJE GINEER
DEPARTMENT OF U LITY SERVICES
BACKGROUND
Ricky F. Sarcinello has requested that a temporary service be
installed from the water line on 43rd Avenue to service his property
at 645 42nd Court, Vero Beach, Florida 32968, prior to the
installation of a water main on 42nd Court.
ANALYSIS
The Agreement states that the Indian River County Department of
Utility Services (IRCDUS) shall provide a temporary water service to
Mr. Sarcinello until such time that a water line is constructed on
42nd Court by assessment. Mr. Sarcinello agrees to pay all fees
required to make this connection. He further agrees to participate
in the assessment and to reconnect to this water line as required by
IRCDUS.
RECOMMENDATION
The Department of Utility Services recommends that the Board of
County Commissioners approve the attached Agreement with Mr. Ricky
F. Sarcinello on the Consent Agenda.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Wheeler, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Bird, the Board unanimously approved
Expedited Temporary Water Service Agreement with
Ricky Sarcinello as recommended by staff.
SAID AGREEMENT IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF CLERK TO THE BOARD.
82
r
INDIAN RIVER FARMS WATER CONTROL DISTRICT LEASE AGREEMENT FOR
CANAL R/W (PERMIT)
The Board reviewed memo from the Utilities Department:
DATE:
TO:
14 "OF
PREPARED
AND STAFFED
BY:
SUBJECT:
SEPTEMBER 11, 1990
JAMES E. CHANDLER
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
TERRANCE G. PINT
DIRECTOR OF UTI Y S RVICES
WILLIAM F. Mc
CAPITAL PROD ER
DEPARTMENT OF ITY SERVICES
INDIAN RIVER FARMS WATER CONTROL DISTRICT
LEASE AGREEMENT FOR CANAL RIGHT-OF-WAY
BACKGROUND & ANALYSIS
As part of the ongoing North County Sewer Project, it was necessary
to utilize the canal right-of-way for our effluent disposal system.
The effluent line runs from the North County Wastewater Treatment
Plant to the Sand Ridge Golf Course via the Lateral G Canal. The
annual rental is $445.50. (Please see the attached agreement.)
RECOMMENDATION
The staff of the Department of Utility Services recommends that the
Board of County Commissioners approve the attached lease agreement
With the Indian River Farms Water Control District.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Wheeler, the Board unanimously approved the
Agreement with the Indian River Farms Water Control
District for use of Canal R/W as recommended by staff.
SAID AGREEMENT (PERMIT) IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF CLERK TO THE
BOARD.
i
83 ROOX .� f'A'J ,
P 12 5 1990
S E P 2 5 1990
BOOK
Fr�uC
i
NORTH COQ T SYSTEM, PHASE I (CONTRACT FOR ENGINEERING &
INSPECTION' SERV. - POST BUCKLEY SCHUH)
The Board reviewed memo from Utilities Director Pinto:
TO: JAMES E. CHANDLER SEPTEMBER 19, 1:1990
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
FROM: TERRANCE G. PINTO'
DIRECTOO UT LI SERVICES
PREPARED H. D. "DU , P.E.
AND STAFFED ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEER
BY: DEPARTMENT OF UTILITY SERVICES
SUBJECT.- NORTH COUNTY WATER DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM,
PHASE I - AGREEMENT BETWEEN OWNER (INDIAN
RIVER COUNTY) AND ENGINEER (POST, BUCKLEY,
SCHUH AND JERNIGAN, INC.)
IRC PROJECT NO. UW -90=05 -DS j
The p ting a firm to provide engineering and
insp d r Phase I of the North County Water
Distrilb ansion has been completed. This project
provides for lam- ding the Pelican Pointe, Breezy Village, and
Park placs Urtew Mrastment Plants.
s `'
The EngimemrTmW NeAeaft:2mn Committee ranked Post, Buckley, Schuh and
Jerni , - f, ,, first. We have received from PBS&J a signed
contractcost information. Estimated construction
cost its $307,2-W-26 ; engineering basic services (including
inspectiamy is prapasmd to be $29,081.00, which is within the Indian
River nt of Utility Services Guidelines for
Profer-sloaml EAg ring Services. Additional costs for surveying
and soils i & are $4,905.00 and $1,760.00 respectively,
for an ov 1 cost of $35,746.00.
The DepartmentUtility Services recommends approval of the
Bele cm of. ,, kley, Schuh and Jernigan, Inc., and further
recommends "ow. of the enclosed contract (4 copies) which
authorizes sign of the subject project.
IFN; MOTION by. Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Com-
wlssi°oner Wheeler, the Board unanimously approved the
seliect i on of Post, Buckley Schuh & Jernigan, 1nc., as
recamended by staff and authorized the Chairman to
exacute r-ont_r act with same authorizing design of the
sq&"�e?c t� prslji :t.
C> OF SAAUD CMTR"T I S ON F I LE I N THE OFF I CE OF CLERK TO THE
84
NORTH CO. WW SYSTEM - NEGOTIATE W/FIRMS FOR DESIGN OF SEWER
COLLECTION SYSTEM TO SERVICE AREA EAST OF U.S.I
Engineer William McCain reviewed the following:
DATE: SEPTEMBER 11, 1990
TO: JAMES E. CHANDLER
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
FROM: TERRANCE G. PINTO
DIRECTOR OF UTILITY SERVICES
PREPARED HARRY E. ASHER
AND STAFFED
ASSISTANT DIRECTOR O� T,ILITY SERVICES
BY:
SUBJECT: ENGINEERING FIRM SELECTION
ENGINEERING STUDY AND DESIGN OF SEWER COLLECTION
SYSTEM TO SERVICE THE AREA EAST OF STATE ROAD 1
(NORTH COUNTY WASTEWATER SYSTEM)
BACKGROUND
On August 6, 1990, the Department of Utility Services received
thirteen (13) responses to its Request for Letters of Interest to
provide engineering study and design of a sewer collection system to
service the area east of State Road 1 (North County Wastewater
System). The selection committee reviewed the thirteen (13)
responses and selected four (4) firms to be interviewed for the
project.
ANALYSIS s
On September 7, 1990, the selection committee interviewed the four
(4) firms, and as a result of the interviews, ranked the firms as
follows:
1. Kimball/Lloyd and Associates, Inc.
2. Professional Engineering Associates
3. Lindahl, Browning, Ferrari, & Hellstrom
4. Hazen and Sawyer
i\JJ V Vl"il"iJJl\ LA L i V 1\ �
The Department of Utility -Services recommends that the Board of
County Commissioners authorize the Department of Utility Services"to
conduct negotiations as to. scope of work and cost, and to proceed
with an agreement with the -first choice firm of Kimball/Lloyd and
Associates, Inc., based upon the outcome of the negotiations.
Engineer McCain advised that they -would like dual approval =
first to negotiate with the first choice firm of Kimball -/Lloyd
and then to proceed with negotiations with the second choice
selection if those negotiations fail.
Commissioner Scurlock believed that is understood, and -the
Board agreed.
BOOK 4 1J
SEP 2 5 1990 85
S E P 2 5 1930
BOOK 81
09 MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Com-
wAs;sFenero- Wheeler, the Board unanimously authorized
neg.ot i anti:eros: w4th the first choice firm listed above
a �f these negotiation should fail, to proceed with
Frego.t 1 apt i.o.n,s. wJ. th the second cho i ce f i rm.
A I[S UT 14N OF LOTS, I!X BOOKER T. WASHINGTON SUBDV ...
The. B:ozrd reviewed -memo from -Asst. County Attorney O'Brien:
To-- Br -of County Commissioners
Tegnr P'. O'Brien - Assistant County Attorney �P()
wit'af 18, 1990
SM=-- CCNM MITFON OF LOTS 4 & 5, BLOCK 6
MMMER'T. WASHINGTON S/D, WESTSIDE OF 18TH AVENUE
1M MF 27th STREET
TMS a9 at Cawvty Commissioners has author i zed the staff
to take thestaV.s necessary to condemn the subject property.
Lai it �ws &mvn appraised at $24,400.00
it 5 has beemappraised at $31,400.00
T6&F-aP value f55,800.00
The r. r.t, ins:,, ewTed by Mrs. Lofton who Is represented by
Geerqp. .. 1 ftN1;.r Negotiations have taken place between
staff and Mr. 3'eutte I I. The owner's final figure Is
,else.go. A. aopy of the two latest letters from Mr.
ReattalP is., at.t'ached for information.
The i;ffere a between the appraised value and the asking
pL-Rca is appraa,�mately $8,000.00. It is my opinion that it
lad not i judicious to institute eminent domain
pr=ae.d4rigs whxthe sum i n d i f ference i s th i s amount.
1i ,r.. vA 1'4, rw doubt, be able to present a creditable
a wa-lri& . mat wi I 1 exceed our appraisal. In fact Mr.
te1'i' has omitted in his September 7, 1990 letter,
reasa wh-fv th&& value should be $74,000.00. Juries
hlsterlca;.111' s l-�t. the difference. This coupled with
attarrne "s ftes, could end up costing the County far more
than llya cu<rr.*n,t. $8,000.00 difference.
1n vli wr of thie foregd.ing, I recommend that the County
authcrtze thm pwrchase of the two lots for a total of
$64„000.01(
ON? MOTPONT - Cammissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Com-
mress i oner Bawman., the Board unanimously authorized
purchase 'af` thre. two lots described above for a total,
of $64,,O114 as recommended by staff.
86
CANCELLATION OF BOARD MEETING OF OCTOBER 9TH
Chairman Eggert advised that three Commissioners will be out
of the County on October 9th, and with the Board's permission,
she will cancel the Regular Meeting of that date.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Wheeler, the Board unanimously canceled
the Regular Meeting scheduled for October 9, 1990.
TRANSPORTATION DISADVANTAGED TRIP/EQUIPMENT GRANT APPLICATION
Commissioner Bowman referred the Board to the following
memo, advising that this is an emergency because the deadline for
receipt of the grant by the State is October 2, 1990.
TO: Commissioner Margaret C. Bowman
DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE:
Robert M. Kea ng, CP
Community Developme Director
THRU: Sasan Rohani
Chief, Long -Range Planning
FROM: Cheri Boudreaux6_�_R
Senior Planner, Long -Range Planning
DATE: September 21, 1990
'RE: TRANSPORTATION DISADVANTAGED NON -SPONSORED
j TRIPS AND/OR CAPITAL EQUIPMENT GRANT LOCAL
i MATCH REQUEST
'It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal
consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their regular
meeting of September 25, 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.
P 5 199 87
MGK
EP 2 5 d9go
ROOK 81
P,1LE 6
On July 24, 1990, the Board directed the staff to contact the
appropriate state agencies and the Council on Aging regarding their
suggested appointees to the Local Coordinating Board. The Board
also nominated Commissioner Margaret C. Bowman as Chair of the
L.C.B.
On August 14, 1990, the Board officially appointed the members to
the Local Coordinating Board.
On August 23, 1990, the Local Coordinating Board discussed and
recommended the approval of the Planning Grant and the Community
Transportation Coordinator (CTC) selection proposal.
On August 28, 1990, the Board officially reviewed and approved the
submittal of the Planning Grant and the Community Transportation
Coordinator (CTC) selection proposal to the state.
The Local -Coordinating Board (LCB) reviewed and recommended the
approval of the Trip -Equipment Grant, (with minor revisions,) on
September 20,1990.
The LCB also recommended that Commissioner Bowman present a request
to the Board of County Commissioners, at their next meeting, to
request the appropriation of funds for the required match for the
Trip -Equipment Grant.
ANALYSIS
The state has allocated, for fiscal year 1990/1991, $40,154.00 to
Indian River County for transportation disadvantaged trip -related
services. The Council on Aging, which is the recommended Community
Transportation Coordinator (CTC) for the county, must apply for
these grant funds (copy attached). A local match of 25% of the
total which is $13,384.00 must be provided in order to receive
these funds. At least half of the 25% match must be cash generated
from local sources, and the remaining portion may be in-kind
services. The deadline for receipt of the grant by the State is
October 2, 1990.
The grant funds are for the purpose of providing non -sponsored
trips for the transportation disadvantaged and for the purchase of
capital equipment to be used for services provided to the
transportation disadvantaged, as identified in Rule 41-2, FAC.
Specifically, these funds would be used to provide existing and
additional non -sponsored trips to qualified transportation
disadvantaged clients in the county. It is estimated that 5,000
trips will be sponsored with these funds. These funds are
anticipated to be used mainly to provide transportation services
to these clients with out -of -the county destinations. For example,
these funds may be used to provide transportation for a handicapped
veteran who needs medical care at a hospital located in another
county.
Currently and in the past, grant funds were not received for the
provision of these services. The local Council on Aging provided
some money for these services on a limited basis; however, the
total need has not been met due to the lack of funds, especially
for out -of -county trips.
The requested match funds have not been allocated in the county's
fiscal year 1990-1991 budget. The county staff was unaware of the
need for the matching funds prior to the actual submittal of the
grant itself, which was after the budget process. The money would
have to come from the county's contingency fund.
88
ALTERNATIVES
The alternatives are as follows:
1. The Board can appropriate $6,692.00 cash from the
county's general fund/contingency fund and $6,692.00 of
in-kind services; or
2. Suggest to the Council on Aging and. the Local
Coordinating Board that they find alternate funds.
RECOMMENDATION
The Local Coordinating Board recommends that the Board of County
Commissioners approve the Trip/Equipment Grant application and
appropriate funds in the amount of $13,384.00 (at least 1/2 in
cash; the other 1/2 may be in-kind services) to match available
grant funds.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Wheeler, the Board unanimously approved the
Trip/Equipment Grant application described above and
appropriate funds in the amount of $13,384 - at least
1/2 to be in cash, the remainder to be in-kind services
- as recommended by the Local Coordinating Board.
SOUTH COUNTY FIRE DISTRICT
The Chairman announced that immediately upon adjournment,
the Board would reconvene sitting as the District Board of
Commissioners of the South County Fire District.
Those Minutes are being prepared separately.
There toeing no further business, on Motion duly made,
seconded and carried, the Board adjourned at 1:00 o'clock P.M..
ATTEST:
Clerk Ch a i n
St P 2 5 1990 890 RoK,