HomeMy WebLinkAbout5/21/1991t;v1„e,
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
AGENDA
REGULAR MEETING
TUESDAY, MAY 21, 1991
9:00 A.M. - COUNTY COMMISSION CHAMBER
COUNTY ADMINISTRATION BUILDING
1840 25TH STREET
VERO BEACH, FLORIDA
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Richard N. Bird, Chairman
Gary C. Wheeler, Vice Chairman
Margaret C. Bowman
Carolyn K. Eggert
Don C. Scurlock, Jr.
James E. Chandler, County Administrator
Charles P. Vitunac, County Attorney
Jeffrey K. Barton, Clerk to the Board
***•*_**************************************=**•****_.
9:00 A.M.
jf1AY 21 1991
. CALL TO ORDER
2. • INVOCATION - Rev. Ray Huddle
Redeemer Lutheran Church
3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - Comm. Margaret C. Bowman
4. ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA/EMERGENCY ITEMS
Added as Item 11.-H6,the harvesting of late bloom fruit.
5. PROCLAMATION AND PRESENTATIONS
None
6. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
None
7. CONSENT AGENDA
A. Proclamation declaring week of June 2-8, 1991 as
National Safe Boating Week in Indian River County
B. Release of Utility Liens
(memorandum dated May 10, 1991)
C. Budget Amendment 039 - Unemployment Compensation
(memorandum dated May 14, 1991)
D. Transportation Disadvantaged Local Coordinating
Board By -Laws
(memorandum dated May 9, 1991)
E. Transportation Disadvantaged Planning Grant Progress
Report and Reimbursement Invoice
(memorandum dated May 13, 1991)
MAY 21 1991 POOK 83 F'NGE •� /5
7. CONSENT AGENDA (continued):
F. Release of Easement Petition By: James B. & Edith M.
Atwell, Lots 2 & 4, Block 13, Tropical Village
Estates Subdivision
(memorandum dated May 2, 1991
G. Peterson & Votapka, Inc.'s Request for Site Plan
Extension on Behalf of Bill Wolf, et. al.
(memorandum dated May 9, 1991)
H. Bid 91-87 / Laboratory & Clinical Supplies -
Health Department
(memorandum dated May 13, 1991)
I. IRC Bid #91-47 / Vibratory Roller - Rd. & Bridge
(memorandum dated May 9, 1991)
J. Bid #91-80 / 19th Ave. Parking Facility - Public
Works Department
(memorandum dated May 9, 1991)
K. IRC Bid #91-50 / North Beach R.O. Expansion -
Utilities Dept.
(memorandum dated May 13, 1991)
8. CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS AND
GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES
None
9:05 a.m. 9. PUBLIC ITEMS
A. PUBLIC DISCUSSION ITEMS
None
B. PUBLIC HEARINGS
1. Sebastian Associates, Ltd. Request to Amend the
Comprehensive Plan and Rezone Approximately
8 Acres
(memorandum dated May 15, 1991)
2. Trevor Smith Request to Amend the Comprehensive
Plan and Rezone Approximately .34 Acres
(memorandum dated May 15, 1991)
10. COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S MATTERS
A. Purchase . of Lots 8 & 9, Block 45 for Proposed
Courthouse Site
(memorandum dated May 10, 1991)
B. FY 1991-92 Anti -Drug Abuse Grant Funding
(memorandum dated May 13, 1991)
C. Marine Resources Council (MRC) Request for Temporary
funding
(memorandum dated May 15, 1991)
11. DEPARTMENTAL MATTERS
A. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
1. Request to authorize staff to draw upon a letter
of credit for Copelands Landing, Inc. Phase I
Subdivision
(memorandum dated April 30, 1991)
2. 1990 Comprehensive Plan Amendments
(memorandum dated May 15, 1991)
B. EMERGENCY SERVICES
None
C. GENERAL SERVICES
None
D. LEISURE SERVICES
None
E. OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
None
F. PERSONNEL
None
G. PUBLIC WORKS
Partial List of Road Resurfacing Projects FY90/91
(memorandum dated May 15, 1991)
H. UTILITIES
1. Two deep wells for the So. County R.O. Plant,
with Consumptive Use Permit (CUP) Modification
and Renewal
(memorandum dated May 13, 1991)
2. Change Order No. 1, North Beach Wells
(memorandum dated May 13, 1991)
3. North County sewer service (billing for reserved
capacity due to completion of project)
(memorandum dated May 14, 1991)
4. Agreement between St. Johns River Water Management
District (SJRWMD), Indian River County, and the
University of Fla. to perform a study on use of
reclaimed water on citrus groves
(memorandum dated May 14, 1991)
5. Request for purchase of two disk drives for
IBM AS400
(memorandum dated April 22, 1991)
12. COUNTY ATTORNEY
None
MAY 21 1991
[1001(. 83 rik6E.37t3
MAY 2i 1991
MD 8: ['AGE 377
13. COMMISSIONERS ITEMS
A. CHAIRMAN RICHARD N. BIRD
B. VICE CHAIRMAN GARY C. WHEELER
C. COMMISSIONER MARGARET C. BOWMAN
D. COMMISSIONER CAROLYN K. EGGERT
E. COMMISSIONER DON C. SCURLOCK, JR.
Report on Presentation Given to Professional Services
Advisory Committee
14. SPECIAL DISTRICTS
A. NORTH COUNTY FIRE DISTRICT
None
B. SOUTH COUNTY FIRE DISTRICT
None
C. SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL DISTRICT
1. Approval of Minutes - Meeting of 5/14/91
2. Bid Award: IRC 91-74 / Brush Chipper
(memorandum dated May 13, 1991)
15. ADJOURNMENT
ANYONE WHO MAY WISH TO APPEAL ANY DECISION WHICH MAY BE MADE
AT THIS MEETING WILL NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD OF
THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE WHICH INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY AND
EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL WILL BE BASED.
Tuesday, May 21, 1991
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, May 21, 1991, at
9:00 a.m. Present were Richard N. Bird, Chairman; Gary C. Wheeler,
Vice Chairman; Carolyn K. Eggert, Margaret C. Bowman and Don C.
Scurlock, Jr. Also present were James E. Chandler, County
Administrator; Charles P. Vitunac, County Attorney; and Virginia
Hargreaves and Patricia Held, Deputy Clerks.
The Chairman called the meeting to order.
Rev. Raymond C. Huddle, Redeemer Lutheran Church, gave the
invocation and Margaret C. Bowman led the Pledge of Allegiance to
the Flag.
ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA/EMERGENCY ITEMS
Administrator Chandler requested the addition of Item H.6.,
regarding harvesting of late bloom fruit.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Wheeler, the Board unanimously approved
the addition to the agenda.
PROCLAMATIONS
Proclamation - National Safe Boating Week
Proclamation designating the week of June 2 to 8, 1991 as
National Safe Boating Week in Indian River County is hereby made a
part of the record.
MAS'211991
MAY 2i 1991
BOOK 83 p [ •. 10
PROCLAMATION
DECLARING THE WEEK OF JUNE 2 - 8, 1991 AS
NATIONAL SAFE BOATING WEEK
IN INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
WHEREAS, water -related recreational activities are vital
elements in the lives of the citizens of Indian River County; and
WHEREAS, Florida's 8,400 miles of saltwater tidal coastline,
3 million acres of inland lakes and 11,000 miles of rivers and
streams provide for many of the needed outlets for recreation and
,relaxation; and
WHEREAS, recreational boating is one of Florida's leading
outdoor activities with more than 4 million residents
participating in this pastime; and
Q,' " WHEREAS, Florida is the fastest growing recreational boating
state in the nation with over 718,000 registered vessels and
'.increasing at over 10,000 vessels each year; and
WHEREAS, every year lives -are lost in boating accidents in
spite of the educational efforts of the Florida Marine Patrol, U.
S. Coast Guard, U. S. Coast Guard Auxiliary, U. S. Power
Squadrons, Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission and local
agencies; and
WHEREAS, the Florida Marine Patrol, U. S. Coast Guard, U. S.
Coast Guard Auxiliary, U. S. Power Squadrons, Florida Game and
Fresh Water Fish Commission and other cooperating agencies and
groups have developed and are now executing campaigns in this
field; and
'WHEREAS, . the sponsors of these safety programs have
!addressed their efforts to the youth and general public of
Florida, urging them to enhance boating pleasure and avoid
;possible loss of life and property damage:
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT PROCLAIMED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA that the week of
June 2 - 8, 1991 be designated as
NATIONAL SAFE BOATING WEEK
in Indian River County, and the Board urges all citizens who use
our waterways to join in learning and practicing safe boating and
in having their boats inspected for proper safety equipment. to
observe boating safety rules. The Board further urges the
citizens of Indian River County to affirm and support the goals
of National Safe Boating Week, June 2 - 8, 1991.
Dated this 21st day of May, 1991.
2
�a
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
Richard N. Bird, Ciairman
CONSENT AGENDA
B. Release of Utility Liens
The Board reviewed memo from Lea Keller, CLA, dated May 10,
1991:
TO: Board of County Commissioners
off.- ,e.kiVrrahAJ
FROM: Lea R. Keller, CLA, County Attorney's Office
DATE: May 10, 1991
RE: CONSENT AGENDA - B.C.C. MEETING 5/21/91
RELEASE OF UTILITY LIENS
I have prepared the following lien related documents and request that
the Board authorize the Chairman to sign them:
1. Releases of Special Assessment Lien from
SUMMERPLACE WATER PROJECT in the name of:
WHEELER
2. Release of Special Assessment Liens from
ROCKRIDGE SEWER PROJECT in the names of:
KEHOE
HARTSOCK
GOODSON.
3. Release of Special Assessment Lien from
BREEZEWOOD PARK in the name of:
GIANNA
4. Release of Special Assessment Liens from
HEDDEN PLACE in the names of:
MAGEE
DUKIN
5. Release of Special Assessment Lien from
NORTH COUNTY SEWER PROJECT in the name of:
PELICAN POINTE (Unit P-6)
6. Release of Special Assessment Liens from
STATE ROAD 60 WATER PROJECT in the name of:
• . KINGWOOD WEST, INC.
7. Release of Special Assessment Liens from
STATE ROAD 60 SEWER PROJECT in the name of:
CHAMPION HOME COMMUNITIES (HERON CAY)
Additional back-up information is on file in the County Attorney's
Office.
3
mor. 83 FAu.:38u
MAY 211991
MAY 21. 1991 euoK 83 ['ALE 381
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Scurlock, the Board unanimously
approved and authorized the Chairman to execute the
Releases of Special Assessment Liens as listed
above.
COPIES OF RELEASES ARE ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF
CLERK TO THE BOARD
C. Budget Amendment 039 - Unemployment Compensation
The Board reviewed memo from OMB Director Joe Baird dated May
14, 1991:
•
TO: Members of the Board
of County Commissioners
DATE: May 14, 1991
SUBJECT: UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION
BUDGET AMENDMENT 039 - CONSENT AGENDA
:THROUGH: Joseph A. Baird
OMB Director
FROM: Leila Beth Miller
Budget Analyst ,
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
The State of Florida, Department of Labor, bas charged Indian River County _for
.Unemployment Compensation payments to former employees. A budget amendment is
required to reflect these payments.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners approve budget amendment
039 to refund Unemployment Compensation payments, funding to come from
contingencies.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Scurlock, the Board unanimously
approved budget amendment 039 to refund Unemployment
Compensation payments as recommended by Staff.
4
TO: -Members of the Board SUBJECT: BUDGET AMENDMENT
of County Commissioners
FROM: Joseph A. Baird
OMB Director
Entry
Number
NUMBER:
DATE:
039
May 14. 1991
Funds/Department/Account Name
Account Number
Increase
Decrease
1.
EXPENSE
GENERAL FUND
Board of County Commissioners
Unemployment Compensation
Building & Grounds
lUnemplovment Compensation
Clerk of Circuit Court
Unem•lo ent Com•ensation
Elections
,Unemployment Compensation
;Reserve for Contingencies
:EXPENSE
'GOLF COURSE
001-101-511-012.15
001-220-519-012.15
001-309-516-012.15
001-700-519-012.15
001-199-581-099.91
160
499
327
17 $
0 $ 1.003
,S o
0
0
;..•:f*- ''Clubhouse
Unemployment Compensation
=Electrical Services
REVENUE
418-236-572-012.15
418-221-572-034.31,$
56 $
0 i -S .
0
56 1
FLEET MANAGEMENT
Automobile Maintenance
EXPENSE
501-000-395-010.00
327
Unemployment Compensation
501-242-591-012.15,$ 327
•
D. Transportation Disadvantaged Local Coordinating Board Bylaws
The Board reviewed memo from Long -Range Planning Senior
Planner Cheri Fitzgerald dated May 9, 1991:
5
MAY 21 1991
iiw 21- 199
EoOK 8s q F �'
3 PACE 333
TO: James E. Chandler
County Administrator
DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE
THRU: Sasan Rohani S 'e -
Chief, Long -Range Planning
FROM:FROM: Cheri B. Fitzgerald
GD
Senior Planner, Long -Range Planning
DATE: May 9, 1991
RE: TRANSPORTATION DISADVANTAGED LOCAL COORDINATING BOARD BY-
LAWS
'It is requested that the data herein presented be given •formal
•consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their regular
?meeting of May 21, 1991.
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
On May 8, 1990, the Board of County Commissioners (BCC) 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 of its approval as the DOPA on June
X15, 1990.
The BCC/DOPA was required, as per Chapter 427, Florida Statutes and
Rule 41-2, Florida Administrative Code, to appoint members to the
Transportation Disadvantaged Local Coordinating Board (TDLCB).
On August 14, 1990, the BCC/DOPA appointed the required eleven
member TDLCB. The purpose of the TDLCB is to identify local
service needs and to provide information, advice, and direction to
the Community Transportation Coordinator on the coordination of
services to be provided to the transportation disadvantaged.
The county's Transportation Disadvantaged Local Coordinating Board
(TDLCB) is required to develop and adopt a set of by-laws, as per
the "TDLCB's Operating Guidelines" adopted by the state
Transportation Disadvantaged Commission on January 10th, 1990. As
directed by the TDLCB, the staff drafted a set of by-laws which
establishes a set of operating and meeting procedures for the
TDLCB; a .grievance procedure for resolution of complaints from
transportation disadvantaged clients/providers; and several other
rules.
On January 17, 1991, the TDLCB reviewed and made revisions to the
draft by-laws for subsequent approval at their next meeting. At
the February 21, 1991 meeting, the TDLCB approved the by-laws with
revisions.
The staff has completed the TDLCB revisions to the by-laws and has
attached a copy for your review and concurrence.
6
ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS
As mentioned above, the TDLCB is required by the state TDC to
develop and adopt a set of by-laws. These by-laws serve to guide
the proper functioning of the TDLCB. The intent of the by-laws is
to provide guidance for the operation of the TDLCB to ensure the
accomplishment of transportation disadvantaged planning and
development of tasks within a cooperative framework.
The BCC/DOPA alternatives are to either approve the transmittal of
the TDLCB by-laws as submitted, approve transmittal of the by-laws
with revisions, or deny the transmittal of the submitted by-laws to
the state.
RECOMMENDATION
The TDLCB and staff recommend that the Board of County
Commissioners/DOPA approve the transmittal of the by-laws to the
State Transportation Disadvantaged Commission.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Scurlock, the Board unanimously
approved the transmittal of the bylaws to the State
Transportation Disadvantaged Commission, as
recommended by Staff.
E. Transportation Disadvantaged Planning Grant Progress Report and
Reimbursement Invoice
The Board reviewed memo from Long -Range Planning Senior
Planner Cheri Fitzgerald dated May 13, 1991:
7
MAY 21 199
[00K. 83 pa.3821
AYz 1 199
POOK 83 PAGE 385
TO: James E. Chandler
County Administrator
THRU:
Chief , Long -Range Planning
FROM: Cheri B. Fitzgerald ``Jr
Senior Planner, Long -Range Planning
DATE: May 13, 1991
RE: TRANSPORTATION DISADVANTAGED PLANNING GRANT PROGRESS
REPORT & REIMBURSEMENT INVOICE
DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE
Obert M. Keati
Sasan Rohani V .i .
It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal
consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their regular
meeting of May 21, 1991.
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
On May 8, 1990, the Board of County Commissioners (BCC) 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. In its capacity as the DOPA, the Board of County
Commissioners is responsible for coordinating transportation
disadvantaged resources in the county.
On August 28, 1990, the BCC/DOPA approved the transmittal of a
Transportation Disadvantaged Planning Grant application to the
state. The Planning Grant was subsequently executed by the state
and the BCC/DOPA on November 27, 1990.
As part of the Transportation Disadvantaged Planning Grant contract
between the. Designated Official Planning Agency (DOPA) and the
State of Florida Transportation Disadvantaged Commission (TDC),
quarterly progress reports must be submitted along with
reimbursement invoices. To comply with this requirement, staff
prepared a progress report and invoice for the first quarter of the
grant period. On March 21, 1991, the Transportation Disadvantaged
Local Coordinating Board (TDLCB) reviewed and approved the Progress
Report and reimbursement invoice with minor revisions.
ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS
Attached is a copy of the progress report and invoice summaries,
along with a brief narrative describing the status of each task for
the first quarter period beginning November 27th, 1990 and
extending through February 28th, 1991.
The progress reports and applicable_ finished products, such as
TDLCB meeting minutes, by-laws, etc., are required to accompany all
reimbursement invoices. These materials will also be submitted to
the state along with the reimbursement invoice.
The BCC/DOPA's alternatives are to either approve the transmittal
of the Progress Report and reimbursement invoice as submitted,
approve transmittal of the Progress Report and invoice with
revisions, or deny the transmittal of the Progress Report and
invoices to the state.
RECOMMENDATION
The TDLCB and the staff recommend that the Board of County
Commissioners/DOPA approve the Progress Report and reimbursement
invoice, and direct staff to transmit the report to the State
Transportation Disadvantaged Commission.
8
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Scurlock, the Board unanimously
approved the Progress Report and reimbursement
invoice, and directed staff to transmit the report
to the State Transportation Disadavantaged
Commission.
F. Release of Easement Petition
The Board reviewed memo from Code Enforcement Officer Charles
Heath dated May 2, 1991:
TO: James E. Chandler
County Administrator
DEPARTMENT HEAD CONCURRENCE:
obert M. Keating AIC
Community Develop ent rector
THROUGH: Roland DeBlois, AICP
Chief, Environmental Planning
& Code Enforcement
FROM: Charles W. HeathC.J,j
Code Enforcement Officer
DATE: May 02, 1991
SUBJECT:
RELEASE OF EASEMENT PETITION BY:
James B. & Edith M. Atwell
Lots 2 & 4, Block 13, Tropical Village Estates
Subdivision
It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal
considerationby the Board of County Commissioners at their regular
meeting of May 21, 1991.
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS:
The County has been petitioned by James B. & Edith M. Atwell, the
owners of the subject property, for the release of the common three
(3) foot side lot utility and drainage easements of Lots 2 & 4,
Block 13, Tropical Village Estates Subdivision, being the southerly
three (3) feet of Lot 2 and the northerly three (3) feet of Lot 4.
It is the petitioners' intention to construct a single-family
residence on the subject property.
The current zoning classification of the subject property is RS -6,
Single -Family Residential District. The Land Use Designation is L-
2, allowing up to six (6) units per acre.
ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS:
The request has been reviewed by Southern Bell Telephone Company,
Florida Power & Light Company, Falcon Cable Corporation, the Indian
River County Utilities Department and the Road & Bridge and
Engineering Divisions. Based upon their reviews, it was determined
that there would be no adverse impact to utilities or drainage on
the subject property by the release of the easements.
9
NAY 21 1991
MAY 21 1991
BOOK 83 F,gu pad
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends to the Board, through the adoption of a
resolution, the release of the common three (3) foot side lot
utilities and drainage easements, being the southerly three (3)
feet of Lot 2, and the northerly three (3) feet of Lot 4, Block 13,
Tropical Village Subdivision, as recorded in Plat Book 5, Page 65,
of the Public Records of Indian River County, Florida.
and
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Scurlock, the Board unanimously adopted
Resolution 91-61, abandoning certain easements in
the Tropical Village Estates Subdivision as
recommended by Staff.
RESOLUTION NO. 91-61
A RESOLUTION OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA,
ABANDONING CERTAIN EASEMENTS IN THE TROPICAL
VILLAGE ESTATES SUBDIVISION, LOTS 2 & 4, BLOCK
13, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF AS RECORDED
IN PLAT BOOK 5, PAGE 65 OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS
OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA.
WHEREAS, Indian River County has easements as described below,
WHEREAS, the retention of those easements serves no public
purpose,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of County
Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida that:
This release of easement is executed by Indian River County,
Florida, a political subdivision of the State of Florida, whose
mailing address is 1840 25th Street, Vero Beach, Florida 32960,
Grantor, to James B. Atwell and Edith M. Atwell, his wife,
their successors in interest, heirs and assigns, whose mailing
address is Post Office Box 44, Fellsmere, Florida 32948 Grantee, as
follows:
Indian River County does hereby abandon all right, title, and
interest that it may have in the following described easements:
The common three (3) foot side lot utility and
drainage easements of Lots 2 & 4, Block 13,
Tropical Village Estates, being the southerly
three (3) feet of Lot 2 and the northerly
three (3) feet of Lot 4, Block 13,.Tropical
Village Estates, according to the plat thereof
as recorded in Plat Book 5, Page 65, of the
Public Records of Indian River County,
Florida; 10
THIS RESOLUTION was moved for adoption by Commissioner
Eggert , seconded by Commissioner Scurlock
, and
adopted on the 21 day of May , 1991. by the
following vote:
Commissioner Richard N. Bird
Commissioner Gary C. Wheeler
Commissioner Carolyn Eggert
Commissioner Margaret C. Bowman
Commissioner Don C. Scurlock Jr.
Aye
Aye
Aye
Aye
Aye
The Chairman thereupon declared the resolution duly passed and
adopted this ..21 , day of May 1991.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONER
OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY,
FLORIDA
By
And_ -;_421?
Richard •11..,, Bird
'.Cb rqn •
G. Peterson & Votapka, Inc., Request for Site Plan Extension on
Behalf of Bill Wolf, et al.
The Board reviewed memo from Current Development Staff Planner
Christopher Rison dated May 9, 1991:
TO: James E. Chandler
County Administrator
DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE:
Robert M. Keati
Community Developme ' Director
THROUGH: Stan Boling, AICP
Planning Director
FROM: •Christopher D. Rison vim'
Staff Planner, Current Development
DATE: May 9, 1991
SUBJECT:
PETERSON AND VOTAPKA, INC.'S REQUEST FOR SITE PLAN
EXTENSION ON BEHALF OF BILL WOLF, ET.AL.
SP -MA -90-07-44
It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal
consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at its regular
meeting of May 21, 1991.
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS:
On May 10, 1990, the Planning and Zoning Commission conditionally
approved a major site plan application submitted by Peterson and
Votapka, Inc: on behalf of Bill Wolf, et.al. Approval was given to
construct three (3) 4,458 sq. ft. medical/office buildings to be
located at 139,141 and 143 Vista Royale Square, respectively.
11
IL MAY 211991
ptaiDK
Pr -
'MAY 21199A
BOOK 8 83 PAGE 389
Prior to the May 10, 1991 expiration date of the site plan
approval, Peterson and Votapka Inc., on behalf of Bill Wolf,
submitted a request that a site plan extension be granted. Due to
funding difficulties, Mr. Wolf, et. al. have been unable to
commence construction of the approved site plan and are of the
opinion that the current site plan approval expiration will pass
before construction can commence. Site plan approval is valid for
only one (1) year, and it formally expires unless otherwise
extended by the Board of County Commissioners.
In October 1990, Indian River County adopted its current Land
Development Regulations; however, staff is of the opinion that the
changes in the regulations would not significantly affect the
project's design if it were reviewed as a new application today.
The members of the Technical Review Committee (TRC) concur that the
changes that have occurred are not significant enough to warrant
any site plan revisions.
Pursuant to the provisions of the Site Plan Ordinance, Peterson and
Votapka, Inc. is requesting a full one (1) year extension of the
approved site plan. Pursuant to the site plan ordinance, the Board
may grant, grant with conditions, or deny such site plan extension
requests. In staff's opinion, the currently_ approved subject site
plan application would substantially conform to current
requirements, and therefore, should be extended.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of Peterson and Votapka's request for a
one (1) year extension of the conditionally approved site plan.
The new site plan expiration date will be May 10, 1992.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Scurlock, the Board unanimously
approved the request for a one-year extension of the
conditionally approved site plan, with expiration
date of May 10, 1992, as recommended by Staff.
H. Bid 91-87 - Laboratory and Clinical Supplies - Health
Department
The Board reviewed memo from Purchasing Manager Fran Boynton
dated May 13, 1991:
12
DATE:
TO:
THRU:
May 13, 1991
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
James E. Chandler, County Administrator
H.T. "Sonny" Dean, Director
Department of General Service
FROM: Fran Boynton, Purchasing Manager
SUBJ: 91-87/Laboratory & Clinical Supplies
Health Department
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
Bid Opening Date:
Specifications mailed to:
Replies:
BID TABULATION:
1. Cole Palmer
Chicago, I11
2. Fisher Scientific
Orlando, F1
3. Medical Supply
Deerfield Beach, F1
4. Durr Fillaver
Palm Bay, F1
5. Baxter Scientific
St. Mountain, Ga
April 24, 1991
Nine (9) Vendors
Five (5) Vendors
ITEM PRICES
See attached sheets.
TOTAL AMOUNT OF BID: $72,315.15
SOURCE OF FUNDS: 315-106-519-066.41 Health Department Office
Furniture and Equipment.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the bid be awarded on an item by item low
bid basis meeting specifications as so noted on the attached bid
tabulation sheet.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Scurlock, the Board unanimously awarded
bids on an item -by -item, low -bid basis, meeting
specifications as shown on the following bid
tabulations:
13
mor
FA .,K p�
uJ r utJj J,
MAY 2 1991
A4
MAY Zt
V
VENDOR AME
VENDOR el
VEATOR 12
VENDOR'S
0/6 AA...a
,gid,„ ,k.e)...a./,
m4.4....1
ADDRESS
6
"NONE NUMBER
1
DATERNE '
I
DELIVERY TINE FOR ORDER
• I
EST PRERSKT CHARGES
I
. •
VENDOR CONTACT PERSON
I
ITE"
PR=
I
ME
PRICE
! TNCI)
h P,
• A 6
..-...eted-0-1
/•;...a.r.40Z 7,144.,
0146,5", 1.10,..: I 1-4.1 Pit,
(4:0nEe)
47012-,-w Tor,4/..0-.1
0 KM ( •I:L.A.)
--II./0.7;•:-..z.,"
°•10,.15-021- Tafe.-1
73.PC 014'710 (ma.) 99' b -mw./., 20015
10 0/4.. Itz0
,/,-r-d zas..,
,
h&t.c,s ..;-as:•-1 iiI20,45...;14,, A"P..
00 100) (40:01,0 )
40,44,e, ....c.rtrr.:0Z
df. 20 * /4- 404 'Pe" &•01 Pura?,
•
1
1 #s 14 e: ,..; w..4
•
C.,..1-•. 04t•
7 v
ell -ri
'on flow,
la.:
ur
CM. ormt 0t," 140
\
i 10 the,. IA
- -•:—."
A t
(0 Pre,1
'SO" this. A 11::44 sd-
r 1
• •• il Kb OD 'my')
CP11)5
th ii. 0 lie. 44',51
/
4,-1 yap ems,
(...40, 7il4t il'f0 ' 66 61.0.4.1 11 -1Z4 -I. 0
:#5,0* leav2;d4.,
• ' er& 093H -M (.:Irgeo) • :.7
' 00AA, i
n
ty
417D•5°'
44,0 6 vies /
is:_ti. deat,A
0
.41,"1° DiiEC. 20:2:
•
1 .
. .
•
tiat, Cem to, la s, ) At) /alb 0 ar-m-fA
V/50;* ek..410.-`5 -$
.
ft
zit. ek.Aii.dia) 1 0..V.7. oci"4:
005-rxi.02 w• 00.,00-2,42
1110.c4e.0.0/1.0t 4% . 1125. c.o. (Alt Po lour 0 la -S7. --ab
*t, Isfisee Y5P-Ift:
C::52:?..t:
DE401-4,0 /170201 er.d,sh .^e12•*ffes(70,0)
QD PeD)
J110/4, Ilf, 'HI 4'1,-5'72 CS //001
• 216
•
. .
0
i ‘bi A • 6
itkacc.‘ri /1. "
/ 1/;' .120. ti,
• h
1 V , _ ft"
I. 11"
..j
4.11,..q.e.1.143/4/1.0.0. .
- 9713
1/061s,:os,r, o
f:ca.ca.z(0. (10.0v0)
ia•Lifer.4004.0 PAS" r,,k. 11i1.4.tr(c874..• pi...IN.-37
it70'" ems .2.3, -9s -r 0
44,/t. ilaioede tit -ow -al (spro) ' 00 peel
am,
.
0104-* (010..104....k. 420" 2...fat.inc.. 30S
1:275 t:90,4,..t •`.805-* ,
1 r F.') f.,5D wo')
,...
/../.7" fftAfl4°3
Co L: Fai..:Ir N.
t'
4- 1/21.
•
ar/PEE7 K. fieX;,..."
.
...
P2
.
/:•0'4•141.400%.4 Aeannat.
•
"Of.f.00 inti 11:1300
•
. •
0206":00
,r,....2. ::::: g:::. -,,0'2a,
• :
e.,„, ./.., A.4.
.
.
•
6 r's 41241Z7;;;;:,,,
. .
• •
4r-- -5." ::: : es e.74...
•
ii2is- ..f,v:r 6,-#0
.
i .
. -V
zfo'.'' ex -no
.
I
_rbeecirt
.4/44....*i.e. -
' I
••K
.:,73#1...02-102250
— ./
1
Up Aro,.
K.- !my. et04.
h
1:- ft
A -k
Y . Wat.: = 2/07
A .4,./ V Sentait,
A E f.r- Women keit bre
OVIS--.7;0,0e 7,•stk:
,
..4,4e.:64ac. Oa -
1,75. - StAato /DO
(40,,
14
BOOK 83 FAriE 3j1
VENDORE2
VENDOR 13
arr - (Laws/
Po a4ctsr-
PRICE
n
PRCE
n
'Asir -tom& VIL,
170'. ()ma 60A
4 frlidm4.4 434 (2..:Cc
•
flb
I elir Isithfe) cit 511
p 4 C. I ZO a: I
11
Mo. Gel—.s
0 240
1170!0 l5')I (5sr)•
t5q5 I
1134.56
h 9
n 12,
2
1
1
7e
1295f0 S 1341-.4%
:Cafe If ilyA 00, 44/1
6PS Rveraol.. �#:,:-
q0) */747
!, (410
/050 1.1VP'
f
;ao.so
1')
t,•a tee v ?..)Sivirem e 4-0e:'*""
Fi?) 5),141.A. ?94:
tr7/1-irn
I. IRC Bid #91-47 - Vibratory Roller
The Board reviewed memo from Purchasing Manager Fran Boynton
dated May 9, 1991:
DATE: May 9, 1991
TO: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
THRU: James E. Chandler, County Administrator
H.T. "Sonny" Dean, Director
Department of General Servi
FROM: Fran Boynton, Purchasing Managerj
SUBJ: IRC Bid #91-47/Vibratory Roller
Road & Bridge
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
Bid Opening Date: -
Specifications mailed to:
Replies:
BID TAB
Neff Machinery
West Palm Beach
L.B. Smith
Orlando
Fla Machinery
West Palm Beach
F1 Equip Sales
Bartow
Compaction Plus
Tampa
Linder Machinery
Miami
Case Power
Orlando
Kelly Tractor
Miami
March 20, 1991
Thirty Two (32) Vendors
Nine (9)
BASE BID COMPACTION METER TOTAL PURCHASE
OPTIONAL EQUIP. PRICE
$68,500.00 *Included $68,500.00
$69,856.00 *Included $69,856.00
$61,100.00 $15,000.00 $76,100.00
$89,430.00 *Included $89,430.00
$64,650.00 Not Available
$64,750.00 Not Available
$65,245.00 Not Available
$71,553.00 Not Available
TOTAL AMOUNT OF BID: $68,500.00
BUDGETED AMOUNT: $75,000.00
SOURCE OF FUNDS:
Road and•Bridges Heavy'Equipment Wheel -Track Account.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the bid be awarded to Neff Machinery as the
lowest responsive and responsible bidder meeting specifications
and including the optional compactor meter feature with the equip-
ment. This meter indicates the load bearing capacity of the soil.
15 [AOOKUI pli
MAY 211991
MAX 21 1991
BOOK 83 FAGc..39?
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Scurlock, the Board unanimously awarded
Bid #91-47 to Neff Machinery as the lowest
responsive and responsible bidder meeting
specifications and including the optional compactor
meter feature with the equipment as recommended by
Staff.
J. Bid #91-80 - 19th Avenue Parking Facility
The Board reviewed memo from Purchasing Manager Fran Boynton
dated May 9, 1991:
DATE: - May 9, 1991
TO: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
THRU: James E. Chandler, County Administrator
H.T. "Sonny" Dean, Director
Department of General Servi
FROM: Fran Boynton, Purchasing Manager j
SUBJ: 91-80/19th Avenue Parking Facility
Public Works Department
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
-Bid Opening Date: May 1, 1991
'Specifications mailed to: Nine (9) Vendors
:Replies: Five (5) Vendors
BID TABULATION: UNIT PRICE
Cathco $117,399.24
Vero Beach
Ranger Construction
West Palm Beach
Dickerson
Stuart
Martin Paving
Vero Beach
. $126,975.77
$132,900.62
$134,725.87
MacAsphalt $160,099.18
Melbourne
TOTAL AMOUNT OF BID:
BUDGETED AMOUNT:
$117,399.24
$165,000.00
SOURCE OF FUNDS: Building Operations -County Buildings, Other
Improvements Except Buildings Account.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the bid be awarded to Cathco, Inc as the
lowest, most responsive, responsible bidder meeting specifications.
Contract will be brought back to the Board for approval.
16
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Scurlock, the Board unanimously awarded
Bid #91-80 to Cathco, Inc. as the lowest, most
responsive, responsible bidder meeting
specifications as recommended by Staff.
K. IRC Bid #91-50 - North Beach Reverse Osmosis Expansion
The Board reviewed memo from Purchasing Manager Fran Boynton
dated May 13, 1991:
DATE: May 13, 1991
TO: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
THRU: James E. Chandler, County Adm:istrator
H.T. "Sonny" Dean, Director
Department of General Servi
FROM: Fran Boynton, Purchasing Manager
SUBJ: _.IRC Bid #91-50/North Beach RO Expansion
Utilities Department
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
Bid Opening Date:
Specifications mailed to:
Replies:
BID TABULATION
1. Butler Construction
Rockledge
2. Wharton -Smith
Lake Monroe
3. Lee Construction
Sanford
4. Elkins Constructors
Jacksonville
5. Inscho-Kirlin
Ft Lauderdale
6. Project Integration
North Palm Beach
7. Widell Association
Ft Lauderdale
TOTAL AMOUNT OF BID:
March 6, 1991
Fifteen (15) Vendors
Seven (7)
LUMP SUM PRICE
$1,358,610.00
$1,463,200.00
$1,584,100.00
$1,646,900.00
$1,650,000.00
$1,686,000.00
$1,704,800.00
$1,358,610.00
SOURCE OF FUNDS: Impact Fees
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the bid be awarded to Butler Construction
as the lowest, most responsive and responsible bidder meeting spec-
ifications, and request authorization for the Chairperson to
execute the contract.
17
MANY 21 1991
Nit?'
MAY 2 1991
POOK 83 PAGE 39
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Scurlock, the Board unanimously awarded
Bid #91-50 to Butler Construction as the lowest,
most responsive and responsible bidder meeting
specifications and authorized the Chairman to
execute the contract as recommended by Staff.
SAID DOCUMENT WILL BE PLACED ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF CLERK TO
THE BOARD WHEN FULLY EXECUTED AND RECEIVED
PUBLIC HEARINGS
SEBASTIAN ASSOCIATES, LTD., REQUEST TO AMEND THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
AND REZONE APPROXIMATELY 8 ACRES
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:
P.O. Box 1268 Vero Beach, Florida 32961 562-2315
COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER
STATE OF FLORIDA
13resg Journal
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 newspaper published at Vero Beach in
Indian River County, Florida; that
a display ad measuring 33" at 10.30 per column inch
billed to Indian River County Board of County Commissioners
was published in said newspaper in the issue(s)
of 5/10/91 on page 5A
Sworn toand subscribed before me this
20th
(SEAL)
day of
May
A D 1991
Notary Public. Sea. et Hari&
ytr,+tomm 011m1Avggs.y�tslb. itwa
NOTICE OF .CHANGE OF LAND USE
The . Board of County Commissioners of Indian -River • County,
• Florida, will consider •a proposal to change the use of land within
the r unincorporated portions of Indian River County. A public'
hearing on the proposal will, be held on Tuesday, May 21, 1991,'
at 9:05 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 consider authorizing the transmittal of these amendments to the
State Department . of Community Affairs for their review:. The
proposed amendments. are , included. in the, proposed ordinance
entitled:•L f a 9 �i r, s d•
y : AN ORDINANCE OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA,',;::'.
AMENDING ' THE LAND USE ELEMENT , OF <' THE `.;.;
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN BY ENLARGING US #1
COMMERCIAUINDUSTRIAL CORRIDOR (VERO TO SOUTH .`.s�•
RELIEF CANAL) FROM +-365 ACRES TO +-366; AND BY`'«' 1'i `
ENLARGING THE ROSELAND ROAD/US #1 HOSPITAU s
R ;., $� ;:COMMERCIAL NODE FROM +-120 ACRES TO +-128 . r ,
ACRES, AND PROVIDING CODIFICATION, SEVERABILITY '• '•
`r..R.;tAND EFFECTIVE DATE • .• : . °'"'
Interested parties may appear andbe heard at the public'.
hearing regarding the approval of this proposed Comprehensive
Plan Amendment. ` '
The plan amendment application may be inspected by the
public at the Community Development Department located on the
second floor of the County Administration Building located at 1840
25th Street, Vero Beach, Florida, between the hours .of 8:30 a.m.
t and 5 p.m on weekdays.
NO FINAL ACTION WILL • BE MADE AT THIS MEETING FOR
THESE REQUESTS.
Anyone who may wish to appeal any decision which may be
made at this meeting will need to ensure that a verbatim record of •
the proceeding is made which includes the testimony and evidence •
• ..upon which the appeal will be based. •
u; _ @ 'f•.• ' Indian River County
3 , oar o County Commissioners
t+t.t1 '• By: -s- Richard N. Bird, Chairman
18
TO: James Chandler
County Administrator
THRU:
.%•FROM: Cheryl A. Tworek
Senior Planner, Long -Range Planning
DATE: May 15, 1991
N HEAD CONCURRENCE
Sasan Rohani S •{Z
Chief, Long -Range Planning
RE: SEBASTIAN ASSOCIATES, LTD. REQUEST TO AMEND THE
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND REZONE APPROXIMATELY 8 ACRES
It is requested that the data herein presented be given •formal
consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their regular
;.meeting of May 21, 1991.
Comprehensive Plan Amendment Procedures and Timetable
The timetable for comprehensive plan amendment requests differs
from rezoning requests. According to Chapter 800 of the Indian
River County Land Development Regulations, requests for
comprehensive plan amendments may be submitted only during the
months of January and July each calendar year. The subject request
was submitted with other requests received by the county in
January, 1991.
As per Section 902.05 of the Land Development Regulations, the
Planning and Zoning Commission shall consider whether a proposed
comprehensive plan amendment is consistent with the overall growth
management goals and objectives of the county. Based upon its
review and consideration, the Planning and Zoning Commission shall
make a recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners
regarding the requested plan amendment and rezoning. The Board
shall then hold a public hearing to decide on the transmittal of
the proposed land use amendments to the Florida Department of
Community Affairs (DCA).
On April 11, 1991, the Planning and Zoning Commission voted 4-2 to
recommend transmittal of the proposed land use amendment request.
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
This is a( request to amend the Comprehensive Plan and rezone
property. At this time, the Board of County Commissioners will
consider only the proposed land use amendment, specifically whether
to transmit the proposed amendment to the Department of Community
Affairs (DCA). The proposed rezoning will be considered at the
final public hearing and only if the land use amendment is
approved.
The subject property is part of a 20.65 acre parcel of /and located
west of U.S. #1 and southeast of Roseland Road and is presently
owned by Helen Hanson Properties, Inc. The request includes.
approximately 8 acres and consists of portions of Lots 13, 14, 15,
and 16, Plat of Town of Wauregan Subdivision.
The request includes changing the existing land use from L-2, Low -
Density Residential (up to 6 units/acre), and M-1, Medium -Density
Residential (up to 8 units/acre), to Commercial Node, and rezoning
the property.from RM -6, Multiple -Family Residential District (up to
6 units/acre) to CG, General Commercial District. This request is
considered an expansion of the Roseland Road/U.S. #1 Hospital/
Commercial Node.
The purpose of this request is to secure the necessary land'use
designation and zoning for future development of Riverwalk II
shopping center.
19
MAY 21 1991
POO 8 e `"' aorb
MAY 2t 199'
BOOK 83 :307
Existing Land Use Pattern
The subject property is zoned RM -6, Multiple -Family Residential
District, and is currently undeveloped. The property northeast of
the subject property is zoned CG, General Commercial District, and
contains the Riverwalk Shopping Center. Property south and west of
the subject property is zoned RM -6 and is mostly vacant land and
scattered single-family homes. Property southeast of the subject
property is zoned RMH-8 and contains the Shady. Rest Mobile Home
Park.
Future Land Use Pattern
The northern portion of the subject property is designated as L!-2,.
Low -Density Residential, on the county's future land use map, while
the southern portion of the subject property is designated as M-1,
Medium -Density residential. The L-2 designation permits
residential densities up to 6 units/per acre, while the M-1
designation permits residential densities up to 8 units/acre. All
property to the northwest is also designated as L-2. Property
southeast is designated M-1. Land to the northeast of the subject
property is designated part of the Roseland Road/U.S. #1 Hospital-
Commercial•Node, which permits commercial zoning designations.
Environment
Environmental planning staff have identified the subject property
as an "environmentally important" upland habitat community.
According to the Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission
(GFC), the subject property is part of a larger (50 acre) sand pine
scrub habitat. The property is less than 10% disturbed, and at
least two rare endemic species have been identified on-site; these
are the gopher tortoise and the Florida scrub lizard. The subject
property is not within a floodplain as identified by Flood
Insurance Rating Maps (FIRM).
Utilities and Services
The site is within the urban service area. Wastewater lines do
extend to the existing Riverwalk Shopping Center and lie within I
mile of the site. Riverwalk Shopping Center, as part of its
franchise agreement, will connect to the north county wastewater
plant upon, completion of the collection system. Water lines do not
extend to the site; however, the existing Riverwalk Shopping Center
will provide water to the subject property from its existing on-
site treatment plant.
. Transportation System
The subject property is an expansion of the Riverwalk II commercial
subdivision which abuts U.S. #1 via a feeder road. U.S. #1 is
classified as an urban principal arterial on the future roadway
thoroughfare plan map. This segment of U.S. #1 is a four lane
divided, paved road with approximately one -hundred -twenty (120)
feet of existing public road right-of-way.
ANALYSIS
In this section, an analysis of the reasonableness of the
application will be presented. The analysis will include a
description of:
* concurrency of public facilities
* compatibility with the surrounding areas
* consistency with the comprehensive plan
* potential impact on environmental quality
This section will also consider alternatives for development of the
site.
Concurrency of Public Facilities
•.. The site is located within the county Urban Service Area (USA), an
area deemed suited for urban scale development. The Comprehensive
Plan establishes standards for: Transportation, Potable Water,
Wastewater, Solid Waste, Drainage and Recreation. The adequate
provision of these services is necessary to ensure the continued
quality of life enjoyed by the community. The Comprehensive Plan
also requires that new development be reviewed to ensure that the
:,;,minimum adopted level of service standards for these services and
.facilities are maintained. •
20
As per Section 910.07 of the County's Land Development Regulations,
:conditional concurrency review examines the available capacity. of.
.;.each facility with respect to a proposed project. Since
-comprehensive plan amendments and non -PD (Planned Development)
*rezoning requests are not projects, county regulations call for the
concurrency review to be based upon the most intensive use of the
subject property based upon the requested zoning district or land
use designation. For commercial comprehensive plan amendment
-requests, the most intensive use (according to the county's LDR's)
is retail commercial with 10,000 square feet of gross floor area
per acre of land proposed for redesignation. Since the subject
comprehensive plan amendment request is for a commercial land use
designation, the 10,000 square feet of floor area per acre of land
proposed for redesignation with a retail commercial usage is used
as the basis for the concurrency determination of the proposed
request.
-Transportation
A review of the traffic impacts that would result from the proposed
development of the property indicates that the existing level of
service "D" or better would not be lowered. The maximum buildout
permitted by the existing zoning is 48 units; that amount of
development would generate approximately 293 average daily trips.
A retail commercial use of 80,000 square feet on the subject site
would generate approximately 7,577 daily trips, based on the
Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) trip generation rates.
Of these trips, only 49% or 3,716 TEPD (Trip Ends Per Day), will be
new trips. The actual number of trips would depend on the total
square footage and the exact mix of uses. The traffic capacity for
this segment of U.S. #1 is 2,370 trips (peak hour/peak season/peak
direction) at a Level of Service "D". The existing traffic volume
on this segment of U.S. #1 is 975 trips (peak hour/peak season/peak
direction): The additional 3,716 Trip Ends Per Day created by the
proposed comprehensive plan amendment will increase the total peak
hour/peak season/peak direction trips for this segment of U.S. #1
by approximately 305 peak hour/peak season/peak direction trips.
Roseland Road has a capacity at a level of service "C" of
approximately 700 peak hour/peak season/peak direction trips in the
vicinity of the project. This segment of Roseland Road has an
existing traffic volume of 380 peak hour/peak season/peak direction
trips. The proposed development will result in an increase of
approximately 84 new peak hour/peak season/peak direction trips on
Roseland Road. Based on staff analysis, it was determined that
U.S. #1 and Roseland Road can accommodate the additional trips
without decreasing their existing levels of service. A more
detailed review of transportation impacts will•be required as part
of any future site development application review.
•
- Water
A retail commercial use of 80,000 square feet on the subject
property will have a water consumption rate of 16.5 Equivalent
Residential Units (ERUs), or 4,125 gallons per day. County water
is not currently available for the site; however, the existing
Riverwalk Shopping Center utilizes an on-site water treatment plant
which has a design capacity of 60,000 gallons per day and a
remaining capacity of over 30,000 gallons per day to serve the
subject property. Prior to final consideration by the Board of
County Commissioners, the applicant must enter into a developer's
agreement which states that the applicant agrees to connect to the
county water system when the service becomes available. With the
execution .of the developer's agreement, the potable water
concurrency test will be satisfied for the subject request.
`Wastewater
'Wastewater service is available to the subject property from the
-.`North County Wastewater Plant. Based upon the site development
parameters referenced above, wastewater generation for the site
:;;:after development consistent with the proposed amendment'will be
;approximately 16.5 Equivalent Residential Units (ERUs),. or 4,125
"gallons per day. The North County Plant currently has.a remaining
capacity of approximately 1.9 million gallons per day and can
accommodate the additional wastewater generated by the proposed
amendment. The applicant has paid the necessary impact fees for
wastewater service for the subject property and will connect to the
North County Plant at the time of development. This is consistent
with Future Land Use Policy 2.7 which requires development projects
to maintain established levels of service.
21
MAY 21 199i
Narif ;74'1i p,
MAY 21 19Ti
- Solid Waste
BOOK 83 FAGE
Solid waste service includes pickup by private operators and
disposal at the county landfill. Solid waste generation by an
80,000 square foot commercial development on the subject site will
be approximately 1,764 cubic yards of solid waste per year. A
review of the solid waste capacity for the active segment of the
county landfill indicates the availability of more than 900,000
cubic yards. The active segment of the landfill has a 4 year
capacity, and the landfill has expansion capacity beyond 2010.
Based upon staff analysis, it was determined that the county
landfill can accommodate the additional solid waste.
- Drainage
All development is reviewed for compliance with county stormwater
regulations which requireon-site retention, preservation of
floodplain. storage and minimum finished floor elevations. In
addition, development proposals have to meet the discharge
requirements of the county Stormwater Management Ordinance. Since
the subject property is located within the R-7 Drainage Basin and
no discharge rate has been set for this basin, any development on
the property will be prohibited from discharging any runoff in
excess of the pre -development rate.
In this case the floodplain storage and minimum floor elevation
level of service standards do not apply, since the property is ndt
1 within a floodplain. Both the on-site retention and discharge
1 standards do apply. With the most intense use of this site, the
maximum area of impervious surface for the proposed request will be
approximately 264,000 square feet. The maximum run-off volume,
based upon the amount of impervious surface, will be 231,656 cubic
:feet. In order to maintain the county's adopted level of service,
the applicant will be required to retain 207,920 cubic feet of run-
off On-site., With the sandy soils characteristic of the property,
it is estimated that the pre -development runoff rate is 16.8 cubic
feet per second.
Based upon staff's analysis, the drainage level of service
standards will be met by limiting offsite discharge to its pre -
development rate of 16.8 cubic feet per second and requiring
retention of the 207,902 cubic feet of runoff for the most intense
use of the property.
- Recreation
Concurrency for recreation is not applicable for this request as
the request is for commercial development, and recreation levels of
service apply only to residential development.
Compatibility with the Surrounding Areas .
Compatibility with the surrounding area is not a major concern for
this property. Although the proposed request is for an expansion
s of the commercial land use designation, it is anticipated that
commercial ,development on the subject site will maintain
compatibility with surrounding areas in two ways. The first will
';.be through buffering. Since the applicant is requesting a.
;'comprehensive plan amendment'and rezoning for only a portion of a
1/20.65 acre parcel of land, there will be a two hundred (200) foot
buffer of RM -6 zoned property located between the proposed request
and the single family residential area west of 135th Street. The
second means,of ensuring compatibility will be through landscaping.
At the time of development review, this site will be required to
meet the county's landscaping requirements and to provide adequate
buffering between any commercial development and adjacent
residentially designated properties.
Based upon the analysis performed on the subject property, staff
feels that the requested -commercial zoning would be compatible with
the surrounding area.
22
Potential Impact on Environmental Quality
As previously stated, the Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish
Commission (GFC) has identified the subject property as part of a
larger sand pine scrub habitat. The property is less than 10%
disturbed, and at least two rare endemic species have been
identified on-site; these are the gopher tortoise and the Florida
scrub lizard. As such, the applicant will be required to
coordinate with the GFC and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to
protect such species to the extent feasible.
Since the subject property has been determined to be a part of the
county's environmentally important upland area, the applicant must
comply with the specific land development regulation requirements
in Chapter 929, Upland Habitat Protection. These regulations will
be applied at the time of development review, and include the
requirement of an upland habitat 10-15 percent set-aside.
The subject property is also located within the Surficial Aquifer
Primary Recharge Overlay District, (SAFROD). Specific requirements
in Chapter 931, Wellfield and Aquifer Protection, of the county's
Land Development Regulations limit certain uses in the SAFROD
district and mandate that development in that district be
-coordinated with the environmental health department at the time of
development review for the protection of groundwater quality and
quantity.
As indicated, the subject property has a number of environmentally
sensitive characteristics. These, however, do not preclude
development of the subject property. Given the county's adopted
environmental protection regulations, the property could be
developed as either residential or commercial without significant
adverse impacts.
Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan
Land use amendment requests are reviewed forconsistency with all -
policies of the comprehensive plan. As per section 800.07(1) of
the County Code, the "Comprehensive Plan may only be amended in
such a way as to preserve the internal consistency,of the plan
pursuant to Section 163.3177(2)F.S." Amendments must also show
consistency with the overall designation of land uses as depicted
on -the—Future Land Use Map, which includes agricultural,
residential, recreational, conservation, and commercial and
industrial land uses and their densities. Commercial and
industrial land uses are located in nodes throughout the
unincorporated areas of Indian River County.
The goals, objectives and policies are the most important parts of
the Comprehensive Plan. Policies are the actions which the county
will take in order to direct the community's development.
Specifically, policies are the courses of action or ways in which
=programs and activities are conducted to achieve an identified goal
or objective. While all comprehensive plan policies are important,
some have more applicability than others. in reviewing plan
amendment. requests.
i -Future Land Use Policy 13.3: . .
In evaluating a land use amendment request, the most important
consideration is Future Land Use Element Policy 13.3. This policy
requires that one of.three criteria be met in order to approve a
land use amendment request. These criteria are:
* a mistake in the approved comprehensive plan
* an oversight in the approved comprehensive plan, or
* a substantial change in circumstances affecting the
subject property
Based upon staff determination, this land use amendment does not
meet any of the three criteria as stated above.
23
ih._ MAY 21 1991
Poor. 8` i FAGE 4OC
MAY 1991
PUO( 83 PAGE 401
The first two criteria allow the county to approve a request to
amend the land use map only if a mistake or oversight was made
regarding the property during preparation of the comprehensive
plan. While preparing the comprehensive plan, the county looked at
each commercial node and determined node size based upon the amount
of existing development and potential growth projected through the
year 2010 within the general market area of the node. From this
research, the county then established each node boundary and
specified each node's size. The subject property was considered at
that time and was not included in the Roseland Road/U.S.#1
Hospital -Commercial Node. Therefore, there was no mistake nor
oversight made in relation to the subject property when preparing
the comprehensive plan.
The third criterion of Policy 13.3 allows the county to amend the
land use map if changes in circumstances affecting the subject
property have occurred since the 1990 adoption of the comprehensive
plan. Such a change could relate to the property itself, such as
an unforeseen adjacent incompatible use being established. In this
case the subject property is currently surrounded on two sides by
vacant land, buffered from a mobile home park on another side, and
adjacent to buffered commercial development on one side; 'therefore,
no incompatible uses have been established on adjacent property.
Alternately, a change in circumstances affecting the subject
property could occur if substantial development took place in the
surrounding area since the adoption of the Comprehensive Plan in
February, 1990. An example of this would be the approval of
several site plans for property within the Roseland Road/U.S.,#1
Hospital -Commercial Node. To date, no site plans have been
submitted for review by planning staff for property within this
node since the adoption of the Comprehensive Plan in February,
1990; therefore, no change in circumstances affecting the subject
property has occurred since the adoption of the Comprehensive Plan
in 1990. In fact, Future Land Use Element Policy 1.23 specifically
addresses the issue of node expansion in relation to the amount of
development in that node.
•
. -Future Land Use Policy 1.23
Policy 1.23 of the Future Land Use Element states that no node
'should be considered for expansion unless 70% of the land area
'(less rights-of-way) is developed,. approved for development, or
otherwise warranted by the proposed development. The intent of
:Policy 1.23 is to establish specific criteria for node expansion.
.Without such criteria, decisions are often arbitrary and
inconsistent. The 70% standard then is a measure of whether a node
..needs to be expanded. For that reason calculating the percent of
a node that is developed involves determining the .acreage
;;characterized by approved commercial site plansand then dividing
that amount by the total node acreage. . •:..
:When the Comprehensive Plan'was adopted, a general calculation. of.
':acreage was made for each node. At that time the county looked at
:;each commercial node and established each node's size based upon
;the amount of existing development and potential growth projected
through the year 2010. The Roseland •.Road/U.S. #1.'Hospital-
,'Commercial Node was established at ±120 acres of land at that time.
.During preparation of the Comprehensive Plan, county staff did not
have the opportunity to determine exact size calculations for each
node. At that time the size of each node was set using an estimate
of overall node acreage and lessing out right-of-way.
When the subject request was submitted, staff needed to determine
whether or• not the request met the 70% development criterion to
qualify for node expansion. Staff undertook this analysis by
compiling a list of all parcels in the node, obtaining the acreage
of each parcel from the Property Appraiser's tax maps, and
aggregating these acreage amounts.
By using this method, staff calculated the node's size to be
approximately 129 acres. Since the 129 acres substantially
exceeded the original figure of 120 acres established as the node
size and because the tax maps are known to be inaccurate, planning
staff requested that the County Surveyor calculate the acreage of
the node. Using the node legal description, an aerial photo and a
planimeter, the surveyor determined the node size to be 122 acres
of land. Subsequently, the applicant hired a professional surveyor
who confirmed the 122 acre size.
24
Once the•total node acreagewas established, it was necessary for
the staff .to determine the percent developed. Again, the staff
used the Property Appraiser's information to do this. Based upon
tax and use codes, the staff determined which parcels were
developed and then had the surveyor calculate the acreage of the
developed parcels. Upon field verification, staff found three
parcels with inaccurate use codes. In two cases parcels identified
as developed/improved were vacant. Based upon the field
information, the staff compiled an accurate list of developed
parcels in the node.
For purposes of this analysis, parcels were considered developed if
they had a structure on them. Using this methodology, the vacant
platted parcels of the Riverwalk II plat were not considered
developed; the vacant parcel at the northwest corner of U.S. #1 and
Roseland Road was not considered developed; and the unbuilt portion
of the Humana Hospital site was not considered developed.
Considering all built -on properties in the node (even those used
residentially), the total developed acreage in the node totals 66.9
acres. This constitutes only 54% of the node acreage. Since 54%
is much less than 70%, this amendment request is inconsistent with
Policy 1.23.
ALTERNATIVES.
There are three ways that the applicant. could proceed with a
development project in the Roseland Road/U.S. #1 Hospital -
Commercial Node and be consistent with the comprehensive plan.
First, there are at least two other parcels already located within
the Roseland Road/U.S. #1 Hospital -Commercial Node with sufficient
acreage for the proposed development. One parcel is located on the
east side of U.S. #1, opposite the Riverwalk Shopping Center. The
second parcel* is located on the north side of Roseland Road,
opposite the Riverwalk Shopping Center. These parcels have the
size to accommodate a retail commercial development and have the
appropriate commercial land use designation and do not require.a
comprehensive plan amendment.
Second, the Board of County Commissioners can Approve an alternate
land use change.. This would be an amendment to shift the node
boundary, instead of expanding the node's size. With this
alternative, land already in the node and comparable in size to the
subject property would be removed from the node, and the subject
property would be included within the node boundary. While this
alternative involves reconfiguring the node, it does not involve
node expansion. Therefore, the 70% criterion of Future Land Use
Policy 1.23 would not be applicable. .,. .-.
Third, .theapplicant can withdraw the.
resubmit it at a time when development
expansion of the commercial node boundary.
Future Land Use Policy 1.23 would then be
development will have constituted a change
subject property consistent with Criterion
Policy 13.3.
.amendment request .and
of this node warrants
The 70% criterion from
met, and the additional
in circumstances for the
Three of Future Land Use
These proposed alternatives are consistent with the :goals,
objectives, and policies of the comprehensive plan.
-Alternatives for the Board of County Commissioners
There are three alternatives that the Board of County Commissioners
can take concerning the subject request.
* The first would be the denial by the Board of County
Commissioners of the transmittal of this request to the
Department of Community Affairs.
* The second is the approval by the Board of County
Commissioners of the transmittal to the Department of
Community Affairs for their review.
* The third alternative is for the Board of County
Commissioners to approve the request with changes for the
transmittal to the Department of Community Affairs. This
alternative will be applicable if the Board of County
Commissioners directs staff to remove some existing properties
from this node and add the subject property to the Roseland
Road/U.S. #1 Hospital -Commercial Node.
25
MAY 21 1991
mu 83 pr-Eiv
MAX'1991
tIuR 83 PAGE 403
CONCLUSION
Staff has reviewed the proposed amendment and has found no major
incompatibility between the proposed use and surrounding uses.
While environmental issues have been identified relating to the
site, these can be addressed at the time of development review. In
addition, the requested amendment has a positive concurrency
determination. Despite those positive findings, the staff has
identified major inconsistencies between the proposed amendment and
the adopted Comprehensive Plan.
While all policies of the comprehensive plan are important, not all
of the policies are equal in reviewing a plan amendment request.
For example, if one policy prohibits an action or use under certain
circumstances, then that policy outweighs every other policy in the
plan, and the specific action or use could not be approved if the
circumstances prohibiting it prevailed. An example is concurrency.
Concurrency•is.a comprehensive plan policy prohibiting development
order approvals if inadequate service levels would result. No
matter how many economic development policies support a requested
project, the project may not be approved if it is inconsistent with
the plan's concurrency policy.
The node expansion policy (Land Use Policy 1.23) referenced above
is similar. Unless the Board of County Commissioners finds that
there are overriding circumstances "otherwise warranting" expansion
of the node, the 70% criterion prohibits it.
Where the comprehensive plan prohibits an action, whether it
'involves developing in wetlands or expanding nodes, or where the
.comprehensive plan requires action such as setting aside a portion
.of native uplands, then the requirement or prohibition cannot_ be.
'ignored because of the existence of other policies. Two of those
,policies with specific requirements are Policies 1.23 and 13.3 .of
-the Future Land Use Element. ..
%:In this case the comprehensive plan amendment .request is
-inconsistent with those two policies. This inconsistency warrants
denial of the proposed land use amendment. Presently, the subject
property is in an area designated for low and medium density
residential development, and based upon staff's analysis this
request does not warrant a change in ,that designation.
RECOMMENDATION
Based on the analysis performed, staff recommends that the Board of
County Commissioners deny transmittal of the land use amendment to
the Department of Community Affairs (DCA) and deny the request to
rezone the property.
SUBJEC'J
PROPERTY
135TH STREET
26
Commissioner Scurlock interrupted to ask about the 1.9 MG
capacity mentioned in the memo, which he considered incorrect.
Director Keating agreed that the figure 1.9 MG includes existing
capacity as well as proposed expansion, which should not be
considered until it is constructed, and that detail will be
corrected.
Director Keating directed the attention of the Board members
to the CONCLUSION portion of the above memo, where he wanted to
correct a mistake pointed out by the applicant. Staff had said any
inconsistencies between the amendment and the Plan's concurrency
policy would prohibit you from approving this request, and that is
not true because the wording in here is that you should consider,
or should not consider for expansion; therefore, it is not a
prohibitory statement. He apologized for that mistake. He
emphasized that the State agencies are looking over our shoulder,
and we must keep in mind, in evaluating comp plans, one criterion
in justifying expansion is whether it is consistent, even when the
wording should and not shall. He explained his contention
regarding the inconsistencies as established in Policy 13.3 and
Future Land Use Policy 1.23, the 70% criterion. He then went over
in detail exactly how staff established the node size and
calculated the percentage that was developed, but further noted
that staff now agrees with the applicant that the lots that were
platted in Riverwalk Commercial Subdivision should be considered as
developed even though there is nothing on them.
Commissioner Eggert asked, in the recalculation of that
acreage, what the new total was and Director Keating answered it
increased from 54% to 58% developed.
Commissioner Scurlock felt there is a basic question of
whether the node should be expanded even if it were 100% developed.
This expansion would create another piece of property which would
be bordered on two sides by commercial and one side by road
frontage and his concern is whether commercial property should be
allowed to encroach further to the west under any circumstances.
Director Keating agreed there are two issues to be addressed:
one, is the size appropriate or does it need to be expanded; and,
two, is the configuration adequate the way it is or should it be
changed. When the policy was adopted it was assumed that the node
acreage was set at the correct amount, and the 70% criterion was
based on the fact that when the node gets full, in order to keep
the market going, there would need to be an expansion. So the
question of expansion of the node under any circumstances is an
issue the Board could address.
27
MAY 9
ilooK 83 PA6E 40
IF-
( 21 19 ''
PooK 83 Fac 405
Commissioner Eggert felt another question was configuration
and brought up the possibility that the vacant part of the node
east of U.S.1 should not be developed at all.
Director Keating said staff addressed that point in the
alternatives in his memo. He stated the applicant and staff agreed
that the node could be reconfigured instead of expanded. If the
node were expanded without taking anything out you have potential
for commercial development across the street and then the internal
capture advantage is lost.
Commissioner Eggert mentioned the hospital node and asked what
exactly the hospital owns. Long -Range Planning Chief Sasan Rohani
assisted by indicating the outlined areas. Director Keating
recounted the hospital area is where the applicant and staff have
a disagreement as to what is considered developed. Staff
considered a portion west of the hospital developed because it has
a residential structure on it. This is not owned by the hospital
and staff felt it could be a prime candidate for removal from the
node if the Board decided to reconfigure the node.
Commissioner Wheeler noted that if the node were reconfigured
it would not affect the size of the node.
Director Keating concurred and added it would not be an
expansion, just reconfiguration; then we don't have to worry about
the 70%.
Commissioner Eggert was concerned that all the hospital
property is not shown as being developed. She felt it is being
used for drainage and to meet some of their other needs there and
could not understand what use there could be other than expansion
of the hospital.
Director Keating indicated Bay Street, which is a public
roadway, could access the hospital property without going through
the hospital property and noted there are other non-residential
uses, medical -type uses, such as drug stores. Staff determined
that there is development on about two-thirds of it and there is
sufficient land remaining that could accommodate additional
development.
Commissioner Eggert wanted confirmation that it all belongs to
the hospital. Director Keating confirmed that to be the case and
added that if that is considered developed, then the node would be
67% developed.
Chairman Bird asked if the 70% is the threshold or a magic
number.
Director Keating said the threshold is 70%. After discussions
between the applicant and the attorneys, our attorney advised that,
28
because of the way the policy is structured, it is considered
adequate if you are close to 70% developed.
Commissioner Wheeler believed it is appropriate to have some
flexibility and felt the 70% should be used as a benchmark rather
than an absolute.
Commissioner Scurlock emphasized the overriding concern should
be the ultimate "footprint" of this commercial node to avoid
further encroachment to the west, a domino effect, and wondered if
staff have the ability at some future time to advise that, "This is
it, this is the logical line we cannot go past."
Commissioner Eggert commented that nationwide there is a lot
of multifamily residential sitting right next to commercial just
like this.
Director Keating advised that if the 70% criterion was met,
staff would recommend approval of this transmittal and look
favorably on reconfiguration of the node to achieve commercial
development with depth and to avoid the strip commercial effect.
He felt- the project as presented provides an opportunity for
internal capture of traffic and to consolidate a project with one
tract falling under one owner. In this instance, the owner has
designated the balance of the site for residential, and multifamily
residential is generally considered a good buffer between
commercial and single family residences.
Chairman Bird wished to know if the property to the west and
the north was still owned by the applicant and this was confirmed
by Director Keating.
Director Keating emphasized the 70% criterion policy is
important because if you don't have consistent criteria to evaluate
node expansion you risk arbitrary expansion when it may be cheaper
to buy adjacent residential property and have the node expanded
than it is to purchase the already designated commercial property.
The Chairman opened the public hearing.
Bruce Barkett of Collins, Brown & Caldwell, came before the
Board representing Sebastian Associates and related his
understanding of the background of the request stressing the
positive aspects of the application.
Stan Mayfield of the engineering firm of Masteller, Moler &
Mayfield came before the Board to enumerate the reasons for the
land use application change. By means of a drawing he demonstrated
the scope of the project which would involve approximately an 8 -
acre expansion of the node. The retail chain that the applicant is
trying to bring to this site wants to be next to Publix. He showed
the Board a conceptual drawing of the proposed buildings and
parking areas and mentioned that all retail chains prefer to see
29
MAY 21 1991
PLP. 83 F%'„rC 40G
MAY 2 1991
OOP 83 fAuL 407
all the parking in the front, close to the door. Mr. Mayfield felt
the buffering between the single-family residential area to the
west consisting of two hundred feet of multifamily residential was
sufficient to meet the 10% to 15% required by the ordinance, and
pointed out that in the conceptual site plan consideration was
given to the upland preservation issue by planning an additional
40 -foot buffer. Another justification for this expansion is taking
advantage of internal capture and mitigating the impact to the
intersection of U.S.1 and Roseland Road; once the customer is on
site they can pretty much do all their shopping without impacting
the public road system adversely, or at least to a minimum. Mr.
Mayfield discussed the available and planned utilities and how the
project would accelerate improvements to both the water and
wastewater facilities. He discussed the creation of the node in
1986 by the County Commission and adoption of the same node into
the 1990 Comp Plan without further review with regard to what has
occurred in the node since that time. Several new facilities, Sand
Ridge Shopping Center, McDonald's, Harbor Federal and Bay Street
Center, have come on line since the node was created and he felt
this creates some changes in the circumstances of the node.
Mr. Mayfield mentioned several points of disagreement between
the applicant and staff which had been discussed and about which
staff had changed their position. This resulted in the removal of
the northwest portion of this site from staff's calculation of the
percentage of development. Another outcome of discussions with
staff was his determination that the 70% criterion would 'become a
non -issue.
Chairman Bird asked if he was referring to the point made
regarding whether we have flexibility.
County Attorney Vitunac recounted that there was a meeting in
his office where the issue of flexibility in regard to the 70% was
discussed between himself, Assistant County Attorney Will Collins,
Community Development Director Bob Keating and Chief Long -Range
Planner Sasan Rohani, with Mr. Nobil and Mr. Mayfield representing
the other side. He felt staff is comfortable that the Board can
legally grant this if it wants to.
Director Keating agreed that if it is determined that the
hospital portion is developed and the node there is just a little
less than 70% developed the Board could approve it.
Attorney Barkett felt an important point to address is the
utilities and the fact that a wastewater package plant would be
removed and the River's Edge water treatment could be improved and
brought down to service the node, including Winn Dixie across the
30
street as well as Shady Rest Mobile Home Park, which now has water
problems.
Mr. Nobil, the applicant, came before the Board and described
the current tenants at Riverwalk Shopping Center as successful with
dramatic sales increases since 1986. He said when he first
approached the two retail chains they said demographics do not
justify their coming to Sebastian but they changed their minds
after reviewing the sales volumes and seeing the amount of activity
at the property. However, they are determined to be part of an
existing shopping center, not free-standing on the other side of
the street. K mart is interested in approximately 91,000 square
feet and Beall's is interested in approximately 15,000 square feet.
Mr. Nobil reported there has been approximately 9 acres developed
in this node in the last several years and felt these facts and
changes in circumstance along with the information provided by
Mr. Mayfield justify a change in this node.
Attorney Barkett recapped the advantages of the node expansion
and illustrated how this project satisfies the requirements of the
Land Use Policies. Mr. Barkett thought the community will benefit
from the expansion project and requested the Board make a
determination that the node meets the 70% requirement.
David Hessler, resident of Roseland, came before the Board and
spoke in favor of this project. He felt not only will it bring
additional jobs and additional revenues but also saw an advantage
in consolidating the commercial development.
Fred Mensing, 7580 129th Street, Roseland, came before the
Board and spoke in opposition to the project as he felt it would
have a negative impact on the community. He pointed out the
available land in the northwest corner of the intersection and the
shopping facilities within four miles, and asked the Board to
freeze the size of the shopping center.
Greg Golien, from Sebastian, came before the Board and spoke
for the people who live here the year around and have to work for
a living and don't have the time to attend meetings. He said a
store like K mart is very important to these people and it is very
important that something like this is approved. It is a compact
development that fits nicely in Roseland and he sees no reason for
objection.
Damien Gilliams, from Roseland Gardens and Wauregan
Subdivision which is directly behind the proposed site for this
amendment, came before the Board and emphasized that when he spoke
to a few of other homeowners in the area they were delighted that
K mart was seriously considering this location due to the fact that
Wal-Mart on the other side of town has got a monopoly on items.
31
KAY 21 1991
POiOK 83 Fr,;t JS
MAY 21 199
BOOK 83 F"uE 40S.
So, the homeowners and the people in the area are going to benefit
as well. He felt that Mr. Nobil has done an excellent job
developing Riverwalk Shopping Center. He stated Fred Mensing has
property back there' to develop as residential and felt there is a
conflict of interest.
Dan Preuss, realtor in the Sebastian area, concurred with the
last two speakers. He felt the jobs that would be created are very
important to the area. Taking into consideration the fact that one
of the largest employers in the area is Capt. Hiram's Raw Bar, he
concluded there is a need for jobs in the area and that was his
concern.
Mark Hanson, member of the family which owns the subject
property, recounted the history of the purchase and development by
his father of the hundred acres of property in the Roseland area,
stressing his father's reputation for honesty and knowledge of land
development which the rest of the family has tried to continue.
Mr. Hanson cited several occasions when his father and his mother
had donated land for rights-of-way and a park and their high
standards in accepting or rejecting proposed sales of the land,
always keeping in mind the good of the area. He wanted to assure
the residents that he would only build, or allow to be built,
multi -family residences which would be nice looking and keep in
line with the existing neighborhood concept.
Frank DeJoia, 11625 Roseland Road, came before the Board and
stated he is a Director of the Roseland Property Owners'
Association. However, he was not speaking as a director or member
of the property owners association because the organization did not
have a unanimous voice. He personally felt what is proposed has
both merits and some dangers. His concern is a strip of land
located between the commercial that is being proposed and the Shady
Rest Mobile Home Park that would connect U.S.1 with 135th Street.
He wants to preserve the residential integrity of this part of
Roseland. His other concern is that the 40 -foot buffer on the
other side of that two hundred foot strip is not very much of a
buffer when you stop to think about the sand pines and the slash
pines that are in there.
Attorney Barkett addressed the issue of the road by
demonstrating on the map a sixty -foot easement from U.S.1 to the
corner of the property for ingress and egress to the site. He
stated there is no intention and no ability to open this road down
to 135th Street.
32
The Chairman asked if anyone else wished to be heard in this
matter. There being none, he closed the public hearing.
MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Wheeler, SECONDED by
Commissioner Scurlock, to agree that the node has
been determined to be 70% developed, and to adopt
Resolution 91-62 approving the proposed amendment
for transmittal to the Department of Community
Affairs.
Director Keating asked if the Board would like staff to
consider taking some of the property out of the node at the next
Comp Plan hearing, particularly the residential to the west of the
hospital.
Chairman Bird stated he is not in favor of deleting property
from the node. He believed we have found justification for the
addition to the node by determining that the 70% criterion has been
identified. He felt it is unfair to existing property owners to
delete this property. If they choose to use it for some purpose
other than commercial then, .obviously, we would delete it.
Commissioner Bowman felt compelled to speak for the
environment even though she realized she is "spitting in the wind,"
but admitted she is accustomed to that. She stressed the Florida
Coastal Ridge is globally important as a unique and most endangered
environment, and this County has permitted untold destruction of
it. We have very little left and it is our geological heritage.
If we permit further encroachment westward into this sand ridge, we
are not only going to be destroying eight acres but the rest of the
twenty acres will go and, after that, on the north side of Roseland
Road, there will be more. Commissioner Bowman thought that we are
making a big mistake unless we agree to put into a conservation
area that stretch on the east side of U.S.1, which she described as
a nice pristine ecosystem.
Commissioner Scurlock asked if the proper approach would not
be to submit that to the Land Acquisition Committee.
Commissioner Bowman stated she realized that but wanted to
point out that it was stated, under our policy 13.3, that there was
no mistake made in the approved comprehensive plan. She thought
there was a very serious mistake made and some of these sand ridge
areas should have been designated. Not only are the large tracts
important but the small tracts are also essential to biodiversity
and without biodiversity you have extinction.
33
MAY 21 1`9
ROOK. 83 F'AGE. 410
Mg r19
BOOK 83 PAGE 411
THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION
The motion was voted on and carried on a 4 - 1 vote,
Commissioner Bowman dissenting.
The Chairman recessed the meeting briefly at 10:15 o'clock
A. M. and reconvened the meeting at 10:30 o'clock A. M. with all
members present.
TREVOR SMITH REQUEST TO AMEND THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
Community Development Director Keating made the following
presentation with the aid of graphics.
TO: James E. Chandler
County Administrator
DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE
/
obert W. Keatin
THRU: Sasan Rohani 5'• 12.•
Chief, Long -Range Planning
FROM: Christy Fischer ax.r.
Staff Planner, Long -Range Planning
DATE: May 15, 1991
RE: TREVOR SMITH REQUEST TO AMEND THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND
REZONE APPROXIMATELY .34 ACRES
It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal
consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their regular
meeting of May 21, 1991.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT PROCEDURES AND TIMETABLE
The timetable for comprehensive plan amendment requests differs
from rezoning requests. According to Chapter 800 of the Indian
River County Land Development Regulations, requests for
comprehensive plan amendments may be submitted only during the
months of January and July each calendar year. The subject request
was submitted with other requests received by the county in
January, 1991.
As per Section 902.05 of the Land Development Regulations, the
Planning and Zoning Commission considers whether a proposed
comprehensive plan amendment is consistent with the overall growth
management goals and objectives of the county. Based upon its
review and consideration, the Planning and Zoning Commission makes
a recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners regarding the
requested plan amendment and rezoning. The Board shall then hold
a public hearing to decide on the transmittal of the proposed land
use amendment to the Florida Department of Community Affairs (DCA) .
On April 11, 1991, 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
Commissioners regarding this request. At that meeting the Planning
and Zoning Commission voted 4 to 2 to recommend denial of the
applicant's request.
34
MAY 2ti99I
L'UO V FA6E 413
Transportation System
The property abuts Old Dixie Highway to the east, 9th Street to the
north and 10th Avenue to the west. Old Dixie Highway is classified
as a collector road on the future roadway thoroughfare plan map.
This segment of Old Dixie Highway is a two lane paved road with
approximately eighty (80) feet of existing public road right-of-
way. Ninth Street is a two lane paved local road with
approximately sixty (60) feet of existing public road right-of-way.
Tenth Avenue is a two lane unpaved local road with seventy (70)
feet of existing public road right-of-way.
ANALYSIS
In this section, an analysis of the reasonableness of the
application will be presented. .The analysis will include a
description of the potential impacts on environmental quality,
compatibility with surrounding uses, consistency with the
comprehensive plan, and concurrency of public facilities. This
section will also consider alternatives for development of the
site.
Concurrency Determination for the Public Facilities
The site is located within the County Urban Service Area (USA), an
area deemed suited for urban scale development. The comprehensive
plan establishes standards for: Transportation, Potable Water,
Wastewater, Solid Waste, Drainage, and Recreation. The adequate
provision of these services is necessary to ensure the continued
quality of life enjoyed by the community. The comprehensive plan
,also requires that new development be reviewed to ensure that the
;minimum adopted level of service standards for these services and
facilities are maintained.
-As per Section 910.07 of the County's Land Development Regulations,
'conditional concurrency review examines the available capacity -of
,,each facility with respect to a proposed project.. Since
:comprehensive plan amendments and non -PD (Planned Development)
rezoning requests are not projects, county regulations call for the
concurrency review to be based upon the most intensive use of the
subject property based upon the requested zoning district or land
use designation. For comprehensive plan amendment requests, the
'most intensive use (according to the county's Land Development
Regulations) is retail commercial with 10,000 square feet of gross
-floor area per acre of land proposed for redesignation. Since the
subject,cotnprehensive plan amendment is for a commercial land use
designation, the 10,000 square feet of floor area per acre of land
proposed for redesignation with a retail commercial usage is used
as the baste for the concurrency determination of the proposed
request.
- Transportation
Ninth Street and 10th Avenue are local roads and are not shown on
the thoroughfare plan map. A review of the traffic impacts that
would result from the development of the property indicates that
the existing level of service "C" or better on Old Dixie Highway
would not be lowered.
A retail commercial use of 3400 square feet on the subject site
would generate less than 32 peak hour/peak direction/peak season
trips, based on Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) trip
generation rates. The actual number of trips would depend on the
total square footage and the exact mix of uses. Based on Florida
Department of Transportation Standardized Level of Service Tables
this segment of Old Dixie Highway, as a two lane road, can
generally accomodate 800 peak hour/peak direction/peak season trips
and maintain a Level of Service "D" or better.
36
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
This is a request to amend the Comprehensive Plan and rezone
property. At this time the Board of County Commissioners will
consider only the proposed land use amendment, specifically whether
to transmit the proposed amendment to the Department of Community
Affairs (DCA). The proposed rezoning will be considbred at the
final hearing and only if the land use amendment is approved.
The subject property under consideration is located on Old Dixiel
Highway ori the south side of 9th Street and is presently owned by!
Trevor Smith. The subject property is approximately .34 acres.
The request includes changing the existing land use from L-2, Low
Density Residential (up to 6 units/1 acre) to Commercial/Industrial
Node, and rezoning the property from RS -6 (up to 6 units/1 acre) to.
CH, Heavy Commercial. The purpose of this request is to secure the
necessary land use designation and zoning to develop the property
with commercial uses.,
Existing Land Use Pattern
The subject property is zoned RS -6, Single -Family Residential
District, and is vacant, partially cleared land. This parcel
previously was developed with a single-family home, but., that
structure has since been removed. Ridge Acres Subdivision abuts
the subject property on the west and south. The western portion of
the subject property could be perceived as being part of Ridge
.Acres Subdivision, if the plat line had been extended to the north
to 9th Street.
The properties to the south and west of the subject property are
zoned RS -6, Single -Family Residential District, and contain single
family homes within the Ridge Acres Subdivision and unplatted lots
(See Attachment 5). The parcel to the north of the subject
property is zoned CL, Light Commercial, and contains a small retail
plaza.
The larger parcel directly across Old Dixie Highway to the east is.
Yzoned CH, Heavy Commercial, and contains commercial warehouses and
• heavy equipment storage yards. The parcel of land to the northeast
is zoned RS -6. This is a nonconforming zoning designation in the
Commercial/Industrial Node. This parcel is used for warehouses and
storage yards. Immediately to the south of the warehouses on Old
Dixie Highway is a mobile home park which exists as a nonconforming
use in the CH district.
Future Land Use Pattern
The subject property is designated L-2, Low Density, on the county
future land use map. The L-2 designation permits residential
densities up to 6 units per acre. All properties to the west and
south are also designated L-2. Property to the east and north is
designated C/I, Commercial/Industrial, which permits commercial and
industrial. zoning designations.
Environment
The property is not designated as environmentally important or
environmentally sensitive by the comprehensive plan, nor is it
within a floodplain as identified by the Flood Insurance Rating
Maps (FIRM).
Utilities and Services
The site is within the urban service area (USA) of the county, and
sewer and water lines extend to the site.
35
MAY 21 199i
DOD 3 PAG'[ la
1
The committed peak hour/peak direction/peak season volume on this
segment of Old Dixie Highway is 484 trips. The additional 32 peak
hour/peak direction/peak season trips created by the proposed
comprehensive plan amendment will increase the total trips for Old
Dixie Highway to 516 peak hour/peak direction/peak season trips.
This figure represents just under 77% of the existing level of
service capacity of 670 peak hour/peak direction/peak season for
this portion of Old Dixie Highway. The limited volume of trips
generated by the site will affect only Old Dixie Highway. Based
upon staff analysis, it was determined that Old Dixie Highway can
accommodate the additional trips without decreasing the existing
level of service. A more detailed review of transportation impacts
will be required as part of any future site development application
review.
- Water
Water is available on Old Dixie Highway and 9th Street from the
South County Plant, and the applicant will be required to connect
and reserve Equivalent Residential Units (ERU's). By reserving
Equivalent Residential- Units, the utilities concurrency
determination test will be met.
Water consumption for this comprehensive plan amendment is
estimated to be 2 Equivalent Residential Units, or 500 gallons per
day. The actual number of gallons required depends on the total
square footage and the exact mix of uses. The remaining capacity
of the South County plant is over 4 million gallons per day. Based
upon staff analysis, it was determined that the South County plant
can provide the water service to the site.
- Wastewater
Wastewater service is available to the subject property from the.
Vero Beach plant.• Wastewater generation for this comprehensive
'plan amendment is estimated to be 394 gallons per day.. The actual
.number of gallons generated depends on the total square footage and
the exact mix of uses. The remaining capacity of the Vero Beach
plant is approximately 2 million gallons per day. Based upon staff
analysis, it was determined that the Vero Beach plant can
accommodate the wastewater generated from the site.
- Solid Waste
Solid waste service includes pickup by private operators and
disposal at the county landfill. Solid waste generation for this
comprehensive plan amendment is estimated to be 3.85 cubic yards of
solid waste per year. The actual amount generated depends on the
total square footage and the exact mix of uses. The active segment
of the landfill has a 4 year capacity, or over 900,000 cubic yards
of remaining capacity, and the landfill has expansion capacity
beyond 2010. Based upon staff analysis, it was determined that the
county landfill can accommodate the additional solid waste.
A more detailed review of utilities impacts will be required when
site development applications are submitted in the future.
- Drainage
All development is reviewed.for compliance with county stormwater
regulations which require on-site retention, preservation of
floodplain storage and minimum finished floor elevations. In
addition, development proposals will have to meet the discharge
requirements of the county Stormwater Management Ordinance.
Since the subject property is located within the R-2 drainage basin
and no-, discharge rate has been established for. that basin, any
development'on the property will be prohibited from discharging any
runoff from the site in excess of the pre -development discharge
rate.
37
MAY 21191
BOf ( 83
MAY 211
BOOK 83 P, GE 41
In this case the maximum area of impervious surface for the
proposed request will be approximately 11,220 square feet. The
estimated maximum run-off volume, based upon the amount of
impervious surface, will be 9,845 cubic feet. In order to maintain
the adopted level of service, development of the site must include
retention of at least 8,837 cubic feet of run-off, the difference
betrunoff. With this
dition which
w applicant can meetre and post-development
i on site, drainage level of service theservice will
be met.
- Recreation
Recreation concurrency requirements apply only to residential
development. Therefore, this comprehensive
plan
anaametionndment
rerequest
would not be required to satisfy any r
requirements.
m•acts on Surroundin• Uses and Environmental •ualit
:'The potential impact of the subject request upon surrounding land
.uses is an important issue concerning this property. The subject
'property is located adjacent to the Ridge Acres Subdivision and to
•unplatted lots with single-family homes. Ridge Acres is a single
family residential community with homes on both sides of the
':unpaved 10th Avenue.
A land use change for the subject property would have a number of
''negative impacts upon the single-family residences in the area.
`If -the property were developed. with commercial uses, the first
:::negative impact upon surrounding property owners would be a lack of
:compatibility between the single-family development and the subject
property, itself.
Given the type of uses allowed by a commercial land use
designation, there is no question that redesignation of the subject
property for commercial development would not be compatible with
the adjacent single family homes. While the land use to the north
and east is commercial/industrial, these sites are separated by 9th
Street and, Old Dixie Highway. That provides physical separation
and some buffering. Generally, residential sites must be buffered
from adjacent commercial and industrial uses to ensure
compatibility; with the subject request, however, the small size of
the property precludes adequate buffering between the commercial
uses that would be established on the site and the adjacent single-
family homes.
The second negative impact from the proposed land use amendment
involves more than the property itself; it relates to the entire
area south of the subject property along Old Dixie Highway. The
entire area would be affected because a change in land use
designation for commercial development on the subject property
would provide an impetus for other property owners to submit
comprehensive plan amendment requests for a commercial/ industrial
designation.
The result of this would be a domino' effect, with
commercial/industrial designation all along Old Dixie. As a
result, compatibility problems would develop with other parcels to
the south of the subject property and west of Old Dixie Highway.
The parcels from 9th Street to 8th Street adjacent to Old Dixie
Highway are immediately susceptible to the domino effect. The
subject property's land use change would prompt these property
owners to request land use changes, and the first domino would
fall. The residents of Ridge Acres along the east side of 10th
Avenue would be adjacent to commercial development. This would act
as an intrusion into the neighborhood quality of life.
The third negative impact from the proposed land use amendment
involves the nuisance created by commercial traffic generation.
Staff feels that a change in the land use designation and zoning of
the subject property will increase traffic flow through the Ridge
Acres Subdivision via 10th Avenue. Staff foresees that, if
38
commercial development occurred on the subject property, 10th
Avenue along with 9th Street would be used to reach the subject
property. Tenth Avenue is an unpaved subdivision road and should
not be subjected to commercial use traffic flows.
Approval of the request would result in significant impacts upon
surrounding homeowners; however, no significant oi pacts st�on
environmental quality would arise from approval of the
Development of the Subject Property
•
The subject property is large enough to comfortably accommodate a
single-family home. The orientation of the home on the subject
property is crucial since the property abuts three roads. The home
should face 10th Avenue and be in the western half of the parcel.
away from Old Dixie Highway (See Attachment 5). This would abate
some of the nuisances associated with the property's location such
as traffic, noise, visual pollution, and lack of privacy from the
commercial development.
The subject property, as described, is .34 acres or 14,810 gross
square feet. The setbacks from the property line for development
of a single-family home in the RS -6 zoning district are stated in!
'Chapter 911 of the County's Land Development Regulations. The,
subject property is large enough to accommodate the setback
'requirement of twenty (20) feet on 10th Avenue, Old Dixie Highway,
and 9th Street (See Attachment 5). A fence, or vegetative buffer,
could serve as a shield from the commercial development to the,
north and east, and provide privacy to the homeowner. Such a fence
could be up to six feet in height along Old Dixie Highway and 9th
Street, subject to administrative approval; and up to four feet in
height along 10th Avenue.
By siting a house on the western part of the property and employing
the techniques referenced above, the applicant can mitigate the
impact of traffic along Old Dixie Highway. The applicant has
referenced nuisance associated with traffic as a major reason
warranting a land use change for the property. It is staff's
position, however, that traffic on an abutting road is not a
sufficient reason to designate property commercial. If it were,
many roads would be characterized by strip commercial development -
a development pattern inconsistent with the county's plan.
The property owner has stated that an impediment to developing the
site with a single family home has been denial by the bank of a
loan. This inability to receive a loan has been one of the reasons
stated for seeking a change in the land use. While the specific
reasons given by the bank for denial of the applicant's request for
a loan to build a single family home are not known by staff, the 1
applicant has indicated that the loan was denied because thebank
thought that the subject property should be developed commercially.
There are, however, a number of reasons why a bank would not lend
money for construction or rehabilitation of a single-family applicant's These include the loan to value ratio, an app
it
record, and an applicant's income. Lending institutions also
frequently have more stringent requirements for non -owner occupied
single-family homes than owner -occupied units. Staff feels that
the inability to receive a loan is insufficient evidence to warrant
a land use amendment because there are too many criteria required
by the banks which are unrelated to a property's location or
proposed use. •
►
Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan
The proposed land use change and rezoning would require a change to
the adopted Future Land Use Map in the County's Comprehensive Plan.
A review of this requested change reveals two major inconsistencies
with the Future Land Use Element and its policies.
39
MAY 21 1991
Poor
F.h,c 416
iIY `21 .1991
BOOK 8�J FLL 41,:1
The most important policy to consider for consistency with the
county's Comprehensive Plan is Future Land Use'Policy 13.3. That
policy requires that one of three criteria be met in order to
approve a comprehensive plan land use amendment. These criteria
are:
* an oversight in the approved plan
* a mistake in the approved plan
* a substantial change in circumstances affecting the subject
property
The staff is. of the opinion that the proposed land use amendment
does. not meet any of the three criteria.
Prior to the adoption of the comprehensive plan on February 13,
1990, the subject property's land use designation was•mixed use.
The 1982 comprehensive plan explains that the mixed use district
designation is for areas with no dominant land use pattern. Old
Dixie was identified as one such area because of its mix of
;residential, commercial and industrial uses.
'For all such mixed use areas, the 1982 plan provided that zoning
would control land use. The plan also stated that zoning should be
established based upon the predominant land uses in the area. For.
;the Old Dixie area, this has historically resulted in residential
zoning on the west side of Old Dixie Highway and non-residential on
the east. One exception to that pattern is the area north of the
subject property which is an extension of the 12th Street/Old Dixie
commercial area. Even in this case, 9th Street has served as a
dividing line between commercial and residential development.
With the adoption of the revised comprehensive plan, the mixed use
district land use designation was eliminated. Areas formerly
designated as mixed use were designated as either residential or
commercial/industrial in the new plan. Since the west side of Old
Dixie Highway on the south side of 9th Street, including the
subject property, was zoned for and developed as residential, the
new land use plan designated this area as L-2 for low density
residential uses.
Since the comprehensive plan was adopted in February 1990, no
changes have occurred which would warrant amending the plan for the
subject property. Historically, residential development has been
feasible on the west side of Old Dixie, and it still is. In fact,
single-family residences exist on the west side of Old Dixie to the
south of the subject property almost the entire length of the road.
Changing past policy and amending the plan for this request would
affect every other parcel on the west side of and abutting Old
Dixie. Since circumstances are not substantially different for
other such parcels, it is anticipated that approval of the subject
request would create a domino effect and result in changing the
entire west side of Old Dixie to commercial.
The proposed land use change would also be inconsistent with Future
Land Use Policy 1.21. This policy states that node boundaries are
designed to eliminate urban sprawl, and strip development, and to
provide for maximum use of transportation and public facilities.
Staff feels that a change in the subject property's land use
designation would contradict Policy 1.21. The predicted domino
effect caused by the change in land use of the subject property
would encourage strip development along Old Dixie Highway and
defeat the purpose of the node boundary designation. a
Another consideration relating to the proposed request is the
amount of commercially designated land already existing within the
unincorporated portion of Indian River County. Currently, the
county has 5,300 acres of commercially and industrially designated
land. Of that, only approximately 2,800 acres of the commercial/
industrial land is projected to be needed for the county by the
year'2010, leaving ± 2,500 excess acres of commercially designated
land. That indicates that no additional commercially designated
land is needed at present.
40
ALTERNATIVES
There are two alternatives which the Board of County Commissioners
has concerning the applicant's request for a comprehensive plan
amendment. The first would be the denial by the Board of County
Commissioners of the transmittal of this request to the Department
of Community Affairs. The second is the approval by the Board of
County Commissioners of the transmittal to the Department of
Community Affairs for their review. The county would then have to
wait for the results of DCA's review before taking final action on
the land use amendment. ,:, ;
Besides the two alternatives referenced above, the Planning and
Zoning Commission considered a third alternative at their meeting
of April 11.; 1991. This alternative involved a lot split of the
subject property. With this alternative the western portion of the
property would be dedicated to residential development, and the
eastern portion would be dedicated to commercial development. The
problem with this solution is that a single family lot must be a
minimum of 7000 gross square feet, and a commercial lot must be -a.
minimum of 10,000 gross square feet. The subject property is only
14,810 gross square feet, a size which is too small to accommodate
both minimum lot requirements for commercial and residential
development. In addition to the problem of minimum lot size, there
still would exist the problem of commercial development resulting
in a domino effect if this alternative were chosen.
Staff feels that development of the subject property with a single
family home oriented away from the existing commercial development
is a feasible alternative to the requested land use change.
As stated previously, the subject property is a corner lot abutting
Old Dixie Highway, 9th Street, and 10th Avenue. Placement of a
single family home facing 10th Avenue, the less travelled road,
would provide a solution to the subject property's location on Old
Dixie Highway and 9th Street.
CONCLUSION
The subject property is located in an area designated for low
density single-family residential development. With its present
zoning and land use designation, the subject property is compatible
with the surrounding single-family development. Historically, Old
Dixie Highway has been the boundary between the residential uses on
the west and the commercial land use designations on the east. In
evaluating this request for a land use amendment and rezoning, the
staff has determined that the request is not consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan. The change in the land use designation would
not correct an oversight or mistake in the approved plan, nor have
substantial changes in circumstances affecting the subject property
and warranting a comprehensive plan amendment occurred. In
addition, approval of the subject request would promote strip
commercial development along Old Dixie and contravene several other
comprehensive plan policies.
For these reasons, staff does not support the request to change the
land use.
RECOMMENDATION
Based on the analysis performed, staff recommends that the Board of
County Commissioners deny transmittal of this land use amendment to
the Department of Community Affairs (DCA).
41
MAY 21 9991
JW?
UG F' ;.;tl:a
MAY 21 1991
BOOK 83 PAGE 419
Commissioner Eggert asked what is the square footage in the
whole parcel.
Director Keating stated it is .34 acre.
Commissioner Bowman asked if that includes the 80 -foot right-
of-way and setback. Director Keating said no; it is 14,810 gross
square feet. He confirmed the minimum square footage for
commercial is 10,000 square feet and the minimum for RS -6
residential parcel is 7,000 square feet. Therefore, it was
determined that it could not be split.
Director Keating pointed out this parcel is currently zoned
RS -6- and has a land use designation of L-2. He felt it is
important to describe this general area, not only the property
itself but also the adjacent uses.
Director Keating recommended that the Board deny transmittal
of this request.
Commissioner Bowman asked if there is any legal use, other
than residential, that requires only 7,000 square feet?
Director Keating said 10,000 square feet is the minimum lot
size for a lot in the commercial district.
Commissioner Bowman asked about office requirements.
Director Keating said he could check on the minimum square
footage. There are two primary office districts. The OCR district
is a district that is used in commercial land use districts. The
PRO, professional office district, does not need a commercial land
use designation and can be used in a residential area but there is
42
a minimum of five acres for that district and that would be reduced
to two and a half if the district is adjacent to a node.
Essentially he felt we would have the same potential impact with
limiting it to an office use as for general commercial.
Commissioner Wheeler asked about the RS -6 area across the
street and asked how that happened.
Director Keating could not explain it but stated Staff will be
going through with a set of comprehensive administrative rezonings
once the comprehensive plan is found in compliance and that is one
of the first items to be addressed.
The Chairman opened the public hearing and asked if anyone
wished to be heard in this matter.
Attorney Michael O'Haire, representing Trevor Smith, appeared
with some graphics to share with the members of the Board. He
described the area. He paraphrased policy 13.3, if there is
oversight or mistake the plans needs to be changed and he suggested
to the Board that there was oversight and mistakes by putting
residential zoning where the R & H Crane Service Equipment yard is.
He gave a history of the area, and the Trevor Smith parcel and the
Smith residence, stressing the heavy commercial development to the
east. He commented that if the Board tells Mr. Trevor Smith the
property he acquired from his father can be used only for
residential purposes, in truth you have told him he cannot use it
for anything. Mr. O'Haire reported he had talked to every one of
the owners of property on Old Dixie to the south up to Eighth
Street, all of which are single-family homes, and all have
experienced the same problem that Mr. Smith experienced.
Carl Brubacker, 835 10th Avenue, felt this had been fully
discussed before the P & Z board, who made an obvious decision not
to allow it for a very simple reason. This is not Old Dixie
Highway. We are talking about residences on Tenth Avenue designed
to stay residential, and if the Board allows this person to change
this on 10th Avenue, which his lot does touch on, then you can have
commercial on the rest of 10th. He stated he did not like Mr.
Smith having a bad time, but there were other homeowners on 10th
Avenue who had to be considered. He recalled that, at the P & Z
Board meeting, Staff clearly indicated Mr. Smith could build a
residence facing 10th Avenue. He pointed out there were eight
people in the audience who own houses on 10th Avenue who oppose
this change.
Trevor Smith, owner of the subject property, stated that his
address is not 10th Avenue, it is an Old Dixie address.
Furthermore, 9th Street, which goes from east to west, and is the
only access into that commercial plaza on the north, goes right
43
MY 21 1991
POOK 8 .p PAGE 420
MMPY 21 X99
BOOK 63 FAU 4a
past his property and turns in and goes into that property.
Directly across the street is industrial. He directed the Board's
attention to the brochure prepared by Mr. O'Haire which shows the
surroundings of his parcel and felt he was being penalized for
having that piece of property in that particular area by making him
a buffer for the people on 10th Avenue. On 10th Avenue, the number
one and two lots are vacant so he felt it would not be necessary at
this particular time to buffer -in that area. He faces industrial
across Old Dixie Highway and across 9th Street. Mr. Smith then
chronicled the events preceding his request to change the zoning:
he inherited the house from his father, his sister lived on the
property until it became unsafe for her children and after she
moved out he tried to rent the house, but found no one willing to
live in an "industrial" area. The house was vacant and was
vandalized, windows were broken out, copper plumbing was removed
and a sliding glass door was broken which resulted in deterioration
of the interior and code enforcement violations. His attempts to
get a renovation loan were refused because, he was told, he did not
occupy the residence and they would not invest in something like
that. They also refused to mortgage a new structure because they
felt it could not be paid back. Mr. Smith said he did not have the
funds to renovate the existing structure or build a new one and had
the house torn down. Now he has a vacant lot which is being used
as a buffer between 10th Avenue residences toward the west and
commercial to the north and east.
Gus Curren, 856 10th Avenue, came before the Board and stated
his home is right behind the piece of property in question. He
claimed Mr. Smith's place was a wreck when Mr. Curren moved there;
nothing had been done to the property for six years. Mr. Curren
also said his bedroom is ten feet from that piece of property and
does not need any commercial built right there.
Bill Walker, 836 10th Avenue, stated he lives on the third lot
south. He referred to a comment Mr. Smith made about who would
want to live in that area. Mr. Walker retorted that he and other
people have been living there. He described it as a quaint little
residential subdivision. His father lives on 10th Avenue, three
families of Brubakers live there and they have kept up their houses
and properties over the years. He was sorry Mr. Trevor Smith did
not. It was an eyesore and he was glad they tore it down.
Chairman Bird determined no one else wished to be heard and
closed the public hearing.
44
Chairman Bird expressed concern about the neighborhood and the
future of the properties fronting Old Dixie because he felt it is
unlikely anybody is going to build a single family house which
would only have ingress and egress off of Dixie; yet if it were
converted to commercial, all of a sudden backyards would back up on
commercial. He felt it is a real problem.
Commissioner Eggert noted there is a house on all but one lot
now.
Director Keating felt we must realize that everyone does not
live in the best areas or the best possible circumstances, and
noted Mr. Smith probably could put hedges or fences up around the
property. Director Keating felt there are certain tradeoffs, but
to make it better for these people on Old Dixie, you adversely
affect people on 10th Avenue.
On MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Wheeler, the Board unanimously denied
the transmittal to the Department of Community
Affairs, as recommended by Staff; said denial to be
included in Resolution 91-62.
RESOLUTION NO. 91-62
A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN
RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, APPROVING THE TRANSMITTAL OF PROPOSED
AMENDMENTS TO THE INDIAN RIVER COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TO
THE STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS FOR THEIR
REVIEW
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners adopted the Indian
River County Comprehensive Plan on February 13, 1990, and
WHEREAS, the county received comprehensive plan amendment
applications during its January 1991 amendment submittal window,
and
WHEREAS, the Local Planning Agency held a public hearing on
all comprehensive plan amendment requests on April 11, 1991, after
due public notice, and
WHEREAS, the Local Planning Agency recommended that the Board
of County Commissioners approve of the comprehensive plan amendment
listed as "a" and deny the comprehensive plan amendment listed as
"b" in this resolution; and
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River
County held a Transmittal Public Hearing on May 21, 1991, after
advertising pursuant to F.S. 163.3184(15)(b)(1), and
45
MAY 21 199to 83 FA„E 412
Mk 21
99
BOOK 83 FSE 423
WHEREAS, The Board of County Commissioners announced at the
transmittal public hearing its intention to hold and advertise a
final public hearing at the adoption stage of the plan amendments.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA THAT:
1. The above recitals are ratified in their entirety.
2. The following proposed amendment listed as "a" is
approved for transmittal to the State of Florida
Department of Community Affairs for written comment
and the following proposed amendment listed as "b"
is denied for transmittal to the State of Florida
Department of Community Affairs.
a. Request to amend the Land Use Map of the
Comprehensive Plan from L-2, Low -Density
Residential (up to 6 units/acre) and M-1,
Medium Density Residential (up to 8
units/acre) to Hospital -Commercial Node for a
±8 acre parcel located west of U.S. #1 and
southeast of Roseland Road.
b. Request to amend the Land Use Map of the
Comprehensive Plan from L-2, Low -Density
Residential (up to 6 units/acre) to C/I,
Commercial/Industrial Node for a ±.34 acre
parcel located on Old Dixie Highway on the
south side of 9th Street.
The forgoing Resolution was offered by Commissioner
Wheeler and seconded by Commissioner Scurlock and
upon being put to a vote the vote was as follows:
Chairman Richard N. Bird• Aye
Vice -Chairman Gary C. Wheeler Aye
Commissioner Margaret C. Bowman Aye
Commissioner Carolyn K. Eggert Aye
Commissioner Don C. Scurlock, Jr. Aye
The Chairman thereupon declared the resolution duly passed and
adopted at a public hearing held this 21 day of May 1991.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
BY:
Richard N. Bird, Chairman
PURCHASE OF LOTS 8 AND 9, BLOCK 45, FOR PROPOSED COURTHOUSE SITE
The Board reviewed memo from Assistant to County Administrator
Randy Dowling dated May 10, 1991:
45A
TO: Board *of County Commissioners DATE: May 10, 1991
THRU: James E. Chandler vet__
County Administrator/'
SUBJECT:
FILE:
PURCHASE OF LOTS 8 & 9.
BLOCK 45 FOR THE PRO-
POSED COURTHOUSE SITE
FROM: Randy Ass t. ooCounty AdministratoF EFERENCES:
BACKGROUND
The Board, during its December 18, .1990 regular meeting, approved the new
courthouse site and authorized staff to proceed with land acquisition. The
Board approved and executed Bernice Meyer's (Lots 12 & 13, Block 44) , Dave
Whitfield's. (Lot 3, Block 44), and Janice Diggs' (Lot 10, Block 45) Option
Agreements during its February 19, ,1991 regular meeting. The Board
approved .and executed Ed Schlitt, Trustee's (Lots 1 & 2, Block 45), Ennis &
Gay Proctor's (Lot 3.1, Block 45) , and Bernard and Norma Tedeson's (Lot
13.1, Block 45) Option Agreements during its March 5, 1991 regular meeting.
The Board also approved and executed James and William Harshbargar's (Lots
4 & 5, Block 44) Option Agreement during the March 12, 1991 regular
meeting, Patricia Langbehn-Nelson's (Lots 10 & 11, Block 44) Option
Agreement during the April 2, 1991 regular meeting, Vero Limited
Partnership's (Lots 1, 2, & 14, Block 44 and Lots 4, 5, & 11, Block 45)
Purchase Contract during the April 16, 1991 regular meeting, and Robert
Moore's (South 33 feet of Lot 3, Block 45) Option Agreement during the May
7, 1991 regular meeting. The proposed courthouse site consists of 15 parcels
and 13 property owners.
CURRENT
Nicholas M. Limberis, owner of Lots 8 & 9, Block 45, has signed an Option
Agreement to sell his property for $380,000. This price is consistent with
the acquisition budget. This property is being acquired according to Chapter
73 F.S. and the Resolution of Condemnation. Therefore, a notice and public
hearing are not required. However, the property has four leases attached to
it but the leases will have minimal impact. Staff is still negotiating with the
remaining two property owners for the last two parcels.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends the Board approve the Limberis' Option Agreement and
authorize the Board Chairman to execute the agreement and all other
necessary related documents. •
MAP OF PROPOSED COURTHOUSE SITE
• 21st ST
it
It
JI
I0
MAY 2 1991
L
W
m
Already Acquired Property
II
I0
,
t
3 J
r
0
S.R. 80
I�IIIII
46
ubject Property
w
BOOK OJ F'r,a 5
MAY 21 99
BOOK 8J F'AuE 4th
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Scurlock, the Board unanimously
approved the Limberis Option Agreement and
authorized the Chairman to execute the agreement and
all other necessary related documents as recommended
by Staff.
SAID DOCUMENT WILL BE PLACED ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF CLERK TO
THE BOARD WHEN FULLY EXECUTED AND RECEIVED
FY 1991-92 ANTI-DRUG ABUSE GRANT FUNDING
The Board reviewed memo from Assistant to County
Administrator Randy Dowling dated May 13, 1991:
TO: Board of County Commissioners DATE:
THRU: James E. Chandler
County Administrator
May 13, 1991
FILE:
FY 1991-92 Anti -Drug
SUBJECT: Abuse Grant Funding
FROM: Randy Dowling
Asst to the County Admin. REFERENCES:
BACKGROUND
Indian River County was allocated $128,506 in non-competitive grant funds
from the Florida Department of Community Affairs (FDCA) to fund local
Anti -Drug Abuse projects for FY 1990-91. The projects the Board approved
and their corresponding funding levels are:
:1)
Indian River County Jail Substance Abuse Program - Administered
by New Horizons of the Treasure Coast, Inc.
State share 75% $38,771
County share 25% $12,924
'Total $51,695
2) Intervention/Aftercare Program - Administered by New Horizons of
the Treasure Coast, Inc.
State share 75% $38,771
County share 25% $12,924
Total $51,695
3) First Start Program - Administered by the Indian River County
School Board
State share 75% $21,516
County share 25% $ 7,172
Total $28,688
4) Just Say No Program - Administered by the Just Say No Council
of Indian River County, Inc.
State share 75% $17,447
County share 25% $ 5,816
Total $23,263
5) Substance Abuse Advisory Council Administrative Expenses
Administered by the Substance Abuse Council of Indian River
County.
State share 75% $12,000
• •County share 25% $ 4,000
. Total $16,000
47
State share totals $128,506, County share totals $42,836, and the grand total
of all five projects is $171,342. All projects are in their eighth month of
operation and will terminate on September 30, 1991.
This office received a letter dated February 28, 1991 ' from the FDCA stating
that Indian River County has been allocated $140,414 in non-competitive grant
funds for FY 1991-92 to continue to fund local Anti -Drug Abuse projects.
The letter also requested the Board to serve as the coordinating unit of
government in applying for the funds. The Board, during its'March 19, 1991
regular meeting, accepted the invitation to serve as the coordinating unit of
government and named Randy Dowling, Assistant to the County Administrator,
as the contact person.
CURRENT
The Substance Abuse Advisory Council is recommending that the Board
approve the following anti-drug abuse projects and their corresponding
funding levels for FY 1991-92:
1) Substance Abuse Advisory Council Administrative Expenses
administered by the Substance Abuse Council of Indian River County
$18,000.
2) Just Say No Program - administered by the Just Say No Council of
Indian River County - $23,263.
3) First Start Program - administered by the Indian River County School
Board - $33,000.
4) Indian River County Jail Substance Abuse Program and After -Care
Program - administered by New Horizons of the Treasure Coast, Inc.
$108,522. -
Neighborhoods in Action Program - administered by the Just Say No
Council of Indian River County - $7,629.
..State share totals $140,414, County share will total about $50,000, and the
grand total of all five projects will be about $190,414.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends the Board approve the Substance Abuse Council's
recommendations, authorize staff to prepare the grant applications, and
authorize the Board Chairman to sign the grant applications and other
necessary related documents. The budgetary impact on the County will be
about $50,000 and that funding will come from General Fund Revenue.
MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED
by Commissioner Wheeler, to approve the Substance
Abuse Council's recommendations, to authorize Staff
to prepare the grant applications and to authorize
the Chairman to execute the grant applications and
all necessary related documents.
48
MAY 21 1991
POfl 83 F [.4. e
MAY 2119`9:
PLv 8:3 FK,E l
Commissioner Wheeler wished the Board to take note of the
Sheriff's Fines and Forfeiture Fund which is over two hundred
thousand dollars. He felt these funds could be used for the
Substance Abuse Council's program.
County Attorney Vitunac advised that the procedure would be
for the Sheriff to request that the Board take money from the Fines
and Forfeiture Fund for this purpose; then the Board makes a
decision to use the funds for the Substance Abuse Council's
program.
Commissioner Scurlock understood this fund could not be used
for recurring expenses but only one time expenditures.
Attorney Vitunac explained the restriction was the fund could
not be used as a source of revenue to meet normal operating needs
of the law enforcement agency, but it specifically is allowed to be
used for drug programs.
Commissioner Wheeler quoted from Chapter 932.704, Florida
Statutes, "These funds may be expended only upon request by the
sheriff to the Board of County Commissioners.... Such funds may be
expended only to defray the costs of or drug abuse
education..." He also commented that a large portion of the Anti -
Drug Abuse funding is being used in the jail so he felt it would be
appropriate and would save $50,000 out of our ad valorem taxes.
Commissioner Scurlock wished to add to his
Motion authorization for the Chairman to request the
Sheriff to request the Board to take $50,000 from
the Fines and Forfeiture Fund to pay for this
program and if the Sheriff does not do so, the
County will fund the program.
Commissioner Wheeler seconded the addition.
THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION on the
motion as amended.
It was voted on and carried unanimously.
Commissioner Scurlock commended the Anti -Drug Abuse program
and the people involved, several of whom were in the audience. He
felt this is another program we don't get credit for and he
believed the public is not aware of the quiet efforts of the
individuals working in the several Substance Abuse Programs.
Commissioner Eggert suggested that when these programs come to
us for approval, summaries of what has been accomplished be
provided to the Board. She also stressed that she views this as
seed money and the recipients should not rely on continuing to
receive it automatically.
49
Ken Macht, Chairman of the Substance Abuse Council appreciated
Commissioner Scurlock's comments and added that the County
Commission deserves a lot of credit for making the program
possible, not only in the funding but by becoming personally
involved. He also thanked County Administrator James Chandler and
Assistant to the County Administrator Randy Dowling, along with OMB
Director Joe Baird, for their help during the difficult first year.
He gave credit to Bonnie Swanson and the First Start Program, the
New Horizon Program and the DARE Program as well as the Just Say No
Program and announced that this year they would be launching, in
conjunction with the Sheriff, a neighborhood -in -action program.
(GRANT APPLICATIONS ARE ON FILE IN THE OFr'10E OF CLERK TO THE BOARD.)
MARINE RESOURCES COUNCIL REQUEST FOR TEMPORARY FUNDING
The Board reviewed memo from County Administrator James
Chandler dated May 15, 1991:
TO• Board of County Commissioners DATE: May 15, 1991 FILE:
SUBJECT:
Request from t warine
Resources Council for
Temporary Funding
James E. Chandler ,Se
FROM: County Administrator REFERENCES:
Attached is a request from the Marine Resources Council (MRC) for temporary
funding.
The MRC has a $150,000 grant from DER and a $50,000 grant from the St.
Johns Water Management District. Both are reimbursable grant contracts.
According to the Executive Director, Diane Barile, MRC funds are limited at
this time. As a result, the MRC is requesting assistance from various
agencies to meet the "front end" expenses until the grant reimbursements are
received in approximately 10 weeks. The Director indicated that the total
amount requested from all agencies is $30,000 - $40,000.
The amount requested from Indian River County is $1,000. Upon receipt of
the grant reimbursement, the $1,000 would be repaid.
If the Commission approves the request, funding would be from General Fund
Contingency.
50
MAY 211P1
mfr. 83 F E LILS
MAY --9T
BOOK 8 3 4 r"9
MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED
by Commissioner Eggert, to approve advancing $1,000
to the Marine Resources Council for temporary
funding.
Administrator Chandler explained his understanding was that
the request was for a loan but after a telephone conversation with
Ms. Barile yesterday, he found they had changed the request to a
direct outlay of $1,000.
Commissioner Bowman confirmed that there had been some
misunderstanding and they wish this to be an outright grant with no
reimbursement.
Commissioner Scurlock withdrew his motion. Commissioner
Eggert withdrew her second.
MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Bowman to grant
$1,000 to Marine Resources Council.
Commissioner Wheeler advised that in his conversation with Ms.
Barile it was indicated the request was for a loan which will be
reimbursable after they receive their funds.
Commissioner Eggert asked why it was changed.
Administrator Chandler did not know.
Commissioner Scurlock voiced concern regarding contributions
to begin programs which, after a certain time, are left to the
County to carry on.
Commissioner Eggert was in favor of a loan but not a grant.
Chairman Bird asked if there was a second to Commissioner
Bowman's motion. The motion died for lack of a second.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by
Commissioner Wheeler, the Board unanimously approved
a loan of $1,000 to Marine Resources Council for "up
front" funding, to be repaid from grant
reimbursements, as recommended by Staff.
REQUEST TO AUTHORIZE STAFF TO DRAW UPON A LETTER OF CREDIT FOR
COPELAND'S LANDING, INC., PHASE 1 SUBDIVISION
The Board reviewed memo from Staff Planner John McCoy dated
April 30, 1991:
51
TO: James E. Chandler
County Administrator
DIVI
N HEAD CONCURRENCE:
ert M. Kea in
Community Develome JJ Director
THROUGH: Stan Boling,fICP
Planning Director
�
FROM: John W. McCoy / Vitt\
Staff Planner, Current Development
DATE: .::April 30, 1991
SUBJECT: REQUEST TO AUTHORIZE STAFF TO DRAW UPON A LETTER OF
CREDIT FOR COPELANDS LANDING INC. PHASE I SUBDIVISION
It is_ requested that the data herein presented be given formal
consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at its regular
meeting of May 21, 1991.
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS: -
On December 19, 1989, the Board of County Commissioners approved
the final plat for the Copelands Landing Phase I Subdivision, based
upon the developer "bonding -out" for required- improvements.
Pursuant to county requirements, the developer submitted a contract
for required improvements (expiration date: July 5, 1990) and a
letter of credit (expiration date October 5, 1990) to guarantee the
construction of the required improvements. On July 5, 1990, the
initial construction deadline passed, and the developer was in
breach of his contract. A second (renewed) contract for required
improvements was then executed by the developer (new expiration
date February 27, 1991), and a reduced ($72,000) letter of credit
expiring June 3, 1991 was posted to guarantee construction of the
remaining required improvements. Pursuant to county requirements
and policy, the Board of County Commissioners approved this new
contract and accepted the new letter of credit at its December 4,
1990 meeting.
The performance date in the renewed contract was February 27, 19911
and the developer is again in breach of his contract. Not all of
the required improvements.have been constructed,and a certificate
of completion has not been issued by the County certifying that
improvements are complete. The existing, reduced letter of credit
is adequate to complete the remaining required improvements.
Although the subdivision is "private", certain utilities
improvements are part of the "public" system. As publicly
dedicated improvements, a one .year warranty period will be in
effect for the utilities improvements from the date that the
utilities department accepts the improvements. Funds from the
existing letter of credit will need to be retained until the one
year warranty period has passed, in accordance with County
Ordinances. A
52
MAY 2 1. 1991
POOK FA;F.430
MAY 21 1991
BOOK
FAA 4A
ANALYSIS:
Since the existing letter of credit will expire on June 3, 1991,
the county will at that time be left with a breached contract and
no financial security. The staff is requesting that the Board of
County Commissioners adopt a resolution authorizing the staff to
draw down the entire amount of the letter of credit prior to the
June 3, 1991 expiration date, should the required improvements
remain incomplete on May 22, 1991. The County is to use the -funds
to have the necessary improvements constructed and return any
overage, after all costs associated with the construction are
complete and paid for, and after the one year warranty period
expires.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners adopt the
attached resolution authorizing staff to draw upon the full amount
of the $72,000.00 Letter of Credit for Copeland's Landing Phase I.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by
Commissioner Eggert, the Board unanimously approved
staff's recommendation and adopted Resolution 91-63,
certifying the default of Copeland's Landing under
the terms of Contract SD -87-05-06 and authorizing
draft on Barnett Bank of Central Florida, N.A.,
letter of credit No. 073690 dated 12/06/90.
Dean Leuthje with Carter and Associates, representing the
developer, explained the request is for a 30 -day extension because
construction work is very near to being complete, down to one valve
being changed and just a little bit of painting. Construction can
be done before the June 3rd deadline of that letter. The one
timing aspect is the effective certification of the DER which takes
two to three weeks so we need about a 30 -day extension.
Commissioner Scurlock asked why staff is not recommending the
30 -day extension.
Planning Director Stan Bowling recapped the history of the
project. He mentioned the existing letter of credit expires June
3, 1991 and emphasized that we have had two contracts before on
this. The contract deadline passed February 27, 1991 and we have
been telling them to get the project finished. He felt at this
point in time the Board should authorize staff to draw upon the
letter of credit. He thought what Mr. Leuthje is talking about is
the ability, perhaps, to come in with another letter of credit and
extend it. Once the June 3rd deadline passes, the letter of credit
is gone and there is no more security to back a contract that
already has been breached. Regardless of what the Board does, he
felt authorization should be given to draw on the letter of credit
even if an extended letter of credit is allowable.
Chairman Bird noted that although we have already voted, we
could reconsider the item.
53
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously
reconsidered the original motion.
Assistant County Attorney Will Collins advised that part of
the contract also involves posting of warranty security to insure
that what they do construct stays in good shape for the year,
before we assume maintenance. If we get a substitute letter of
credit it should be one in the amount to cover the warranty
agreement as well.
Mr. Leuthje assured Mr. Collins that the developer would get
the extension for the existing letter of credit to Mr. Davis this
week, and the extension would be until July 3, 1991. By then
construction would be complete and at that point certification
would be accomplished and the warranty would be given to the
County
Attorney Collins advised that if we had an acceptable 30 -day
extension to the existing letter of credit, we could carry it
through, as long as we had the substitute warranty agreement before
the end of that 30 days after certification. We just want to be
able to submit the letter of credit if they don't give us the
amendment before June 3, 1991.
Attorney Collins suggested the motion should be to authorize
the Chairman to execute the resolution and necessary instruments to
call the letter of credit. We would not mail the letter of credit
if we are provided with an amended letter of credit extending it
for 30 days. Then we could revisit it later on.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by
Commissioner Eggert, the Board unanimously adopted
Resolution 91-63, authorized the Chairman to execute
all necessary instruments to call the letter of
credit, not mail the letter of credit if provided
with an amended letter of credit extending it for 30
days, and revisit it later on, as recommended by the
legal Staff.
54
MAY 21 111,
PAuL 113
MIW 21 1991
BOOK 83 PAGE 4:33
RESOLUTION NO. 91- .63
A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY,
FLORIDA CERTIFYING THE DEFAULT OF
COPELAND'S LANDING UNDER THE TERMS OF
CONTRACT SD -87-05-06 AND AUTHORIZING DRAFT
ON BARNETT BANK OF CENTRAL FLORIDA, N.A.
LETTER OF CREDIT NO. 073690 DATED 12/06/90.
WHEREAS, County Development Regulations require
subdivision plat improvements to be in place before a plat is recorded;
and
WHEREAS, a plat may be recorded prior to construction of
required subdivision improvements if the developer contracts with the
County to complete those required subdivision improvements within one
year of final plat approval and posts adequate security to guaranty that
contractual agreement; and
WHEREAS, COPELAND LANDING, INC. , a Florida corporation,
entered into a contract on behalf of the development known as
Copeland's Landing which contract was numbered SD -87-05-06; and
WHEREAS, the contract was secured by an Irrevocable
Standby Letter of Credit No. 007 -LC -073960 in the amount of
$72,000.00, with issue date of December 6, 1990 naming Indian River
County Board of County Commissioners as beneficiary and Richard
Hebert and/or Copeland's Landing as the applicant,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of County
Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida that:
1. The above statements are ratified in their entirety.
2. WE HEREBY CERTIFY THAT COPELAND'S LANDING HAS
DEFAULTED UNDER THE TERMS OF THE COPELAND'S LANDING
SUBDIVISION PHASE I CONTRACT SD -87-05-06 FOR IMPROVEMENTS
BETWEEN COPELAND'S LANDING AND INDIAN RIVER COUNTY. THE
AMOUNT OF THIS DRAWING, $72,000.00, REPRESENTS THE AMOUNT
REQUIRED BY THE COUNTY TO FULFILL THE PERFORMANCE OF SAID
CONTRACT FOR THE REQUIRED IMPROVEMENTS.
3. Developer, Copelands Landing, Inc. has been notified of
the deficiencies in his performance of Contract SD -87-05-06.
55
4. The Chairman of the Board of. County Commissioners of
Indian River County is hereby authorized to execute this resolution
certifying default along with any other necessary documents to call the
Irrevocable Standby Letter of Credit of Barnett Bank of Central
Florida, N.A. No. 007 -LC -073960.
5. This draft is drawn under Barnett Bank of Central
Florida, N.A. Letter of Credit No. 073960 dated 12/06/90 which original
Letter of Credit is attached hereto.
6. The Director of the Indian River County Office of
Management and Budget is hereby directed to submit this resolution and
the original Letter of Credit by draft marked "DRAWN UNDER
BARNETT BANK OF CENTRAL FLORIDA, N.A. LETTER OF CREDIT
NO. 073960 DATED 12/06/90", to Barnett Bank of Central Florida,
N.A., Attention: International Operations, P. O. Box 675000, Orlando,
Florida 32867-5000, U.S.A., arriving at the counters of Barnett Bank of
Central Florida, N.A. prior to June 3, 1991.
The foregoing resolution was offered by Commissioner
Scurlock and seconded by Commissioner Eggert , and, being put
to a vote, the vote was as follows:
Chairman Richard N. Bird Ay e
Vice Chairman Gary C. Wheeler Ay e
Commissioner Margaret C. Bowman Aye
Commissioner Don C. Scurlock, Jr. Aye
Commissioner Carolyn K. Eggert Aye
The Chairman thereupon declared the resolution duly passed
and adopted this 21 day of May , 1991.
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
By
Richard N. Bird, Chairman
1990"COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENTS
The Board reviewed memo from Community Development Director
Robert Keating dated May 15, 1991:
56
MAY 21 1991
;mor83
['A:A
MAY 21 199'
BOOK 83 EVA 4:J5
TO: James Chandler
County Administrator /�A�K
FROM: Robert M. Keating, AICP A MK.
Community Development Director
DATE: May 15, 1991
SUBJECT: 1990 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENTS
.'It is requested that the information herein presented be given
. formal consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their
regular meeting of May 21, 1991.
Description & Conditions:
In September, 1990, the board of county commissioners approved a.
stipulated settlement agreement with the state Department of
Community Affairs (DCA) to bring the county's comprehensive plan
"in compliance" with state law and to avoid an administrative
hearing on the non-compliance issue. The stipulated agreement not
only identified comprehensive plan changes necessary to bring the
plan into compliance; it also committed the county to enact those
changes by amending its plan.
Consistent with the stipulated settlement agreement requirement,
the staff drafted the amendment provisions referenced in the
agreement and initiated the formal amendment process in October,
1990. Along with the stipulated settlement agreement amendment,
eight other amendment requests were processed. These included one
amendment which was an alternative to the stipulated agreement
amendment, three amendments which addressed the concerns of
intervenors in the plan amendment process, and four amendments
submitted during the July window for submitting comprehensive plan
amendment requests.
The 1990 comprehensive plan amendments are:
Amendment # Location Applicant Request
CPA#118 - Stipulated Unincorporated Indian River Map Amendments
Settlement Agreement County County Policy Amendments
CPA#118 - Alternative
One
43rd Ave and
South County
Line
Indian River
County
400 Acres East of
43rd Ave from L-2
to L-1
400 Acres West of
43rd Ave from AG
to L-1
CPA#117 - Mixed Use Agricultural Bruce Barkett Creation of a
Portion of Mixed Use District
the County
CPA#116 - Coraci Along Sebastian Coraci (Robert Creation of a C-3
River Riggio Conservation Dis-
trict
CPA#114 - Stikelether Old Dixie Hwy Stikelether Change from Rest -
(Block "U" of dential (L-2) to
Dixie Heights Commercial (C/I)
S/D) (1.22 Acres)
57
CPA#113 - Diamond I-95 and S.R. 60 Diamond Wedge
Wedge (Darrell
Mc(Neen)
CPA#112 - McRae I. R. Blvd
North of Walmart
CPA#111 - Windsor
CPA#110 - Oslo Plaza
McRae (Warren
Dill
South of 77th St. Windsor (Jerome
West of FEC Quinn)
Railroad
Oslo Road, West
of 27th Ave
Urban Service Area
Adjustment to 104th
Ave on West & 4th
St. on South
Change from Resi-
dential (M-1) to
Commercial (C/I)
(6.8 acres)
Change from Commer-
cial (C/I) to Resi-
dential (L-2) (14
acres)
Oslo Plaza (Steve Change from Resi-
Henderson) dential (L-2) to
Commercial (C/I)
(4.83 acres)
All of the proposed amendments were considered by the planning and
zoning commission in November, 1990 and considered by the board of
county commissioners in December. At its December 11, 1990
meeting, the board approved the transmittal of all amendments to
DCA for their ninety (90) day review. Soon after that, staff
compiled all necessary information and transmitted the amendments
to DCA.
On April 22, 1991, the county received DCA's review comments on the
proposed amendments. These comments are in the form of an ORC
(objections, recommendations and comments) report. This ORC
identifies objections to each of the proposed amendments. These
objections must be addressed by the county, and formal action must
be taken on each amendment request at an adoption public hearing to
be held no later than sixty days after receipt of the ORC. Failure
to adequately address DCA's objections may prevent the county's
plan from being found in compliance and subject the county to the
same administrative hearing and sanction process which the county
faced with its original non-compliance finding.
Because of the 60 day requirement for taking action on the
amendments, the staff has scheduled an adoption hearing for June
18, 1991. Once action is taken at this adoption hearing, DCA will
review that action to determine if its objections were adequately
addressed and then make a compliance finding. Since the board's
decision on each amendment request is so important and will
determine whether the county's plan will be found in compliance,
staff felt that the board should consider DCA's objections relating
to each proposed amendment request and provide direction to the
staff.
ALTERNATIVES & ANALYSIS:
The staff has analyzed each of DCA's objections for each of the
proposed comprehensive plan amendments. In addition, county staff
has discussed the objections and their resolution with DCA staff.
Based upon the staff analysis and subsequent staff/DCA discussion,
a summary matrix has been developed.
A copy of the referenced summary matrix is attached to this agenda
item. This matrix separately addresses each of the proposed
comprehensive plan amendments, identifies DCA's objections to each
amendment, identifies staff response to each objection (whether or
not the objection is valid), and includes proposed action which
staff feels must be taken to resolve the objection.
58
MAY 21 1991
83 F„.,t:)
HAY 21 1991
MOP`. 83 PAGE 4:37
A review of the attached matrix shows that many of DCA's objections
relate to a' lack of data and analysis to support the proposed
amendments. In most cases staff feels that supporting data and
analysis were, included either as part of the amendment, itself, or
the backup material submitted. To resolve most of -those
inadequate -data objections, staff must expand its justification,
include more supporting data, or in many cases just reword
statements to clarify.
While many of DCA's objections can, in staff's opinion, be easily
resolved, some of the others involve substantive policy objections
from DCA, which cannot be addressed through minor revisions to
backup information. Of the nine amendment requests, staff feels
that three cannot be modified to adequately address DCA's
objections. These three are: Alternative 1 to the stipulated
settlement agreement; the McRae request to designate property on
the west side of Indian River Boulevard and north of 4th Street to
commercial; and the Diamond Wedge (McQueen) amendment to expand the
urban service area west of I-95. Since receipt of DCA's
objections,.the Diamond Wedge amendment has been withdrawn, because
changes proposed for the I-95/SR 60 area and incorporated in the
stipulated settlement agreement satisfy the applicant's concerns.
With withdrawal of the Diamond Wedge request, only two of the
remaining amendments appear to have DCA objections which cannot be
resolved. In the case of Alternative 1, DCA's objections relate to
urban sprawl, premature conversion of agricultural land, and
inappropriately located residential development. These are not
issues which can be resolved with minor changes to the proposed
amendment or with an expansion of the data and analysis supporting
the request. Since DCA objects to this amendment becauseof its
conflict with the stipulated settlement agreement, there appears to
be no way to modify the request to make it acceptable to DCA, and
staff recommends that it be denied.
The second of the two remaining amendment requests also received
substantive objections from DCA. These relate to inconsistencies
with a number of policies in the plan, specifically inconsistency
with commercial node expansion criteria incorporated within several
future land use element policies. While staff had attempted to
justify this amendment as an oversight during the comprehensive
plan preparation process, DCA's objections indicate that such
justification is unacceptable. For those reasons staff recommends
that this amendment request be denied.
Staff feels that all of the other proposed amendments, except one,
can be revised to address DCA's objections with only minor changes
to the data and analysis portion of the amendment. The one
exception involves the mixed use district amendment. With regard
to this amendment, DCA had some substantive objections. In this
case, however, the objections can be addressed by modifying the
mixed use district criteria. This will involve establishing size,
location, review, and other standards for approval of a mixed use
project/district. In discussing these proposed changes with the
attorney for the principal intervenor concerned with the mixed use
amendment,,staff found that the proposed changes would be generally
acceptable'to the intervenor.
e Summary
DCA's review of the county's 1990 comprehensive plan amendments
.resulted in objections to each of the nine amendment requests.
Many of these objections, however, are minor and easily,resolvable.
Even those minor objections must be adequately resolved by the
board of county commissioners with their actions at the final
adoption hearing.
Since there is no opportunity to make further changes after the
action at the final adoption hearing, it is important that all of
DCA's objections be adequately addressed at that time. For that
59
reason, staff recommends that the board authorize staff to make the
necessary changes to the proposed amendments and the back-up and to
authorize staff to review these changes with DCA staff prior to the
final adoption hearing to get DCA's concurrence. This will ensure
that the county's plan will be found in compliance after the -board
acts on the 1990 amendment requests.
The following summarizes the status/proposed action for each
amendment request:
Amendment
Recommended Action/Status
CPA#118 - Stipulated
Settlement Agreement
,CPA#118 - Alternative 1
'CPA#117
-CPA#116
a.
:CPA#114
- Mixed Use
- Coraci
- Stikelether
•:'CPA#113 .-. Diamond
CPA#112_-McRae
CPA#111 - Windsor
Wedge
CPA#110 - Oslo Plaza
RECOMMENDATION
Make minor changes - nonsubstantive
Deny
Make substantive changes to stan-
dards
Make minor changes to Data &
Analysis
Make minor changes to Data &
Analysis
Withdrawn
Deny
Make minor changes to Data &
Analysis
Make minor changes to Data &
Analysis
Staff recommends that the board of county commissioners concur with
the recommended actions referenced above. Staff also recommends
that the board authorize county staff to meet with the Florida
Department of Community Affairs staff prior to the scheduled
adoption hearing in order to get concurrence 'from DCA that the
revisions to the proposed plan amendments will satisfy their ,
objections.
Planning Director Keating reminded the Board of the actions
taken on these amendments in December. He reported that yesterday
in a telephone conversation with Bob Knave, Deputy Secretary of the
DCA, he could not get any specifics but he inferred there may be a
difference of opinion among DCA staff in relation to some of the
objections. The summary of DCA's objections shows staff's analysis
of each objection. Staff's opinion is that the two amendments we
thought were unresolvable may be resolvable and he asked the Board
to authorize Attorney Collins and himself to negotiate with the DCA
and get them to agree to specific language, which he and Attorney
Collins would then bring back to the adoption hearing on June 18,
1991.
60
MAY 21 1991
R00K 83 PACE 438
MY211991
• a9
BOOK 83 FACE 4,
AL1EidC17TVI "1"
17th ST'S
Y..�. Y• - . •
•
' •
"4. •- t COUNTY LINE
SUBJECT PROPERTY.
-_ PROPOSED LAND USE BOUNDARIES
ZONING BOUNDARIES
Commissioner Scurlock felt the request was appropriate but had
some questions regarding the configuration in Alternative 1. He
felt the DCA, in looking at the hatched area, could have objections
to the "L" extending into AG -1, agriculture. He felt if this met
resistance, as a backup position, the line should be parallel to
43rd Avenue eastward to 41st and westward, but not including that
"L" which seems to extend too far.
Commissioner Bowman asked why that was done, and Director
Keating advised that we went there to pick up that one -acre
subdivision.
Chairman Bird asked for a recommendation for a motion.
Director Keating listed several things: First, he wanted the
Board to be aware of what has transpired. Second, be aware of the
scheduled final adoption hearing on June 18, 1991 and concur with
that. Third, authorize Attorney Collins and Director Keating to
meet with the DCA in relation to these amendments. Also, the Board
should concur with all the others except the two which are going to
be negotiated.
61
Commissioner Wheeler indicated he would not be attending the
hearing on June 18 because he will be gone that week.
Attorney Warren Dill, representing Peggy Brinson McRae, said
he was encouraged by Mr. Keating's comments. He pointed out that,
before this unique process in land use decision-making, an
applicant could stand before the Commission and be able to present
his case. Now, the applicant receives due process from the
Commission, but then the decision is transmitted through staff to
a higher authority in Tallahassee and they come down with the ORC
report. It appears the decision-making process is slowly being
relocated from Indian River County to Tallahassee and depriving
individuals of their due process.
Commissioner Eggert agreed and added it's not even slowly.
Mr. Dill was encouraged by the Board's decision to authorize
Mr. Keating and Attorney Collins to negotiate with DCA but felt he
would like to participate in that proceeding. Decisions were being
made regarding his client's property and the client does not have
the financial resources to travel to Tallahassee to attend these
meetings. He felt the applicant and the applicant's representative
should have input into this hearing. He admitted staff would do a
good job, but may not be as intimately involved with the property
as the applicant and the applicant's representative.
Commissioner Eggert suggested a telephone conference call.
Mr. Dill preferred the DCA come to Indian River County.
Director Keating explained it is important to have the top DCA
people sign off on these, and we need them to see the exact
language. For example, he had knowledge that even though Sasan
Rohani had prepared an excellent report, the higher level people
never looked at the specifics.
Discussion ensued regarding reports and who does and does not
read them.
Commissioner Eggert suggested the motion should incorporate a
suggestion or request that they come down and make a local visit so
that local people can participate.
Ralph Poppell, 465 38th Square, S.W., wished to respond to
Mr. Dill's comments. He reported having had a meeting with the
Secretary of DCA last week and described him as a very down-to-
earth guy, willing to cooperate. The meeting resulted in
a call to Mr. Poppell from Mr. Knave, the Deputy Secretary, to
assure Mr. Poppell and Mr. Keating that the reports would be read.
Commissioner Eggert suggested a motion to first see if the DCA
representatives would come here; if not, ask Mr. Keating to go up
there with the concurrence of this Board on the recommendations,
62
MAY 21 199
ROOK ; FA E
40
MAY 21 99
BOOK 83 PAGE 441
other than the two items that need negotiation, and any extra
materials from Mr. Dill. If Mr. Dill were to call Mr. Sadowski and
Mr. Knave, maybe that would help also.
Chairman Bird suggested adding "Mr. Keating and appropriate
staff."
Commissioner Scurlock suggested including the backup position
of reducing the "L", if necessary.
Commissioner Eggert felt that would be part of the
negotiations.
Mr. Dill appreciated the motion and wanted to meet with staff
before staff goes to Tallahassee to review what will be submitted
on behalf of his client.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Scurlock, the Board unanimously
authorized staff to invite DCA to Indian River
County and, as an alternative, authorized staff to
go to Tallahassee with the Board's concurrence on
seven items with power to negotiate the two
remaining items.
PARTIAL LIST OF ROAD RESURFACING PROJECTS FY 1990-1991
The Board reviewed memo from Public Works Director James Davis
dated May 15, 1991:
TO: James E. Chandler,
County Administrator
FROM: James W. Davis, P.E.,
Public Works Director,
SUBJECT: Partial List of Road Resurfacing Projects
FY 90/91
DATE: May 15, 1991
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
The attached list of County roads is in need of resurfacing
and/or widening. At the current time, the Road and Bridge
Division paving material account 111-214-541-035.31 has an
unencumbered balance of $337,056. The cost to perform the
widening/resurfacing of portions of the four roads listed is
$99,112.
This summer, a final list of road resurfacing projects will
be presented to the Board for consideration.
63
RECOMMENDATIONS AND FUNDING
It is recommended that the following roads be approved for
resurfacing:
66th Avenue - SR 60 to 26th Street (.5 miles - 4'widening)
llth Lane - West of Old Dixie Highway (.2 miles)
Old Dixie Highway - 15th Place SW to 9th Street SW
(.75 miles - 6' widening)
9th Street SW - 12th Avenue to Timber Ridge (.6 miles - 6'
widening)
Total length 2.05 miles.
Funding in the amount of approximately $99,112.00 to be from
fund 111-214-541-035.31 (Road and Bridge Division).
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by
Commissioner Eggert, the Board unanimously approved
resurfacing the above -listed roads totaling 2.05
miles, as recommended by Staff.
TWO DEEP WELLS FOR THE SOUTH COUNTY REVERSE OSMOSIS PLANT WITH
CONSUMPTIVE USE PERMIT (CUP) MODIFICATION AND RENEWAL
The Board reviewed memo from Utility Services Director Terry
Pinto dated May 13, 1991:
DATE: MAY 13, 1991
TO:
FROM:
PREPARED
AND STAFFED
BY:
SUBJECT:
BACKGROUND
JAMES E. CHANDLER
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
TERRANCE G. PINTO
DIRECTOR OF UTILIT3t SERVICES
WILLIAM F. M'CAIN
CAPITAL PROJ. '. GINEER
DEPARTMENT
LITY
RVICES
TWO DEEP WELLS FOR THE SOUTH COUNTY R. O. PLANT,
WITH CONSUMPTIVE USE PERMIT (CUP) MODIFICATION AND
RENEWAL
•
On April 2, 1991, the Indian River County Board of County.
Commissioners approved selection of an engineering firm for the
aforementioned project. We have completed both the selection
process and contract negotiation. Therefore, we are requesting the
approval of the Board so that we may begin the project. Due to the
upcoming expiration of our CUP, we have decided not only to renew
our CUP but to modify it as well to allow the drilling of two new
wells.
64
MAY 21 1991
83 F"ct 42
ANALYSIS
BOOK 83 PAGE 443
Attached is- Work Authorization No. 1 with Post, Buckley, Schuh &
Jernigan, Inc.. The contract is broken into two parts; the outline
of services is as follows:
Part 1
Task 1 - Consumptive Use Permitting
Task 2 - Design of Production Wells and Testing Program
Task 3 - Bidding and Contractor Selection
Task 4 - Well Drilling, Construction and Testing Services,
• Preparation of Technical Report
A detailed fee summary is.attached to the budget section of the Work
Authorization, along with a detailed Scope of Services. There are
two proposal options attached. One preferred option is a lump sum
charge (upper limit) of $57,888.00; the second option is in the
amount of $49,167.00. The difference between options is in the
amount of inspection services. Alternate (Part 1, Task 4, attached)
has the specific items highlighted which call out the differences.
In both work options there are two contingency fees totaling
$10,000.00, which may or may not be necessary. One is Part 1, Task
1, Subtask F (CUP Application Follow-up). The second one titled
,Contingency.in Task 4, Section Contingency.
RECOMMENDATION
The staff of the Department of Utility Services recommends that the
Board of County Commissioners approve the attached Work
Authoriz atiod• with alternate No. 1 with PBS&J.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by
Commissioner Wheeler, the Board unanimously approved
the Work Authorization Number One with Post,
Buckley, Schuh and Jernigan, Inc., as recommended by
Staff.
SAID DOCUMENT IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF
CLERK TO THE BOARD
CHANGE ORDER NO. 1, NORTH BEACH WELLS
The Board reviewed memo from Capital Projects Engineer William
McCain dated May 13, 1991:
65
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
MAY 13, 1991
JAMES E. CHANDLER
COUNTY ADMINISTRATO
Y
TERRANCE G. PINT
DIRECTOR OF UTIL
PREPARED WILLI
AND STAFFED CAPI
BY: DEP
SUBJECT:
SERVICES
. McCAIN
ECTS ENGINEER •
NT OF UTILITY SERVICES
CHANGE ORDER NO. 1, NORTH BEACH WELLS
IRC PROJECT NO. UW -89 -01 -DC
`BACKGROUND
In late March 1991, we completed testing and logging of the new Well
No. 3 at the North Beach facility. The original contract was set
up to drill two new wells at the North Beach facility with the
option of rehabilitating Well No. 2. Well No.. 2 has consistently
had chloride levels far beyond the acceptable limit even for the,
Reverse Osmosis process utilized at this facility. As a result of
the well logs, it was determined that the bottom 80 feet of the well
was to be plugged; this was done to reduce the chloride levels.
This action however substantially reduced the flow. We now wish to
have the well redrilled to its previous depth to increase the
production. The associated chloride level will rise but should not
increase to an unacceptable level.
,ANALYSIS
By redrilling Well No. 3, we should not have to drill a replacement
well, thereby saving approximately $70,000.00 on the contract.
Through information acquired from Well No. 3, it has been determined
that the existing bad well at the facility (Well No. 2) can also be
back -plugged to reduce the chloride levels. The total cost
associated with this change order is $9,843.00. (see attached change
order).
,RECOMMENDATION
The staff of the Department of Utility Services recommends that the
Board of County Commissioners approve the attached change order with
Diversified Drilling Corporation in the amount of $9,843.00.
Commissioner Eggert asked why we would not be back in the same
position with the chloride.
Utilities Services Director Pinto explained when we
established the new well, we went down to the maximum depth but
found that the water quality was not quite what we wanted. We came
up, did a plugging and then found after pumping that we cannot get
the quantity we need. So what we are doing is sacrificing some
quality for quantity. We are almost convinced that the only
rehabilitation to the well that we will be able to do is
66
PRY 991
[kFJor 83. FAiuE
PP"
HAY 21 198
RUOK 8j j FACE 44
essentially come up to about 820 feet, and we will be able to get
the quality and quantity from the old well; therefore, hopefully,
we will not have to drill a third one.
Commissioner Eggert did not want to spend $70,000, but hates
to spend $10,000 on "almost convinced."
Director Pinto felt comfortable with the recommendation but
also felt it would be foolish to say there is no risk. The
recommendation is based realistically on the hydrogeologist, Wesley
Curtis of Camp Dresser & McKee, who is supposed to know a whole lot
more than we know.
More technical discussion followed among Commissioner
Scurlock, Director Pinto and Capital Projects Engineer McCain.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously approved
the change order with Diversified Drilling
Corporation in the amount of $9,843.00, as
recommended by Staff.
NORTH COUNTY SEWER SERVICE (BILLING FOR RESERVED CAPACITY DUE TO
COMPLETION OF PROJECT)
The Board reviewed memo from Capital Projects Engineer William
McCain dated May 14, 1991:
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
STAFFED AND
PREPARED BY: WILLIAM F444 AIN
CAPITAL -4. ENGINEER
DEPARTMENT UTILITY SERVICES
MAY 14, 1991
JAMES E. CHANDLER
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
TERRANCE G. PINTO
DIRECTOR OF UTILITY SERVICES
SUBJECT: NORTH COUNTY SEWER SERVICE (BILLING FOR RESERVED .
CAPACITY DUE TO COMPLETION OF PROJECT)
,BACKGROUND:
In December of 1990, we completed and put on line the North -County
Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) and associated collection system.
The final connection, Aspen Whispering Palms (as part of this
project), was put on line this month. All construction and
engineering bills are now being finalized. We now need to begin
collecting on the reserved capacity accounts.
67
,ANALYSIS:
The final engineering cost for design and inspection is $498,825.00;
the costs of construction for the WWTP and collection system,
respectively, are $2,217,863.00 and $3,414,681.09. We are now
requesting authorization from the Board of County Commissioners to
begin collecting on the reserved capacity accounts specifically for
the North County Sewer System.
RECOMMENDATION:
The staff of the Department of Utility Services recommends that the
Board of County Commissioners approve the above action.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Wheeler, the Board unanimously approved
commencement of collecting on the reserved capacity
accounts for the North County Sewer System as
recommended by Staff..
AGREEMENT BETWEEN ST. JOHNS RIVER WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT
(SJRWMD), INDIAN RIVER COUNTY. AND THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA TO
PERFORM A STUDY ON USE OF RECLAIMED WATER ON CITRUS GROVES
The Board review memo from Assistant Director of Utility
Services Harry Asher dated May 14, 1991:
68
SAY 21 199'
`�'r'� 83 , E 44
r
6�AY 21 1991
F,,,[44
DATE:
TO:
MAY 14, 1991
JAMES E. CHANDLER
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
FROM: TERRANCE G. PINT
DIRECTOR OF UTILICES
STAFFED AND HARRY E. ASH
PREPARED BY: ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF UTILITY SERVICES
SUBJECT:
AGREEMENT BETWEEN ST. JOHNS RIVER WATER MANAGEMENT
DISTRICT (SJRWMD), INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, AND THE
UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA TO PERFORM A STUDY ON USE OF
RECLAIMED WATER ON CITRUS GROVES
BACKGROUND:
On September 26, 1989, the Board of County Commissioners
approved the above -referenced agreement between SJRWMD and the
University of Florida to perform a study on use of reclaimed
water on citrus groves. The original agreement set forth the
schedule of work to be completed in four phases.
Phase I To be completed by December 1, 1989
Phase II To be completed by September 30, 1990
Phase III To be completed by September 30, 1991
Phase IV To be completed by September 30, 1992
Phase I was completed by December 1, 1989. Phase II could not
begin until Indian River County had completed installation of
the irrigation system, which was not completed until June 30,
1990. On October 2, 1990, the Board of County Commissioners
approved an Amendment to the Agreement, Article II, Schedule of
Work, which revised the completion dates for Phase II through IV as
follows:
Phase II To be completed by September 30, 1991
Phase III To be completed by September 30, 1992
Phase IV To be completed by September 30, 1993
The study has been progressing very well and a copy of the
latest quarterly report is included for your review.
ANALYSIS:
Due to the revised Schedule of Work, lengthening the project,
SJRWMD has advised that additional project funding to cover salary
expense for the biologist from June 22, 1991, through the end of
Phase II, September 30, 1991, will be needed in the total amount of
$10,117.45. The SJRWMD Board has requested an amendment to the
Agreement providing that the SJRWMD and Indian River County each
provide one-half ($5,058.73)' of the required $10,117.45 needed to
complete Phase II of the study. The funds would be provided from
the 1990-91 budget - Grove Maintenance Account.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Staff of the Department of Utility Services recommends that
the Board of County Commissioners approve the proposed Amendment
providing for the St. Johns River Water Management District and
Indian River County to each provide one-half ($5,058.73) of the
required $10,1176.45 needed to complete Phase II of the study.
69
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by
Commissioner Wheeler, the Board unanimously approved
the proposed Amendment to the Agreement for Indian
River County to provide one-half ($5,058.73) of the
required $10,117.45 needed to complete Phase II of
the Study on Use of Reclaimed Water on Citrus
Groves, as recommended by Staff.
SAID DOCUMENT WILL BE PLACED ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF CLERK
TO THE BOARD WHEN FULLY EXECUTED AND RECEIVED
REQUEST FOR PURCHASE OF TWO DISK DRIVES FOR IBM AS400
The Board reviewed memo from Assistant Director of Utility
Services Harry Asher dated April 22, 1991:
DATE: APRIL 22, 1991
TO:
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
FROM: TERRANCE G. PINTO
%:�`?:; .• DIRECTOR OF UTILI SERVICES
JAMES E. CHANDLER
STAFFED AND HARRY E. ASHERJ%�/'
PREPARED BY: ASSISTANT DIREC OR OF UTILITY SERVICES
SUBJECT: REQUEST FOR PURCHASE OF TWO DISK DRIVES FOR IBM AS400
.AACKGROUND:
The Department of Utility Services installed its IBM AS400 computer
system and associated utility billing system software in August
1989. At that time, the Department was billing approximately 6,700
water and 5,197 sewer billings for a total of 11,907. The
Department in March 1991 billed 8,813 water and 6,636 sewer accounts
for a total of 15,449. The Department has also automated its work
order system and is currently billing 622 financed impact fee
accounts versus 300 accounts in 1989. During this period, both IBM
and HTE (utility billing/financial software) have had annual
improvements (updates) to our software programs, which have required
additional disk storage capacity.
,ANALYSIS:
Due to the customer billing increase (30%), financial impact fee
account increase (108%), plus the above annual system updates, the
system is currently operating between 82% and 85% of capacity. The
customer base is projected to increase by 20 to 25% by 1992 and the
Department will increase utilization of the system for more
efficient overall system operations. All of the above factors
indicate it is a necessity that we install additional disk storage
capacity. The current system has two 600 MB of disk storage
capacity. The Department would request permission to install two
(2) additional 600 MB disk drives. The disk drives would be
purchased under the State of Florida Pricing Contract and will cost
$10,586.00 each plus shipping costs. Funding for this purchase
would be from cash forward funds.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
The staff of the Department.of Utility Services recommends approval
by the Board of County Commissioners to purchase the two (2) disk
drives requested at a cost of $10,586.00 each plus freight.
70
MAY 21 1991
!3OEir. (.3L) F'Av't4.C)
tIA'' 2,1 19G
BOOK 83 PAGE 44
Commissioner Eggert recollected the life expectancy of the
equipment was to be five years.
Director Pinto said the capacity is being taken up much faster
by new customers than originally anticipated. The good part is
that new customers will bring in revenue.
Assistant Director Harry Asher had expected to get through
this budget year with the existing capacity and put it off into the
next budget year, but growth along with software which is
constantly being updated consumes additional capacity. In
addition, we try to add as many applications as possible to the
system to enhance our operation.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by
Commissioner Eggert, the Board unanimously approved
the purchase of two (2) disk drives for IBM AS400 at
a cost of $10,586 each plus freight, as recommended
by Staff.
LATE BLOOM FRUIT PICKING
The Board reviewed memo from Director of Utility Services
Terrance Pinto dated May 20, 1991:
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
MAY 20, 1991
JAMES E. CHANDLER
COUNTY ADMINISTRATO
O
TERRANCE G. PIN
DIRECTOR OF UTIL
SERVICES
IS�
LI SERVICES
PREPARED NOEL J. McMAHON
AND STAFFED ENVIRONMENTAL SPEC
BY: DEPARTMENT OF UTI
SUBJECT:
LATE BLOOM FRUIT SALES
BACKGROUND
On October 16, 1990, the Board of County Commissioners approved an
agreement to sell the merchantable fruit from our grapefruit groves.
Merchantable fruit was defined _as fruit free from freeze, hail,
fire, windstorms, citrus canker or other hazards, and meeting the
state and federal regulations for fresh fruit shipments for
interstate and export. Due to the freeze conditions over the 1989
Christmas holiday, the 1990/91 grapefruit crop resulted in a large
amount of late bloom fruit. This late bloom fruit was not part of
'the October 1990 agreement, because this fruit does not meet
regulations for interstate or export shipments.
71
ANALYSIS
This late bloom fruit can be picked and processed for sale as fresh;
fruit and•be sold in the state of Florida only. Leroy E. Smith and
Sons would take this late bloom fruit on consignment. They will
pick the fruit, haul it to a packing house and process it. They
will deduct their picking, hauling and packing costs from the amount
of monies received through the sale of the fruit and give Indian
River County. the monies remaining. This must be done within ten
(10) days, because the packing house will be closing soon.
Most packing houses have shut down for the season. Leroy E. Smith
and Sons were recommended by Peter D. Spyke of Arapaho Citrus
Management. Mr. Spyke is in charge of the maintenancefor our
groves.
It is estimated that there is between 1,000 and 1,500 boxes of late
bloom fruit in our groves. ,A box of late bloom fruit should pay
$2.50 to $3.00 per box.
RECOMMENDATION
The staff of the Department of Utility Services recommends that the
Board of County Commissioners approve the use of Leroy E. Smith and
Sons to process the late bloom fruit.
Commissioner Eggert expressed displeasure with this item as an
emergency item and wished we could anticipate these.
Director Pinto explained that the harvesting company which
picked the original bloom was not interested in taking the late
bloom. The people maintaining the groves said this company is
willing so it was either that or letting it fall.
Chairman Bird asked if this is additional fruit that was not
contracted for.
Director Pinto explained it was not considered in the original
bloom but happened because of the cold weather. It will not happen
next year because we had a normal bloom.
Commissioner Bowman felt they should have known six months in
advance that there would be a late bloom and they should have gone
out for bid. Because of this last minute decision, we are not
getting a good price.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by
Commissioner Eggert, the Board unanimously approved
using Leroy E. Smith Sons, Inc., to process the late
bloom fruit, as recommended by Staff.
72
PIAS' 21 1991
! ooK 83 rAu 4
MAY 2
800K PM -E 451
COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK'S REPORT ON PRESENTATION GIVEN TO
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES ADVISORY COMMITTEE
PRESENTATION TO
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES ADVISORY COMMISSION
IMPACT FEE LINE EXTENSION FINANCING PROGRAM
:Existing Program
•".Property owners may pay one-time impact fee to the County,
..using their own funds.
Property owners may pay a one-time impact fee to the County,'
using funds borrowed from a lending institution.
Property owners may agree to pay a special assessment in
lieu of an impact fee to the County over a two to five year
period. The current interest rate on the special assessment
is 12%. **Prove need to Board of County Commission and get
extended payment of 5 years.
Option I - Specific Project Loan Program
County issues 15 year Bonds to finance specific projects
that are expected to be paid for with impact fees over the
next 3 to 5 years.
The Bonds will be fully amortized over the term on the
Bonds.
The County will deposit the Bond proceeds into the Impact
Fee Fund and ufie the monies to pay the costs of the
projects.
Property, owners may pay one-time impact fee to the County.
Property owners may agree to pay a special assessment in
lieu of an impact fee over a 10 year period. The interest
rate will be approximately 7.75% under current market
conditions.
The Bonds will be repaid from the impact fees and the
special assessments in lieu of impact fees.
To obtain a rating or bond insurance, the Bonds will be
further secured by one of the following:
1.• Water and sewer system revenues.
2. Franchise Fees.
3. Gas Tax revenues.
4. Covenant to budget and appropriate non -ad valorem
revenues.
Option II - Revolving Capital Improvements Fund
County issues
projects over
The Bonds will
•:0 provisions for
20 year Bonds to finance unspecified expansion
the next 10 years.
have a single maturity in the 20th 'year, with
optional redemption.
The County will deposit the Bond proceeds into the Impact
Fee Fund and: use the monies to pay the costs of projects
that can be funded with impact fees.
73
Property owners may pay a one-time impact fee to the County.
Property owners may agree to pay a special assessment in
lieu of an impact fee over a 10 year period. The interest
rate will be approximately 8% under current market
conditions.
The Bonds will be repaid from the impact fees and the
special assessments in lieu of impact fees.
The interest received on the special assessments will be
used to pay interest on the Bonds.
The impact fees and special assessments will be deposited
back to the Impact Fee Fund to be used to fund additional
projects that can be funded with impact fees; or the impact
fees and special assessments will be used to retire Bonds.
To obtain a rating or bond insurance, the Bonds will be
further secured by one of the following:
1. Water and sewer system revenues.
2. Franchise Fees.
3. Gas Tax revenues.
4. Covenant to budget and appropriate non -ad valorem
revenues.
•
AVERAGE COSTS FOR WELL AND SEPTIC TANK
SEPTIC SYSTEM
Basis:
2,000 square foot home
900 gallon septic system
300 square feet of drain field
Fill $900 - $1,500 (average (1,200)
Tank and Field $1,100
Permit $110
WELL SYSTEM
Basis:
TOTAL $2,410.00
2" well
3/4 horsepower pump and storage tank
-softener system
Well $520
Permit $34
3/4 horsepower pump, piping, tank $650
If sulfur is a problem, add $500
74
i 11991
TOTAL $1,204.00
TOTAL $1,704.00
�Of!K
83F' U 1 04,
!W 21 1991
orj!`.
QQ ��yy }y FA
E 3 FAGE
EXAMPLE
• IMPACT FEE MID LINE EXTENSION COST - DISTRICT 4
IMPACT FEE
Water $1320
Sewer " $2163
Road • $1000
TOTAL $4483.
LINE EXTENSION
Water
Sewer
TOTAL
$1700
$1700
$7883
l Cost per year $817 - Interest Rate 8%
Commissioner Scurlock proposed the need for a program to
establish a creative mechanism to encourage existing home owners as
well as new customers to hook up to the County's utilities systems.
He listed three benefits: increase in franchise fee funds; higher
appraisal value to the property involved; and the economic benefit
of providing employment to people in the housing industry. He
alluded to the weakness in the financial industry and the fact that
financing internally is not possible. He would like to pursue an
approach to financing with policies to be developed jointly between
the administration and the Commission, and asked the Board to
authorize staff to assist him in this project.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by
Commissioner Eggert, the Board unanimously
authorized Administrator Chandler to assign
appropriate staff to assist Commissioner Scurlock in
the study of Impact Fee Line Extension Financing.
SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL DISTRICT
Chairman Bird announced that immediately upon adjournment the
Board would reconvene sitting as the Commissioners of the Solid
Waste Disposal District. Those Minutes are being prepared
separately.
75
There being no further business, on Motion duly made, seconded
and carried, the Board adjourned at 12:20 o'clock P. M.
ATTEST:
HAY 21 Q91
Clerk Chairman
76
X11
1 46
�.�t