HomeMy WebLinkAbout11/19/1991141fr7/
; ae1°)L.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
AGENDA
REGULAR MEETING
TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 19, 1991
9:00 A.M. - COUNTY COMMISSION CHAMBER
COUNTY ADMINISTRATION BUILDING
1840 25TH STREET
VERO BEACH, FLORIDA
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Richard N. Bird, Chairman James E. Chandler, County Administrator
Gary C. Wheeler, Vice Chairman
Margaret C. Bowman Charles P. Vitunac, County Attorney
Carolyn K. Eggert
Don C. Scurlock, Jr. Jeffrey K. Barton, Clerk to the Board
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
9:00 A.M. 1. CALL TO ORDER
2. INVOCATION - Rev. Richard D. Clark, Asst. Pastor
Our Savior Lutheran Church
3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - Comm. Richard N. Bird
4. ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA/EMERGENCY ITEMS
a. Comm. Eggert request addn. of Quasi -Judicial Bodies
b. Conmr. Eggert request removal of Item L for discussion.
c. Co. Atty Vituniac request to postpone Item E.
5. PROCLAMATION AND PRESENTATIONS
None
6. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
None
7. CONSENT AGENDA
A. Annual Report Ending Sept. 30, 1991, for Consti-
tutional Officer of Indian River County; FL as
follows:
R. T. "Tim" Dobeck
B. Occupational Licenses collected during month of
October, 1991
(memorandum dated November 8, 1991)
C. Reappointments to Children's Services Advisory
Committee
(memorandum dated November 12, 1991)
D. Bid Award: IRC 92-37 / Old Sugar Mill Estates
(memorandum dated November 5, 1991)
E. Public Defender Budget Amendment 006
(memorandum dated November 13, 1991)
NOV 19 199
a
BOOK . F'��GE: 'orf
I_9 1991
BOOK
7. CONSENT AGENDA (cont'd):
F. Misc. Budget Amendment 004
(memorandum dated November 13, 1991)
G. Sheriff's Request to Expend $125,620 from Law
Enforcement Trust Fund, B.A. 4t005
(memorandum dated November 12, 1991)
H. Central Field Building - Bid #91-130, Agreements
(memorandum dated November 6, 1991)
I. IRC Bid #91-114 / Surplus Property Sale
(memorandum dated November 13, 1991)
J. Report on Voucher for Payment of Annual Contri-
butions - Housing Assistance Payments Program
(memorandum dated November 12, 1991)
K. St. of Fla., Dept. of HRS Contract
(memorandum dated November 12, 1991)
L. Chapter 303 - Courts
(memorandum dated November 8, 1991)
8. CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS AND
GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES
None
9:05 a.m. 9. PUBLIC ITEMS
A. PUBLIC DISCUSSION ITEMS
None
B. PUBLIC HEARINGS
1. Request to Table Public Hearing Scheduled
for the Nov. 19, 1991 Meeting: Suncoast
Primary School's Request for Conceptual Site
Plan & Special Exception Approval for a
Pre -School and Primary School
(memorandum dated November 13, 1991)
2. Sebastian Associates, Ltd. Request to Amend
the Comprehensive Plan & Rezone Approx. 8
Acres
(memorandum dated November 12, 1991)
3. Streetman, Et. Al., Request to Rezone
Approx. +/-4.58 Acres from A-1 to CG
(memorandum dated October 18, 1991)
4. Progress Report on the Development of the
Neighborhood Commercial Node Located at the
Northwest Corner of S.R. 60 and 74th Ave.
(memorandum dated November 12, 1991)
10. COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S MATTERS
Street Lighting District Assessments
(memorandum dated November 5, 1991)
ny
NOV 191991
11. DEPARTMENTAL MATTERS
A. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
None
B. EMERGENCY SERVICES
Approval to Submit Two Applications for FY 92-93
EMS Grant Program for Counties
(memorandum dated November 13, 1991)
C. GENERAL SERVICES
None
D. LEISURE SERVICES
None
E. OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
Selection of Firm for Tourist Study
(memorandum dated November 13, 1991)
F. PERSONNEL
None
G. PUBLIC WORKS
Professional Engineering Services for Round
Island Park Improvements
(memorandum dated November 13, 1991)
H. UTILITIES
1. Petition for Water Service in •Courtside
S/D, 38th Square, SW - North off 5th St.,SW
(memorandum dated November 1, 1991)
2. Phase I Development of the North County
Water Treatment Facility
(memorandum dated October 24, 1991)
3. Septage Handling Facility at the North.
County Wastewater Treatment Plant
(memorandum dated October 31, 1991)
4. So. Co. R.O. Plant / Change Order No. 2 and
Additional Engineering Services with Camp
Dresser & McKee, Inc.
(memorandum dated October" 23, 1991)
5. Agreement for the Development of Charges
for Providing Wholesale Wastewater Services
to City of Sebastian
(memorandum dated November 12, 1991)
6. Roseland Plaza Force Main, Final Pay
Request and Change Order
(memorandum dated November 5, 1991)
7. Roseland Plaza Uti•Iities / Disposal of
Treatment Plants
(memorandum dated November 12, 1991)
POUK a �'�„E 829
12. COUNTY ATTORNEY
None
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.
14. SPECIAL DISTRICTS
A.
B.
C.
NORTH COUNTY FIRE DISTRICT
None
SOUTH COUNTY FIRE DISTRICT
None
SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL DISTRICT
1. Fellsmere Recycling
(memorandum dated
2. Bid Award: #92-28
Annual Contract
(memorandum dated
15. ADJOURNMENT
/ Collection Center
November 6, 1991)
/ Fill Dirt/Top Soil
November 11, 1991)
BOOK
ANYONE WHO MAY WISH TO APPEAL ANY DECISION WHICH MAY BE MADE
AT THIS MEETING WILL NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD OF
THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE WHICH INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY AND
EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL WILL BE BASED.
Tuesday, November 19, 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, November 19,
1991, at 9:00 o'clock 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 Patricia Held, Deputy Clerk.
The Chairman called the meeting to order.
Reverend Richard D. Clark, Assistant Pastor of Our Savior
Lutheran Church, gave the invocation.
Chairman Richard N. Bird led the Pledge of Allegiance to the
Flag.
ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA/EMERGENCY ITEMS
Commissioner Eggert requested the addition of an explanation
of County Boards versus quasi-judicial bodies. It was added to the
agenda under Attorney's Matters.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Wheeler, the Board unanimously added
the above item to the Agenda.
CONSENT AGENDA
Commissioner Eggert requested the removal of Item L from the
Consent Agenda.
County Attorney Vitunac requested the postponement of Item E
for two weeks.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously removed
Items E and L from the Consent Agenda.
NOV 191991
ROOK 84 FAL 831
0OV 1.9 `1991
BOOK SPACE
A. Annual Report
The Board received the Annual Report Ending September 30, 1991
from Indian River County Sheriff R. T. "Tim" Dobeck, which was
placed on file in the office of Clerk to the Board.
B. Occupational Licenses Collected During Month of October, 1991
The Board received the following report from Tax Collector
Gene E. Morris:
MEMORANDUM
TO: Board of County Commissioners
FROM: Gene E. Morris, Tax Collector
SUBJECT: Occupational Licenses
DATE: November 8, 1991
Pursuant to Indian River County Ordinance No. 86-59,
please be informed that $38,566.83 was
collected in occupational license taxes during the
month of October, representing the issuance of
1,453 licenses.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously received
the report of occupational licenses collected during
the month of October, 1991.
C. Reappointments to Children's Services Advisory Committee
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously
reappointed the following individuals to the
Children's Services Advisory Committee for a two-
year term to expire in November, 1993.
Reverend Henry Holmes
Marcy Purdy
Judith Starrett
Anthony Donadio
2
D. Award Bid IRC 92-37 - Old Sucrar Mills Estates
The Board reviewed memo from Purchasing Manager Fran Boynton
dated November 5, 1991:
DATE: November 5, 1991
TO: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
THRU: James E. Chandler, County Administrator
H.T. "Sonny" Dean, Director
Department of General Servic
Fran Boynton, Purchasing Manager
SUBJ: Bid Award: IRC 92-37/Old Sugar Mill Estates
Utilities Department
FROM:
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
Bid Opening Date:
Specifications mailed to:
Replies:
BID TABULATION
A.O.B. Underground
West Palm Beach, F1
Ted Myers Contracting
Winter Beach, F1
GBS Excavating
Ft Pierce, F1
JoBear; Inc
Palm Bay, F1
G.E. French Construction
Okeechobee, F1
D.J. Donahue Corp
Pt St Lucie, F1
TOTAL. AMOUNT OF BID:
FUNDS AVAILABLE:
October 30, 1991
Fifteen (15) Vendors
Six (6) Vendors
TOTAL LUMP SUM PRICE
$26,193.64
$38,946.70
$42,950.00
$44,938.20 •
$57,265.00
$68,890.00
$26,193.64
$36,777.00
SOURCE OF FUNDS: Utilities General Impact Fees
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the bid be awarded to A.O.B. Underground
as the lowest, most responsive and responsible bidder meeting
specifications. In addition, staff requests the Board's
approval of the attached agreement when all requirements are
met and approved as to form by the County Attorney.
3
NOV 191991
BOOK 84 f E
rjt
NOV 1991
BOOK 84 PAGE 8
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously awarded
Bid #92-37 for 50th Court/Old Sugar Mill Estates
water main extension to A.O.B. Underground in the
amount of $26,193.64 as the lowest, most responsive
and responsible bidder, and authorized the Chairman
to execute the agreement, as recommended by staff.
(AGREEMENT NOW RECEIVED AND ON. FILE IN THE OFFICE
OF CLERK TO THE $OARD)
E. Budget Amendment 006 - Reauest For Additional Funds for Public
Defender
County Attorney Charles Vitunac explained that after this item
had been placed on the agenda, he had received a memo from St.
Lucie County which suggested a meeting of the four counties to
discuss the budgetary problems the State Attorney and Public
Defender are making for St. Lucie County. Indian River County had
this on our Consent Agenda for approval since it is required by
law, but if the Board agrees we can put this off for two weeks to
have an opportunity to meet with the other counties.
OMB Director Joe Baird concurred. He mentioned St. Lucie
County is planning to dispute this change in the law and we do not
have a problem with that because we keep picking up expenses
relating to the Public Defender and other State agencies.
Commissioner Scurlock asked how the delay would affect the
ongoing functioning of the Public Defender's office since the law
is that we contribute based on population figures.
Attorney Vitunac felt since thecounty with the largest
population is not going to pay this yet, the function of the Public
Defender's office will not be affected in a two-week period.
Administrator Chandler agreed we are responsible by law, but
he felt it would be beneficial to meet with the other counties.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by
Commissioner Wheeler, the Board unanimously tabled
Consent Agenda Item E, Public Defender Budget
Amendment 006 for two weeks.
F. Miscellaneous Budget Amendment 004
The Board reviewed memo from OMB Director Joe Baird dated
November 13, 1991:
4
4
TO:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
FROM:
Members of the Board
of County Commissioners
November 13, 1991
MISCELLANEOUS BUDGET AMENDMENT 004 - CONSENT AGENDA
Joseph A. Bair
OMB Director J
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
1. Contract with Cathco, Inc. to construct parking facilities on 19th
Ave. was approved by the Board of County Commissioners on
June 11, 1991. The attached entry appropriates funding for
balance of the project.
2. This entry is to appropriate the funding for the Library
Information and Referral grant ($15,000) for 1991/92 which was
approved by the Board of County Commissioners at the May 7,
1991 meeting.
3. This entry is to appropriate the funding for the Library
Technology Grant ($30,000) for 1991/92 which was approved by
the Board of County Commissioners at the May 7, 1991 meeting.
4. The State of Florida, Department of Labor, has 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 the attached budget
amendment number 004.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously approved
Budget Amendment 004, as follows:
5
40V 19 1991
BOOK 84 ME 835
r
Nov '�9l'
TO: Members of the Board
of County commissioners
FROM: Joseph A. Baird
OMB Director
tOOK 84 FAH
SUBJECT: BUDGET AMENDMENT
NUMBER: 004
DATE: November 13, 1991
Entry ;
Number! Funds/Department/Account Name
i. 'REVENUES
Account Number
! Increase
Decreas
;General Fund/Revenue
'Cash Forward
!EXPENSES
'001-000-389-040.00
40 344
;General Fund/Expense
'OtherIm•rovements xce•t Bld•s.
2. [REVENUES
;General Fund/Revenue
!Information & Referral Grant
;EXPENSE
GENERAL FUND/Inf. & Ref.
Library Materials
.Travel
001-220-519-066.39'
X001-000-334-715.0015
40 344
15,000
$ 0
Grant
1 1
1001-109-571-038.411$ 5,000 $__ 0
1001-109-571-038.42!$ 250�,S 0
i
!Dues and Memberships
1
!Equipment
3.
1001-109-571-038.43
;001-109-571-038.46
$ 250 $ 0
3,500,5 0
Miscellaneous/Printing
REVENUES
1001-109-571-038.49,$
6.000
$ 0
GENERAL FUND/Revenue
Library Technology Grant
EXPENSE
'001-000-334-716.00!$
a
30.000
$ 0
GENERAL FUND/Lib. Tech.
,Library Materials
!Travel
!Subscriptions
'Equipment
!Supplieq
Grant
!001-109-571-038.51
S
500
$ 0
!001-109-571-038.52 S 1.000 S 0
i
1001-109-571-038.554 12,5004 0
1001-109-571-038.56; 9,0004 0
! i
1001-109-571-038.571
6.0001$ 0
!Miscellaneous
4. 'GENERAL FUND
1001-109-571-038.59' 1.000,$ 0
;Supervisor of Elections
[Unemployment Compensation
Parks
Unemployment Compensation
1 !
1
1
00 -700-519-012.15'
,001-210-57 -012.15
Building and Grounds
Unemployment Compensation
EMS
Unemployment Compensation
Probation
Unem•lo ent om•ensation
Clerk to Court
,Unemployment Compensation
i
'Reserve for Contingency
ROAD AND BRIDGE
1001-220-519-012.15!$
34 ,S
48
1.408 S
0
0
1001-253-526-012.151$
268
0
'001-908-523-012.15' 136
1001-309-516-012.15!$ 641
0
1
1001-199-581-099.911$
!
0
S 2,635
Unemployment Compensation
Other Operating Supplies
UTILITIES
1111-214-541-012.151$
i a
1111-199-581-099.911$
! i
250
$ 0
0
s
250
General
Unem•lo ent Com•ensation
Other Operating Supplies
'471-235-536-012.15'
'471-235-536-035.291$
6
103
0
103
G. Sheriff's Rectuest to Expend $125,620 From Law Enforcement Trust
Fund, Budget Amendment 005
The Board reviewed memo from OMB Director Joe Baird dated
November 12, 1991:
TO:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
FROM:
Members of the Board
of County Commissioners
November 12, 1991
1
SHERIFF'S REQUEST TO EXPEND $125,620 FROM THE LAW ENFORCEMENT
TRUST FUND - (BUDGET AMENDMENT 005) - CONSENT AGENDA
Joseph A. Baird
OMB Director
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
Pursuant to Chapter 932.704 of Florida State Statutes, Indian River County Sheriffs
Department is requesting authority to expend $125,620 from the Law Enforcement Trust
Fund for the following:
QUANTITY
DESCRIPTION
AMOUNT
6
Raid/Bullet Proof Jackets
$3,300
1
Midline, Handheld, Radar Gun, Model K-15II
$1,845
3
Incident Capture Systems Video, LE 2400 MI Video
$16,500
1
Kodak Imagelink Micro Imager Model 70-A
$72,975
Advertising Campaign Against Drunk Driving
$2,000
1
Risograph Digital Duplicator Model RC5600
$29,000
T A L>:
20
ANALYSIS
The Law Enforcement Trust Fund had a cash balance of $277,830.54. Only $43,000 for an
Anti -Drug Grant Match was budgeted in the 1991/92 fiscal year leaving an unappropriated
cash balance of $234,830.54.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners approve the Sheriff's request
and the amendment.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously approved
the Sheriff's request to expend $125,620 from the
Law Enforcement Trust Fund and Budget Amendment 005
as follows:
7
NOV 191991
HO. 1)'`'17)
r
NOV1r � �a
TO: Members of the Board
of County Commissioners
FROM: Joseph A. Baird,
OMB Director `
BOOKAH s
SUBJECT: BUDGET AMENDMENT
NUMBER: 005
DATE: November 12, 1991
Entry 1
Number' Funds De.artment Accoun Name ' Account Number ' Increase ' Decrease
!EXPENSES
!Spec. Law Enforce. Trust Fund
'Other Promot.o al E sense
'112-600-521-034 81
2 000'
0
!Other Operating Supplies
!Office Furniture
!Other Machinery and Eauipment
1 !
1112-600-521-035.291S 3,3001$ 0
1 $ 1
1 1 1
1112-600-521-066.411S 101.97515
1
1112-600-521-066.49
0
i
1
$ 18,345:$ • 0
!Reserve for Continaencies 1112-600-581-099.91,$ 0!S 83,500
11 1
'Cash Forward !112-600-581-099.92!$ OIS 42.120
H. Bid 91-130 - Central Field Building
The Board reviewed memo from County Traffic Engineer Michael
Dudeck dated November 6, 1991:
**********************************************************************
TO:
James E. Chandler.
County Administrator ,
,THROUGH: James W. Davis. P.E'f
1 Public Works Director
FROM: Michael S. Dudeck. Jr. P.E.
County Traffic Engineer
DATE: November 6. 1991
SUBJECT: Central Field Building - Bid #91-130
Agreements
**********************************************************************
j DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
At the meeting of September 17, 1991, The Board of County
Commissioners awarded subject project to the low bidder, Thomas M.
Sims & Associates, Inc., in the amount of $58.748.00.
Presented are four (4) sets of contract documents with appropriate
Public Construction Bond and Certificate of Insurance.
RECOMMENDATIONS AND FUNDING
Staff recommends that the Board authorize the Chairman to execute the
contract documents.
8
s
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert,
Commissioner Bowman,
the Board
authorized the Chairman to execute
with Thomas M. Sims & Associates,
SECONDED by
unanimously
the Agreement
Inc., in the
amount of $58,748 for construction of the Traffic
Engineering Central Field Building, as recommended
by staff.
SAID AGREEMENT IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF
CLERK TO THE BOARD
I. Bid 91-114 - Surplus Property Sale
The Board reviewed memo from Purchasing Manager Fran Boynton
dated November 13, 1991:
99'
DAM:
ID:
THRU:
November 13, 1991
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
James E. Chandler, County Administrator
H.T. "Sonny" Dean, Director
Department of General Services
FROM: Fran Boynton, Purchasing Managerj/'
SUBJ: IRC Bid #91-114/Surplus Property Sale
Parcel #1 - 00000-5000-00009.0
SW 1/4, Section 22, Township 32S,
Range 39E, 3.3 acres vacant land
Jo)
Parcel #2 - 00000-5000-00032.0
SW 1/4 Section 22, Township 32S,
Range 39E, 35' x 100' lot including
a 10' x 20' CBS building
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
Bid Opening Date:
Advertisement Dates:
Replies:
Victoria Ausby
Vero Beach, Fl
Robbie Wiseman
Vero Beach, F1
Ernestine Williams -
Vero Beach, F1
July 24, 1991
July 3, 10, 17, 1991
Three (3)
Parcel #1
$2,000.00
$ 300.00
9
Parcel #2
$1,500.00
BOOK 84 FADE 8&9
s®V19
BOOK 64 PAGE 8 C
ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends the rejection of all bids received for parcel #1
because bids received were far below its true value. It is rec-
ommended that this parcel of land be offered to another County
agency if there is a need.
On Parcel #2, staff recommends acceptance of the sole bid in the
amount of $1,500.00 and authorization for the Chairman to execute
the appropriate documents.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously rejected
all bids received for parcel #1 and accepted the
sole bid in the amount of $1,500 for Parcel #2 as
shown above and authorized the Chairman to execute
the authorized documents.
• COUNTY DEED FOR THE ABOVE SALE IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF
CLERK TO THE BOARD
J. Report on Voucher for Payment of Annual Contribution - Housing
Assistance Payments Program
The Board reviewed memo from Finance Department dated November
12, 1991:
jTO•. The Honorable Members of the DATE: 11/12/91 FILE:
Board of County Commissioners
I
I
SUBJECT: Report on Voucher for Payment of
Annual Contributions - Housing
Assistance Payments Program
FROM: Finance Department and REFERENCES:
Rental Assistance
The attached HUD Forms 52681 and HUD Form 52595. covering the 1990/1991
Fiscal Year, were prepared by the Section 8 Rental Assistance staff with
the concurrence of the Finance Department.
Ma -respectfully request that the Honorable members of the Board of
County Commissioners authorize the Chairman's signature for submission
to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development.
10
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously
authorized the Chairman to execute the Vouchers for
Payment of Annual Contributions, as recommended by
staff.
COPIES OF SAID DOCUMENTS ARE ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF
CLERK TO THE BOARD
K. State of Florida. Department of HRS Contract
The Board reviewed memo from OMB Director Joe Baird dated
November 12, 1991:
TO:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
FROM:
Members of the Board
of County Commissioners
November 12, 1991
STATE OF FLORIDA -DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH
AND REHABILITATIVE SERVICES CONTRACT
Joseph A. Bair
OMB Director
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
The HRS - Indian River County Public Health Unit has submitted their annual contract
to the county under F.S. 154. As in prior years, staff would like to remove the word "cash"
from page 5, Section VIII, Subsection B, last sentence.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of this contract after the above change has been made.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously approved
the Contract with Department of Health and
Rehabilitative Services Contract, with the change as
recommended by staff.
SAID CONTRACT IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF
CLERK TO THE BOARD
11
NOV 1.9 199
BOOK 84 FA[E 841
NOV 19199
BOOK
FREE
L. Chapter 303 - Courts
The Board reviewed memo from Assistant County Attorney Terry
O'Brien dated November 8, 1991:
TO: Board of County Commissioners
FROM: Terrence P. O'Brien - Assistant County Attorney
DATE: November 8, 1991
RE: CHAPTER 303 - COURTS
ciP0
As part of the revision of Code of Ordinance the subject Chapter has
been prepared. It is editorial in nature except for the addition of a
funding mechanism for family mediation and conciliation services.
The matter has been coordinated with the clerk of the court.
A public hearing date of December 17, 1991 is recommended.
Commissioner Eggert asked whether this Chapter of the Code
will include the Law Library.
County Attorney Vitunac assured her that when this Chapter is
recapitulated the Law Library will be included. In the meantime,
it is within the old County code.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously
authorized advertising for a public hearing
regarding Chapter 303 of the County Ordinance Code
to be held on December 17, 1991, as recommended by
staff.
REOUEST TO TABLE PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING SUNCOAST PRIMARY SCHOOL'S
REQUEST FOR CONCEPTUAL SITE PLAN AND SPECIAL EXCEPTION APPROVAL
The Board reviewed memo from Current Development Planner John
McCoy dated November 13, 1991:
12
;;;
TO: James E. Chandler
County Administrator
THROUGH:
Divion Head Concurrence
Robert M. eati •, AI
Community Devel•pmen- Director
Stan Boling,AICP
Planning Director
FROM: John W. McCoy, AICP.4J M
Senior Planner, Curt -wit Development
DATE: November 13, 1991
SUBJECT: REQUEST TO TABLE PUBLIC HEARING SCHEDULED FOR THE
NOVEMBER 19, 1991 MEETING: SUNCOAST PRIMARY SCHOOL'S
REQUEST FOR CONCEPTUAL SITE PLAN AND SPECIAL EXCEPTION
APPROVAL FOR A PRESCHOOL AND PRIMARY SCHOOL
It is requested that the following information be given formal
consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at its regular
meeting of November 19, 1991.
Background
The subject request has been scheduled as a public hearing for
consideration at the November 19, 1991 Board of County
Commissioners meeting. However, the applicant has just recently
submitted an alternate design proposal that appears to address
airport safety concerns expressed by city airport staff.
Additional time is now required for the applicant, city airport
staff, and county staff to review the newly proposed conceptual
plan design.
The applicant and staff, therefore, request that the scheduled
public hearing be opened and then tabled to a time certain at the
next available meeting date: 9:05 a.m., Tuesday, November 26,
1991.
Recommendation
Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners open the
scheduled public hearing for the subject request, and then table
the public hearing to a time certain at the next available Board of
County Commissioners meeting date: 9:05 a.m., Tuesday, November ;
26, 1991.
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:
13
NOV 1 9 1991
Roar F'A c4
NOV 19199
VERO BEACH PRESS -JOURNAL
Published Daily
Vero Beach, Indian River County, Florida
COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER: STATE OF FLORIDA
Before the undersigned authority personally appeared J. J. Schumann, Jr. who on oath
says that he Is Business Manager of the Vero Beach Press•Journal, a daily newspaper published
at Vero Beach in Indian River County, Florida: that the attached copy of advertisement, being
In the matter o1 7ive-
in the/]' �'/�// A /Court, was pub-
lished in said newspaper In the issues o1 1 li/d.,11 ...V le,/
Al tient further says that the said Vero Beach Press -Journal is a newspaper published at
Vero Beach, in said Indian River County, Florida, and that the said newspaper has heretofore
been continuously published in said Indian River County. Florida. each daily and has been
entered as second class mall matter at the post of lice in Vero Beach. In said Indian River Coun-
ty. Florida. for a period o1 one year next preceding the first publication of the attached copy o1
advertisement: and affiant further says that he has neither paid nor promised any person, firm
or corporation any discount, rebate. commission or refund for the purpose of securing this
advertisement for publication in the said newspaper.
•
Sworn to and subscribed before me this -•�_ day of A D. 19 97
t'.••• j, • t.1
`;•tip. / -
- Rr (Business'Manager)
BOOK S4 fAGE 844
NOTICE OF PUBUC HEARING
Police of hearing to consider the granting of spe-
cial exception approval for Suncoast Primary
School. The sublect property Is presently wider
contract by Candace Manwaring end M
Far-
rel. and Is boated In Section 4, Township 33 8. and
Range 39 E. See the above map for location.
A pubric hearing at which parties In interest end
dtizens shal have an opportunity to be heard. wR
be held by the Board of County Commissioners of
Indian RiverBuild-
ing.
s-
&onChambers of the County AminsiCounty Administration
i g. located at 1640 25th Street. Vero Beach. Flor-
ida on Tuesday. November 19. 1991 at 9:05 a.m.
Anyone who may wish to appeal any deetsbn
which may be made at this meeting will need to en-
sue that a verbatim record of the proceedings Is
made. which includes testimony and evidence upon
which the appeal is based.
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
Board of County Commissioners
BY •s- Richard N. Bird, Chairman 844982
Oct. 28. 199t
The Chairman opened the public hearing.
Planning Director Stan Boling asked for a continuance of the
public hearing to 9:05 A. M. on Tuesday, November 26, 1991.
The Chairman closed the public hearing.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Scurlock, the Board unanimously
continued the public hearing. to 9:05 A. M. on
Tuesday, November 26, 1991, as requested by staff.
SEBASTIAN ASSOCIATES, LTD., REOUEST 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:
■
14
■ D J
P.O. Box 1268 Vero Beach. Rorida 32961 562-2315
COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER. pro$ Ourilt�
STATE OF FLORIDA
Before the undersigned authority personally appeared JJ.
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 Cbunty. Florida: that
Q. Lti.a.F.ittLI ;get_ 4'J 4-446t fig .33..
J
a,t s/o•36 .-¢uJ 44-€.4-4-.x..n-+
9Zj
billed t� v J
was published in said newspaper in the issues)
at Lrt,tivG-rt 7, / 41/
Sworn to and subscribed before me this
pidt
J day nP
(SEAL.)
'741 Y.v A D /ySl
vno�
aBusiness Manager
.44444.4"11.74....
NetmyPvb i . Stale of Rertla
Myraaauo}m imams low 79 Vsel
NOTICE OF CHANGE OF LAND USE
The Board of Ceeny Commissioners of Indian River County,
Florida will consider adopting an ordinance to amend the use
of land within an unincorporated portion of Indian River County
as shown in the map of the.advertisement. A public hearing on
. the proposal will be held on Tuesday, November 19, 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 make a final decision to amend the Coon-
. ty's Comprehensive flan. The proposed amendment is included
in the proposed ordinance entitled:
AN ORDINANCE. OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA,
AMENDING THE LAND USE ELEMENT OF THE COMPREHEN-
SIVE PLAN BY ENLARGING THE ROSELAND ROAD -U.S. 01
HOSPITAL/ COMMERCIAL NODE FROM +- 120 ACRES TO ; -
+- 128 ACRES, AND PROVIDING CODIFICATION, SEVaABL.
ITY AND EFFECTIVE DATE. ------
Interested parties may appear and be heard at the public
hearing regarding the approval of these proposed
Comprehensive Plan Amendments.
The plan amendment application may beinspected by the
public at the Community Development Division offices 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. and 5:00 p.m. on weekdays.
Anyone who may wish to appeal any dicision which may be
made at this meeting will need to ensure that a verbatim record
of the proceeding is made which indudes the testimony and
evidence upon which the appeal will be based.
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
BY: Richard N. Bird, Chairman
Community Development Director Bob Keating made the following
presentation:
15
NOV 191991
BOOK
84 PAGE 8.45
NOV 19 19T
EOOK PAGE 6
TO: James Chandler
County Administrator
THRU:
FROM: Cheryl A. Tworek
Senior Planner,
DATE:
DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE
ert M. Keating,
Sasan Rohani S. -4Z
Chief, Long -Range
RE:
November 12, 1991
Planning
ong-Range Planning
SEBASTIAN ASSOCIATES, LTD. REQUEST TO AMEND THE
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND REZONE APPROXIMATELY 8 ACRES (CPA -
120)
It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal
consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their regular
meeting of November 19, 1991.
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
This is a request to amend the Comprehensive Plan and rezone
property. The subject property is part of a 20.65 acre parcel of
land 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.
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 the
transmittal of the proposed land use amendment request.
On May 21, 1991, the Board of County Commissioners voted 4 to 1 to
transmit the above referenced land use amendment to the Florida
Department of Community Affairs (DCA), and announced their
intention to hold a final public hearing concerning this amendment.
Planning staff received DCA's Objections, Recommendations, and
Comments (ORC) Report on September 23, 1991. The DCA ORC Report
contained several substantive objections to this proposed
amendment. Identified as inconsistencies with state law (9J-5, FAC
and 163, F.S.), with the state comprehensive plan, and with the
comprehensive regional policy plan, these objections ranged from
16
pro!
■ Q.
node expansion without sufficient justification to an inadequate
description of the methodology used to estimate existing roadway
capacity and projected traffic volumes.
Specifically, DCA's objections were that the amendment was not
consistent with the county plan's node expansion policy which
requires a 70% level of node development prior to node expansion
and that the Board Item Addendum attached to the staff report
transmitted to DCA did not adequately justify the county's
determination that the Humana Hospital site is developed. In
addition, DCA stated that the roadway capacity analysis did not
include a description of the methodology used. Finally, DCA stated
that the staff report did not sufficiently address conservation
policies relating to the development of the site.
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/acre, while the M-1 designation
permits residential densities up to 8 units/acre. A•11 property to
the northwest is also designated as L-2. Property southeast is
designated M -i. Land to the northeast of•the subject property is
designated part,of the Roseland Road/U.S. #1 Hospital -Commercial
Node, which permitscommercial 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 thegopher 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
mile of the site. Riverwalk Shopping Center, as part of its
franchise agreement, will connect to the north county wastewater
system 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 subjectproperty is an expansion of the Riverwalk II commercial
17
L NOV 191991
°QOK 64 ELL 847
NOV 19 TT', °9
EOOK 6 F L 848
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.
application will be presented.
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.
of the reasonableness of the
The analysis will include a
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
Planestablishes standards fors Transportation, Potable Water,
Wastewater, Solid Waste, Drainage and Recreation (Future Land Use
Policy 3.1). 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.
Policy 3.2of the Future Land Use Element states that no
development shall be approved unless it is consistent with the
concurrency management system component of the Capital Improvements
Element. For comprehensive plan amendment and rezoning requests,
conditional concurrency review is required.
Conditional concurrency review examines the available capacity of
each facility with respect to a proposed project. Since
comprehensive plan amendments and rezoning requests are not
projects, county regulations call for the concurrency review to be
based upon the most intense 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. The site information used for the
concurrency analysis is as follows:
1.
2.
Size of Property: ± 20.65 acres.
Size of Area to be Rezoned/Redesignated: ± 8.0 acres.
3. Existing Zoning Classification:'. RM -6, Multiple Family
Residential District, (up to 6 units/acre).
4. Existing Land Use Designation:
a. ± 4 acres: L-2, Low Density Residential (up to 6 units/
acre).
b• ± 4 acres: M-1, Medium Density Residential (up to 8
units/acre).
5. Proposed Zoning Classification: CG, General Commercial
District.
■
18
6. Proposed Land Use Designation: Hospital/Commercial Node.
7. Most Intense Use of the Subject Property: 80,000 sq. ft. of
Retail Commercial (Shopping Center in the 5th Edition ITE
Manual).
-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 site information
used for determining traffic is as follows:
1. Retail Commercial Use Identified in 5th Edition ITE Manual:
Shopping Center
2. For structures 50,000 to 100,000 square feet (based upon the
ITE Gross Leasable Floor Area category):
a. Average Weekday Vehicle Trip Ends:
91.65/1000 gross square feet
b. 5-6 p.m. Peak Hour Exiting Trips: 9.5%
c. 5-6 p.m. Peak Hour Entering Trips: 8.3%
3. Formula for Determining New Trips (Peak Hour/Peak Season
Exiting Trips):
Total Square Footage X Average Weekday Vehicle Trip Ends
divided by 2 X Percentage P.M. Exiting Trips X Percentage
New Trips
(trip distribution based on a Modified Gravity Model)
4. New Trips: 49% or 171 peak hour/peak season exiting trips
based on the ITE Manual.
5. Traffic Capacity on U.S. #1, from Roseland Road to the North
Sebastian City Limits at a Level of Service "D": 2300 peak
hour/peak season/peak direction trips
6. Existing Traffic Volume on this segment of U.S. #1: 900 peak
hour/peak season/peak direction trips
Given those conditions, the number of new p.m. peak hour exiting
trips associated with this request was determined by taking the
80,000 square feet of Shopping Center Use (most intense use),
applying ITE's 91.65 Average Weekday Vehicle Trip Ends/1000 gross
square feet to the 80,000 square feet to get total daily trips,
dividing the total by 2 to get the 24 hour exiting volume, applying
the ITE Shopping Center Use p.m. peak hour exiting factor (9.5%),
and multiplying that number by 49% to ensure that only new trips
are counted. The total p.m. peak hour exiting trips for the
proposed use ,was .calculated to be 171. Using a modified gravity
model and a hand assignment, these trips were then assigned to
roadways on the network.
A similar methodology was used to project p.m. entering trips.
Instead of the 9.5% factor used for exiting trips, an 8.3% factor
was used to estimate p.m. peak hour entering trips. Using the same
methodology referenced above, the entering trips were then assigned
to segments on the network. The result of this analysis was two
sets of project peak hour volumes for each impacted roadway segment
on the network. Since one set of volumes represents entering trips
and the other represents exiting trips, the peak hour volume for
each direction for each segment was determined. The capacity
analysis for each segment was then done by taking the project trips
for the segment's peak direction and assessing whether or not this
19
NOV 1 9 1351
ROOK 84 fALE.849
NOV 19 S91
BOOK
FA;E
volume was less than the segment's available capacity.
Capacities for all roadway segments in Indian river County are
calculated and updated annually, utilizing the latest and best
available peak season traffic characteristics and applying Appendix
I methodology as set forth in the 'Florida Department of
Transportation (FDOT) Level of Service (LOS) Manual. Available
capacity is the total capacity less existing and committed traffic
volumes; this is updated daily based upon vesting associated with
project approvals.
The traffic capacity for the segment of U.S. #i adjacent to this
site is 2,300 trips (peak hdur/peak season/peak direction) at a
Level of Service "D", while the existing peak hour/peak season/peak
direction traffic volume on this segment of U.S. #1 is 900 trips
(peak hour/peak season/peak direction). The additional 100 peak
hour/peak direction/peak season trips 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 to
approximately 1000peak hour/peak season/peak direction trips.
In the vicinity of the project, Roseland Road has a capacity of
approximately 630 peak hour/peak season/peak direction trips at a
level of service "C". This segment of Roseland Road has an
existing traffic volume of 345 peak hour/peak season/peak direction
trips. The proposed development will result in an increase of
approximately 71 new peak hour/peak season/peak direction trips on
Roseland Road.
Based on staff analysis, it was determined that U.S. #1, Roseland
Road and all other impacted roads can accommodate the additional
trips without decreasing their existing levels of service.
Impacted roads are defined in the county's Land Development
Regulations as roadway segments which receive five percent (5%) or
more daily project traffic or fifty (50) or more daily project
trips, whichever is less.
The table below identifies each of the impacted roadway segments
associated with this proposed amendment. As indicated in that
table, there is sufficient Capacity in all of the segments to
accommodate the projected traffic associated with the request.
Roadway
Segment
1080
1090
1210
1220
1385
1390
1395
1400
1405
1410
1510
1520
1610
1620
1720
1730
1740
1750
1810
1820
1830
1840
2365
TRAFFIC CONCURRENCY DETERMINATION
Impacted Road Segments
(peak hour/peak season/peak direction)
Road From
To
S.R. A1A N. IRS Line
S.R. AlA C.R. 510
I-95 N. Co. Line
I-95 C.R. 512
U.S. #1 69th St.
U.S. #1 Old Dixie Hwy.
U.S. #1 Schumann Dr.
U.S. #1 C.R. 512
U.S. #1 N. Seb. City Lmts
U.S. #1 Roseland Rd.
Schumann Dr.C.R. 510
Schumann Dr.S. Seb. City Lmts
Roseland Rd.C.R. 512
Roseland Rd.N. Seb. City Lmts
C.R. 512 I-95
C.R. 512
C.R. 512
C.R. 512
C.R. 510
C.R. 510
C.R. 510
W. Seb. City Lmts
Roseland Rd.
C.R. 512
66th Ave.
C.R. 510 58th Ave.
C.R. 510 U.S. #1
O. Dixie Hwy.69th St.
20
C.R. 510
N. Co. Line
C.R. 512
S.R. 60
Old Dixie Hwy
Schumann Dr.
C.R. 512
N. Seb City Lmts
Roseland Rd.
N. Co. Line
S. Seb. City
U.S. #1
N. Seb. City
U.S. #1
C.R. 510
W. Seb. City
Roseland Rd.
U.S. #1
66th Ave.
58th Ave.
U.S. #1
S.A. A1A
C.R. 510
Lmts
Lmts
Lmts
Segment
Capacity
LOS "D"
1310
1340
3530
3530
2650
2370
2370
2300
2300
2320
830
630
630
630
630
630
630
630
630
630
630
630
630
Segment
Roadway Capacity
Segment Road From To LOS "D"
3055 58th Ave. 69th St. C.R. 510 630
3170 66th Ave. 69th St. C.R. 510 630
3710 69th St. 82nd Ave. 66th Ave. 630
3720 69th St. 66th Ave. 58th Ave. 630
3730 69th St. 58th Ave. O. Dixie Hwy. 630
3740 69th St. Old Dixie Hwy. U.S. #1 630
Existing Demand Total Available Positive
Roadway Existing Vested Segment Segment Project Concurrency
Segment Volume Volume Demand Capacity Demand Determination
1080 320 5 325 952 1 Y
1090 275 11 286 1046 2 Y
1210 1030 40 1070 2420 4 Y
1220 1030 5 1035 2495 4 Y
1385 779 9 788 1853 8 Y
1390 815 64 879 1485 16 Y
1395 950 42 992 1374 30 Y
1400 945 18 963 1334 50 Y
1405 887 13; 900 1396 100 Y
1410 887 7 894 1419 50 Y
1510 202 0 202 628 6 Y
1520 202 0 202 428 14 Y
1610 207 2 209 419 31 Y
1620 342 3 345 282 71 Y
1720 310 10 320 305 18 Y
1730 288 ' 2 290 338 8 Y
1740 355 2 357 271 21 Y
1750 418 4 422 206 58 Y
1810 162 21 183 443 4 Y
1820 162 29 191 438 2 Y
1830 360 30 390 238 4 Y
1840 346 28 374 253 3 Y
2365 76 0 76 554 2 Y
3055 189 0 189 441 2 Y
3170 139 0 139 491 2 Y
3710 40 0 40 590 1 Y
3720 40 0 40 590 1 Y
3730 40 0 40 590 3 Y
3740 40 3 43 587 2 Y
- 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. This is based
upon the level of service of 250 gallons per ERU 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. The applicant has entered 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 has been 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. This is based upon the county's adopted level of
21
OV 1_919911
ROOK 4 E UE 851
r
NOV 19`991
BOOK
��
PAGE P �
service standard of 250 gallons per ERU per day. The North County
Plant currently has a remaining capacity of.approximately 900,000
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.
Solid Waste
!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
Ibe approximately 582 waste generation units (WGUs) or 1,764 cubic
yards of solid waste per year. This is based upon the county's
adopted level of service standard of 2.37 cubic yards per capita
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 require on-site retention 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 minimum floor elevation level of service standards
do not apply,.since the property is not within a floodplain. Both
the on-site retention and discharge 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 and the 25 year/24 hour design storm, 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 ruhoff 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.
With the execution of the developer's agreement as referenced above
in the potable water section, the concurrency test has been
satisfied for the subject request.
Compatibility with the Surrounding Areas
Compatibility is not a major concern for this property. Although
the proposed request is for an expansion of the hospital/commercial
22
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 20.65 acre parcel of
land, there will be a two hundred (200) foot buffer of RM -6 zoned
property located between the subject property 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.
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.
A' detailed site-specific environmental survey of the overall
property has not been conducted as of this time. However, the
provisions of LDR Chapter 929, Upland Habitat Protection, require
the developer to conduct a site-specific environmental survey,
prior to site development, to identify any rare species on site
(Coastal Management Policy 1.4). Consistent with Conservation
Objective 7, Chapter 929 of the county's land development
regulations requires•a developer to coordinate with the GFC and the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) to protect listed rare
species to the extent feasible, to the satisfaction of the county
and the wildlife agencies (reference Conservation Policy 7.1).
This requirement will ensure that adequate protection will be
provided to -any gopher tortoises, Florida scrub lizards, or any
other endangered species, threatened species, or species of special
concern found on the site. Depending upon GFC and USFWS criteria,
this: protection may involve special siting requirements for
improvements, protection of specific habitat areas, or relocation
of species found on site.
As noted, the subject property has been determined to be a part of
the county's "environmentally important" upland area. Conservation
Policy 6.11 states that undeveloped tracts of xeric scrub and
coastal/tropical hammocks 5 acres or larger shall be deemed
"environmentally important", in recognition of their scarcity and
natural values, and in recognition of =the public interest in
encouraging the conservation of plants and animals associated with
these vegetative communities.
Environmentally important areas are protected through various
comprehensive plan policies and associated land development
regulations. As referenced above, conservation element objective
7 and Coastal Management Policy 1.4, as well as LDR Chapter 929,
address rare species. Protection of environmentally important
tracts are addressed in two other ways in the plan. Like all other
upland areas, environmentally important areas are subject to the
upland set-aside requirement of conservation element policy 6.12.
For those parcels deemed particularly valuable, conservation
element policy 6.2 provides for county purchase through its land
acquisition program.
While the tract in question is notonthe Indian River County Land
Acquisition Advisory Committee's (LAAC) present list of properties
23
NOV 19 1991
uooK 844 F'4E: 853
NOV IJ 11311I
BOOK
F'i:Gt
under review for local public acquisition, LAAC is reviewing and
ranking other tracts of environmentally important scrub in the
county recommended by the GFC as scrub preserves. The subject
property, while it is significant, is not included in GFC's
preserves recommendation. The property could be nominated for next
fiscal year's LAAC list; however, there would be no guarantee of
county purchase.
Conservation Policy 6.12 of the comprehensive plan provides that a
'minimum 15% of upland native plant community existing on-site shall
ibe preserved (reducible to 10%1 if preserved in one contiguous
"clump"). This policy is implemented via LDR Chapter 929, Upland
(Habitat Protection, at the time of site development. Also
applicable is Conservation Policy 6.9, which requires increased
county regulatory protection of significant groupings of xeric
scrub and coastal/hammock understory (as well as canopy and
Igroundcover) vegetation. Both of these requirements will be
limplemented through establishment of a conservation easement at the
'time of site plan approval.
The subject property is also located within the county's 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. Through the county's comprehensive plan
policies, these characteristics will be addressed. Complete
protection of'.the property's xeric scrub, however, will occur only
if the subject property is purchased, and public acquisition of
this particular -tract will not be immediately forthcoming. There
is a possibility, however, that it may receive future consideration
under the county's land acquisition program.
Given the county's adopted environmental protection regulations,
the property could be developed as either residential or commercial
land still. equally retain its significant environmental
'characteristics. It is staff's position that changing the land use
designation of.the subject property from residential to commercial
will not affect the level of protection of the resource. County
policy is that developers must protect at least 10-15 percent of
any native uplands.on site as well as comply with the county's
listed rare species requirements. Since these requirements are
applied similarly to both residential and commercial projects,
staff feels.that a commercial designation for the property would
not reduce environmental protection.
Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan
Land use amendment requests are reviewed for consistency 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,. recreation, conservation, and commercial and
1 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 statements in the plan which
identify the actions which the county will take in order to direct
the community's development. As Courses of action committed to by
24
the county, policies provide the basis for all county land
development related decisions - including plan amendment decisions.
While all comprehensive plan policies are important, some have more
applicability than others in reviewing plan amendment requests. Of
particular applicability are the following policies.
-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 its analysis, staff feels that this land use amendment,
does meet one of the three criteria as stated above.
The first two criteria allow the county to approve a request to
amend the land usemap 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. Based upon data compiled during the
analysis of this plan amendment request, it is staff's position
that an oversight occurred during plan preparation which would have,
warranted increasing the size of the Roseland Road/U.S. #1!
Hospital/Commercial Node and including the subject property in thej
node. Two factors, in particular, indicate • that an oversight
occurred.
The first factor is the amount of development in the node. Based
upon staff analysis and described in more detail below, it was
determined that •the node is presently 67% developed. With that
amount of development, the node acreage would have been increased
during plan preparation. In that the amount of development within
the node was not accurately identified during plan preparation and
the node acreage not increased, an oversight did occur.
The other factor indicating that an oversight occurred relates to
this node's market area. Although the Roseland Road/U.S. #1
Hospital/Commercialnode is located at the very northern edge of
the county, the market area/commercial need analysis undertaken at
the time of comprehensive plan preparation did not consider the
impact of south Brevard County residents_ on this node.
Recently compiled data, however, indicate that 25-50 percent of
customers of establishments in the node are Brevard County
residents. Other information shows that the sales per square foot
for establishments in this node exceed the amount that would be
expected for the originally designated non -Brevard County market
area. For example, the Riverwalk Publix generates sales of $500
per square foot, about 50% more than typical Publix's sales -per -
square foot figure of $300-350. Similarly, the Roseland Walgreen's
generates sales per square foot which are more than 50% higher than
a typical drugstore. This information indicates that the demand
for commercial products in this node exceeds the amount that would
be expected in a market area of the size considered during
preparation of the comprehensive plan. For that reason, it is
staff's position that an oversight occurred during plan
25
I NOV t9 1991
LOO 84 FAG[ 855
r
NOV 19 1991
BUOY
F'GEd
6
preparation, and the node's size should have been increased at that
time.
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 ',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, 4 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 to planning staff for review since the adoption of the
comprehensive plan in February, 1990; therefore, no change in
circumstances affecting the subject property has occurred since
plan adoption.
-Future Land Use Policy 1023
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.
The purpose of this policy is to relate node expansion to the needs
of the market area of the node. As with any comprehensive plan
change, node expansion must be supported by adequate data and
analysis. In node expansion cases, that data and analysis relates
to the supply and demand of commercial/industrial land in specific
areas of the county. If 70% of a node is built, this is an
indicator of need for additional commercial and industrial land in
the node. 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 plans and 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 developrent and potential growth projected
through the year 2010. The' Roseland Road/U.S. #1 Hospital -
Commercial Node was established at ±120 acres of land. During
preparation of the Comprehensive Plan, county staff did not have
the opportunity to determine exact size ca-lculations for each node.
At that time the size of each node was set using an estimate of
overall node acreage and lessirg 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.
Hyusing 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
26
of land. Subsequently, the applicant hired a professional surveyor
who confirmed the 122 acre size.
Once the total node acreage was 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
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), staff
determined that the developed acreage in the node totaled 70.9
acres. This constituted only 58% of the node acreage, and since
58% is much less than 70%, it indicated that this amendment request
was inconsistent with Policy 1.23.
Based upon direction from the Board of County Commissioners,
however, the staff re -assessed the Humana Hospital parcel. In re-
assessing the hospital tract, staff determined that the site should
have been considered developed. It should have been considered
developed, because the site is a single parcel with one tax parcel
identification number, was wholly included within the hospital's
site plan for development, and has improvements on a substantial
amount of the site. By considering a portion of the hospital site
as undeveloped, the staff had effectively treated the hospital site
differently from other parcels in the node. It is staff's position
that considering the hospital site as developed is consistent with
the provisions of comprehensive plan policy 1.23.
When the node was analyzed with the hospital site considered
developed, staff determined that development within the node was
much closer to the 70% criterion than previously calculated. With
the hospital property included in the developed category, the total
development of the node increases to ±82 acres, with the total
percentage of development at 67%. Staff feels that this node
development percentage is sufficient to meet the 70% criterion of
Future Land Use Policy 1.23.
Economic Development Policy 1.10
Economic Development Policy 1.10 can also be applied to the
proposed comprehensive plan amendment request. Policy 1.10 states
that, "the county shall utilize existing &ndustries as a magnet to
attract new development, including support businesses for
industries located in Indian River -_County and surrounding
counties". Generally, commercial uses such as large chain grocery
stores will attract support services and ancillary uses (drug
stores, personal service businesses, etc), The Publix Grocery
Store is no exception. Currently, the Roseland/U.S. #1
Hospital/Commercial node has attracted a Walgreens, McDonalds, two
banks and other personal service businesses to the Riverwalk
Shopping Center. The applicant proposes commercial retail
development on the property as an expansion to the Riverwalk
Shopping Center. This expansion of the shopping center should
attract other uses, consistent with Policy 1.10.
27
NOV 19 1991
EtOOK 84 PAGE 857
NOV 1 9 199
ROOK
F4rr
r�i�C
DCA Objections
As indicated in the Description and Conditions section of this
staff report, DCA had several objections to this request. It is
staff's position that these have been adequately addressed in this
report. Both the node expansion concern and the traffic
methodology have been addressed, and adequate justification has
been provided. In addition, staff has revised the environmental
impact analysis to address environmental preservation and
protection Based upon these changes, staff feels that DCA's
objections have been resolved.
ALTERNATIVES
This request has been reviewed by the Planning and Zoning
Commission, approved for transmittal by the Board of County
Commissioners, and reviewed by the state Department of Community
Affairs. It is staff's position that all of DCA's comments have
been adequately addressed. At this point, the Board has two major
alternatives;' it can either approve or deny the request. Based
upon its analysis, staff feels, that approval is warranted.
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 atlthe time of development review. In
addition, the requested amendment has a positive concurrency
determination. Finally, staff has found the proposed land use
amendment to be consistent with all applicable comprehensive plan
policies. For those reasons, staff recommends approval.
RECOMMENDATION
Based on the analysis performedi staff recommends that the Board of
County Commissioners approve the request to redesignate
approximately 8 acres from L-2, Low -Density Residential -2 (up to 6
units/acre), and M-1, Medium -Density Residential -1 (up to 8
units/acre) to Hospital/Commercial Node and rezone the property
from RM -6, Multiple -Family Residential (up to 6 units/acre) to CG,
General Commercial District.
Director Keating added that this was also advertised as a
rezoning but, because of an advertising problem, the rezoning
cannot be addressed and will be presented at a meeting in December.
Commissioner Scurlock informed the Commissioners that the
Department of Forestry had made a presentation at a Land
Acquisition Committee meeting in which the management of scrub
areas was explained. Scrub areas must be managed and periodically
burned and this particular area is not big enough and would become
either a nuisance or hazard to adjacent property.
Commissioner Bowman concurred.
The Chairman opened the public hearing and asked if anyone
wished to be heard in this matter.
Attorney Bruce Barkett, representing the applicant, informed
the Board he was accompanied by the applicant and the project
28
engineer who were prepared to answer any questions. He stated they
agree with staff's comments and recommendation.
It was determined that no one else wished to be heard and the
Chairman closed the public hearing.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Wheeler, Commissioner Bowman voting in
opposition, the Board adopted Ordinance 91-46
amending the land use element of the Comprehensive
Plan.
ORDINANCE NO. 91-46
AN ORDINANCE OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, AMENDING THE
LAND USE.ELEMENT OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN BY ENLARGING THE
ROSELAND ROAD - U.S. #1 HOSPITAL/COMMERCIAL NODE FROM ±120
ACRES TO ±128 ACRES, AND PROVIDING CODIFICATION, SEVERABILITY
AND EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners
River County Comprehensive Plan on February 13,
$ WHEREAS, the County received comprehensi
applications during its January, 1991 amendment
adopted the Indian
1990, and
ve plan 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 approval of
this comprehensive plan amendment to the Board of County
Commissioners, 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 (c), and
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners approved the
transmittal of this comprehensive plan amendment to the Florida
Department of Community Affairs for their review and comment, and
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 this plan amendment,
and
29
NOV 19 199
EooK 6
[8'
AA
r
OV 14 13'9
BOOK
GE 850
WHEREAS, the Florida Department of Community Affairs received
this Comprehensive Plan Amendment on June 19, 1991, for the State
review pursuant to F.S.163.3184(4), and
WHEREAS, Indian River County received the Objections,
Recommendations, and Comments '(ORC) Report from the Florida
Department of Community Affairs on September 23, 1991, and
WHEREAS, Indian River County revised the data and analysis
supporting this comprehensive plah amendment in response to the ORC
Report and pursuant to F.S.163.3184(7), and
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River
County held a Comprehensive Plan Amendment Adoption Public Hearing
on November 19, 1991, after advertising pursuant to
F.S.163.3184(15)(b)(2) and (c);
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED, by the Board of County
Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, that:
SECTION 1. Comprehensive Plan Amendment Adoption and
Transmittal
The amendment to the Indian River County Comprehensive Plan
ideyitified in section 2 is hereby adopted, and five (5) copies are
directed to be transmitted to the State of Florida Department of
Community Affairs.
SECTION 2. Amendments to the Comprehensive Plan
0 The land use designation of the following described
property situated in Indian River County, Florida, to -
wit:
BEING A PORTION OF LOTS 13, 14, 15 & 16. PLAT OF TOWN OF
WAUREGAN, RECORDED INI PLATBOOK 1, PAGES 178 AND 179,
BREVARD COUNTY, FLORIDA, SAID LANDS NOW LYING AND BEING
IN INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA BEING MORE FULLY
DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
COMMENCING AT THE SOUTHEASTERLY CORNER OF TRACT "G" AS
SHOWN ON THE PLAT OF ',RIVERWALK II AS RECORDED IN PLAT
BOOK 12 PAGE 36 OF THIE PUBLIC RECORDS OF INDIAN RIVER
COUNTY, FLORIDA; THENCE S45044'55"W ALONG THE
SOUTHEASTERLY LINE OF SAID TRACT "G" A DISTANCE OF 323.56
FEET TO THE SOUTHWESTERLY CORNER OF SAID TRACT "G" AND
ALSO THE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE CONTINUE S45o44'55"w
A DISTANCE OF 332.90 FEET TO A POINT THAT IS LOCATED 200'
NORTHEASTERLY OF THE NORTHEASTERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF
WAUREGAN AVE. (AS MEASURED AT A RIGHT ANGLE); THENCE
N44025'06"W ALONG A LINE THAT IS PARALLEL TO SAID
NORTHEASTERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF WAUREGAN AVE. A
DISTANCE OF 919.97 FEET; THENCE N45039'24"E A DISTANCE OF
445.05 FEET; THENCE 843031'06"E A DISTANCE OF 380.53
FEET; THENCE S45049'17"W A DISTANCE OF 103.89 FEET;
THENCE S44010'35"E ALONG THE NORTHWESTERLY PROPERTY LINES
OF.TRACTS "D", "F" AND "G" OF SAID PLAT OF RIVERWALK II
A DISTANCE OF 540.31 FEET TO THE SOUTHWESTERLY CORNER OF
SAID TRACT "G" AND POINT OF BEGINNING. CONTAINING 8.00
ACRES MORE OR LESS.
30
Is changed from L-2, Low -Density Residential 2 (up to 6 units/acre)
and M-1, Medium -Density Residential 1 (up to 8 units/acre), to
Hospital/Commercial Node:
o The Future Land Use Map is hereby revised accordingly;
and
o Table 2.30 of the Future Land.Use Element is revised to
add ±8.00 acres to the Roseland Road/U.S. Highway #1
Hospital/Commercial Node.
SECTION 3. Codification
The provisions of this ordinance shall be incorporated into
the. County Code and the word "ordinance" may be changed to
"section", "article", or other appropriate word, and the sections
of the ordinance may be renumbered or relettered to accomplish such
intentions.
SECTION 4. Repeal of Conflicting Provisions
All previous ordinances, resolutions, or motions of the Board
of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida which
conflict with the provisions of this ordinance are hereby repealed
to the extent of such conflict. All special acts of the
legislature applying only to the unincorporated portion of Indian
River County and which conflict with the provisions of this
ordnance are hereby repealed to the extent of such conflict.
$ SECTION 5. Severability
It is declared to be the intent of the Board of County
Commissioners that if any provision of this ordinance and
therefore, the Indian River County Comprehensive Plan Amendments
are for any reason finally held invalid or unconstitutional by any
court of competent jurisdiction, such provision shall be deemed a
separate, distinct and independent provision and such holding shall
not affect the validity of the remaining provisions.
SECTION 6. Effective Date
This ordinance shall become effective upon becoming law.
Approved and adopted by the Board of County Commissioners of
Indian River County, Florida, on this 19 day of Nov., 1991.
'This ordinance was advertised in the Vero Beach Press -Journal
on the 7 day of Nov., 1991 for a public hearing to be held on the
19 day. of Nove;nber , 1991 at which time it was moved for
adoption by Commissioner Eggert , seconded by Commissioner
Wheeler , and adopted by the following vote:
Chairman Richard N. Bird Aye
Vice Chairman Gary C. Wheeler Aye
Commissioner Carolyn K. Eggert Aye
Commissioner Margaret C. Bowman Nay
Commissioner Don C. Scurlock, Jr. Aye
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
BY:
Richard N. Bird, Chairman
ATTEST BY:
31
NOV ig
v,
mor 84 F'A,_L 861
NOV. i "199'
BOOK 84 F'4GE 852
STREETMAN. ET AL. REQUEST TO REZONE APPROXIMATELY 4.58 ACRES FROM
A-1 TO CG
The hour of 9:05 o'clock A. M. having passed, the Deputy Clerk
read the following Notice with Proof of Publication attached, to
wit:
VERO BEACH PRESS -JOURNAL
Published Doily
Vero Beach, Indian River County. Florida
COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER: STATE OF FLORIDA .
Before the undersigned authority personally appeared J. J. Schumann, Jr. who on oath
says That he is Business Manager of the Vero Beach Press -Journal, a daily newspaper published
at Vero'Beeach In Indian River County, Florida; Thal the allached copy of advertisement. being
‘1:4.-4;/.
in the matter o1 X.K.4 1 jy161�//
In the Court. was pub-
lished in said newspaper In the Issues of VJ'J a I /5F.'/
Al bent further says that the said Vero Beach Press -Journal is a newspaper published at
Vero Beach, In said Indian River County. Florida. and that the said newt#paper has heretofore
been continuously published in said Indian River County. Florida, each daily and has been
entered as second class mail matter at the post office in Vero Beach. in said Indian River Coun-
ty. Florida, for a period of one year next preceding the first publication of the attached copy o1
advertisement; and al flan! further says that he has neither paid nor promised any person. firm
or corporation any discount, rebate. commission or refund for the purpose of securing this
advertisement for publication in the said newspaper.
Sworn to and subscribed lorame this day 0_,I4.41/A.D. 19 /•
Ute. cY •..r.1 ' • ".1}+.,. P,�q
['• , (. (Business Manager)
RS -t •
_x.--.... .rel
Co ,
< •
m OSLO R
T^ :•a:: Y:•:
A-1
SUBJECT
PROPERTY
.r
NOTICE OP PUBLIC HEARING
Notitice of heamg to consider the adoption poofra
counordnance rezoning tend front
sral Ois C0 Generali 061rkL
The subject property b armed by Saha Street
neon. and Catphrey and George Sheetmen h trus-
tees. and Is located at the Southeast carer of
82nd Avenue S.W. and 9th Street S.W. The subject
opety contavvng approximately 4 5 acres is
38.in the Lyng anal p in a�mtV. of Sectionn RMer Cain -
hl A putt hewing at which parties In Interest and
dtbens shall have enopportunity to be heard. 015
be held by the Board of County Commissioners of
India, rtiver County. Fbrda. In the Canal Commis-
sion Cambers o1 ire Cantly Admnistrasah susd-
019• located et 1040 25th Street. Vero Besot. Flor-
ida on Tuesday. November 19.1091w 9:05 e.m.
Anyone who may rash to appeal any decision
which may be meds at this meeting will need to en.
ewe that a verbatim record al the pcceeeings 3
made. which inductee test6rony and evidence War
w"cn the sppsal n based.
Board RIVER COUNTY
Board of County c ed, Chohere
BY -s-Remail N. Bed, QaVnIan
Oil. 28.1991 041983
Chairman Bird announced a conflict of interest in this matter
in that his firm represents the Streetmans and is involved in the
pending contract between Streetman and Jenkins. He stated he filed
the necessary conflict of interest form with the County Clerk and
would not participate in the discussion. Chairman Bird left the
chamber.
SAID CONFLICT OF INTEREST FORK! IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF
CLERK TO THE BOARD.
Vice Chairman Wheeler presided at the following discussion.
Community Development Director Bob Keating made the following
presentation:
TO: Jim Chandler
County Administrator
THRU:
DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE
1.01.ni
t M. Keats g, oP
Community Developmeh't Director
Sasan Rohani • ``•
Chief, Long -Range 'fanning
FROM: Cheryl A. Tworek
Senior Planner,
DATE: October 18, 1991
REi
g
Range Planning
STREETMAN, ET.AL., REQUEST TO REZONE APPROXIMATELY ±4.58
ACRES FROM A-1 TO CG (ZC-312)
It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal
consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their regular
meeting of November 19, 1991.
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
This is a request to rezone approximately ±4.58 acres of a ±38.21
acre parcel from A-1, Agricultural District (up to 1 unit/5 acres)
to CG, General Commercial District. The property is located on the
southeast corner of 82nd Avenue S.W. and 9th Street S.W. (Oslo
Road). The property is owned by Sandra Streetman, along with
Calphrey and George Streetman as trustees. The applicant, Brian
Jenkins, intends to develop a portion of the property with
commercial uses.
On September 26, 1991, the Planning and Zoning Commission voted 6-0
to recommend approval of this request to the Board of County
Commissioners.
Existing Land Use Pattern
The subject property is currently bedded for citrus operation and
lies within the Oslo Road and 74th Avenue Commercial -Industrial
Node; it is zoned A-1, Agricultural District. All adjacent
properties share the same A-1 zoning. Lands to the north, south
and east of the subject property contain active citrus operations.
West of the subject property is vacant, undeveloped land.
Northwest of the subject property is undeveloped land zoned CG,
General Commercial District.
Future Land Use Pattern
The entire ±38.21 acre parcel, including the 4.58 acres of the
subject request, lies within the Oslo Road and 74th Avenue
Commercial -Industrial Node. This designation permits various types
of commercial and industrial zoning categories. Properties on all
sides of the subject property share this land use designation.
Transportation
The subject property has access from Oslo Road, which is classified
as an urban principal arterial on the future roadway thoroughfare
plan map. This segment of Oslo Road, east of 82nd Avenue, is a two
lane, paved road with approximately one hundred (100) feet of
33
NOV 191991
iori b4 ME 853
r
NOV 19 1991
PoOK 84
a •,
PAGE 86
existing public road right-of-way. On the west side of 82nd
Avenue, Oslo Road widens to the Interstate 95 in-terchange. Oslo
Road has approximately one hundred -fifty (150) feet of right-of-way
at the 82nd Avenue intersection, and approximately three hundred
(300) feet of right-of-way at I-95.
The site can also be accessed from 82nd Avenue S.W., which is
classified as an urban minor arterial. The segment of 82nd Avenue
which is north of Oslo Road is a two-lane, paved road with
approximately eighty (80) feet of public road right-of-way.
Eighty-second Avenue is not paved south of Oslo Road, but contains
approximately sixty (60) feet of public road right-of-way.
Environment
The site is currently bedded for citrus; no native upland plant
communities or wetlands exist on the property.
Utilities and Services
The site is within the urban) service area; however, water and
wastewater lines do not currently extend to the site.
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
* consistency with the comprehensive plan
* potential impact on environmental quality
* compatibility with the surrounding area
This section will also consider site development alternatives.
Concurrency of Public Facilities
The site is located within the county Urbari 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. For rezoning requests, this review is
undertaken as part of the conditional concurrency application
process.
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 4 proposed project. Since rezoning
requests are not specific projets, county regulations call for the
concurrency review to be base upon the most intense use of the
subject property based upon the requested zoning district or land
use designation. For commercial rezoning 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 rezoning
request is for a commercial designation, the 10,000 square feet of
retail commercial floor area per acre of land proposed for rezoning
is used as the basis for the concurrency determination of the
proposed request. The site information used for the concurrency
analysis is as follows:
1. Size of Property: 38.21 acres
2. Size of Area to be Rezoned: 4.58 acres
34
3. Existing Zoning Classification: A-1, Agricultural District,
(up to 1 unit/5 acres)
4. Existing Land Use Designation: C/I, Commercial/Industrial
Area
5. Proposed Zoning Classification: CG, General Commercial
District
6. Proposed Land Use Designation: C/I, Commercial/Industrial
Area
7. Most Intense Use of the Subject Property: 45,800 sq. ft. of
Retail Commercial
- 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. With the proposed
zoning of the 4.58 acres, the most intense use would be 45,800
square feet of retail (shopping center) commercial use, generating
approximately 37 peak hour/peak season/peak direction trips on this
segment of Oslo Road, based on the Institute of Transportation
Engineers (ITE) trip generation rates. The traffic capacity of
this segment of Oslo Road is 630 trips (peak hour/peak season/peak
direction) at a level of service "D".
The existing traffic volume on this segment of Oslo Road is 165
trips (peak hour/peak season/peak direction). The additional 37
peak hour/peak season/peak direction trips created by the proposed
rezoning will increase the total peak hour/peak season/peak
direction trips for this segment of Oslo Road to approximately 202
peak hour/peak season/peak direction trips, which is well below the
630 trip capacity at level of service "D".
Based upon staff analysis, it was determined that Oslo Road and
other impacted roadways serving the project can accommodate the
additional trips without decreasing the existing level of service.
Impacted roadways are defined in the County's Land Development
Regulations as roadway segments which receive five percent (5%) or
more daily project traffic or fifty (50) or more daily project
trips, whichever is less.
The table below identifies each of the impacted roadway segments
associated with this proposed amendment. As indicated in that
table, there is sufficient capacity in all of the segments to
accommodate development of the subject property with the proposed
commercial designation.
TRAFFIC CONCURRENCY DETERMINATION
Impacted Road Segments
(peak hour/peak season/peak direction)
Segment
Roadway Capacity
Segment Road From To LOS "D"
2530 Oslo Rd. 82nd Ave. 58th Ave. 630
2540 Oslo Rd. 58th Ave. 43rd Ave. 630
2550 Oslo Rd. 43rd Ave. 27th Ave. 630
2560 Oslo Rd. 27th Ave. 20th Ave. 830
2570 Oslo Rd. 20th Ave. Old Dixie Hwy. 830
2580 Oslo Rd. Old Dixie Hwy. U.S. #1 830
2910 43rd Ave. Oslo Rd. 4th St. 630
2915 43rd Ave. 4th St. 8th St. 630
2920 43rd Ave. 8th St. 12th St. 630
2925 43rd Ave. 12th St. 16th St. 830
2930 43rd Ave. 16th St. S.R. 60 830
3005 58th Ave. Oslo Rd. 4th St. 630
35
NOV 1 1941
Ekori EVE 865
NOV 19 1991
POOK 84 PAGE 8fiC
Segment
Roadway Capacity
Segment Road From To LOS "D"
3010 58th Ave. 4th St. 8th St. 630
3015 58th Ave. 8th St. 12th St. 630
3020 58th Ave. 12th St. 16th St. 630
3025 58th Ave. 16th St. S.R. 60 830
3030 58th Ave. S.R.' 60 41st St. 830
3310 82nd Ave. Oslo Rd. 4th St. 630
3320 82nd Ave. 4th St. 12th St. 630
3330 82nd Ave. 12th St. S.R. 60 630
3340 82nd Ave. S.R. 60 65th St. 630
Existing Demand Total Available Positive
Roadway Existing Vested Segment Segment Project Concurrency
Segment Volume Volume Demand Capacity Demand Determination
2530 162 3 165 465 37 Y
2540 162 8 170 460 13 Y
2550 265 19 284 346 8 Y
2560 265 32 297 533 6 Y
2570 360 41 401 429 4 Y
2580 414 37 451 379 4 Y
2910 225 2 227 403 5 Y
2915 360 0 360 270 4 Y
2920 454 0 454 176 4 Y
2925 454 1 455 375 4 Y
2930 373 1 374 456 4 Y
3005 144 9 153 477 12 Y
3010 144 6 150 480 10 Y
3015 144 6 150 480 8 Y
3020 144 21 165 465 8 Y
3025 400 20 420 410 8 Y
3030 414 29 443 387 4 Y
3310 162 1 163 467 15 Y
3320 162 2 164 466 10 Y
3330 162 9 171 459 8 Y
3340 45 7 52. 578 2 Y
-Water
The site is located within the south county Water Service Area;
however, water lines do not currently extend to the site. With the
most intense use under the proposed zoning designation, the subject
property will have a consumption rate of 13.74 Equivalent
Residential Units (ERUs), or 3,435 gallons per day. This is based
upon the level of service of 250 gallons per ERU per day. Since no
ERUs have been reserved as of the present time, the applicant has
entered into a developer's agreement with the county which states
that the developer agrees to pay his impact fees and connect to the
county system if capacity is available at the time of development
or to expand county water facilities or pay for the expansion if
capacity is not available at the time of site development. This is
consistent with Future Land, Use Poly .2.7 which requires
development projects to maintain established levels of service.
-Wastewater
A retail commercial use of 45,800 square feet on the subject
property will have a wastewater generation rate of 13.74 Equivalent
Residential Units (ERUs), or 3,435 gallons per day. This is based
upon the county's adopted level of service standard of 250 gallons
per ERU per day. County wastewater service is available to the
site from the West County Wastewater Plant. Since no ERUs have
been reserved as of the present time, the applicant has entered
into a developer's agreement with the county which states that the
developer agrees to pay his impact fees and connect to the county
system if capacity is available at the time of development or to
expand county wastewater facilities or pay for the expansion if
capacity is not available at the time of site development. With
316
these conditions, the utility concurrency test has been met for the
subject request.
- Solid Waste
Solid waste service includes pickup by private operators and
disposal at the county landfill. Solid waste generation by a
45,800 square foot commercial development on the subject site will
be approximately 1,763.87 cubic yards of solid waste per year.
This -is based upon the level of service standard of 2.37 cubic
yards per capita per -year. A review of the solid waste capacity
for the active segment for 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 developments are 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 M-1 Drainage Basin and
no discharge rate hasbeen set for this basin, any development on
the property will be prohibited from discharging any run-off 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 not
within a floodplain. Both the on-site retention and discharge
standards do apply. With the most intense use of this site, the
maximum area of impervious surface for the proposed request will be
approximately 149,628 square feet. The maximum run-off volume,
based upon the amount of impervious surface, will be 117,707 cubic
feet. In order to maintain the county's adopted level of service,
the applicant will be required to retain 94,165 cubic feet of run-
off on-site. It is estimated that the pre -development run-off rate
is 23,542 cubic feet per second.
Based upon .staff's ,analysis, the drainage level of service
standards will be met' by limiting off-site discharge to its pre -
development rate of 23,542 cubic feet per second and requiring
retention of the 94,165 cubic feet of run-off for the most
intensive use of the property.
- Recreation
Concurrency for recreation is not applicable to this request, as
the request is for commercial development, and recreation levels of
service apply only to residential development.
With the execution of the developer's agreements as referenced
above in the water and wastewater sections, the concurrency test
has been satisfied for the subject request.
Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan
Rezoning requests are reviewed for consistency with all policies of
the comprehensive plan. Rezoning requests must also be consistent
with the overall designation of land uses as depicted on the Future
Land Use Map; these uses include agricultural, residential,
recreation, conservation, and comfiercial and industrial land uses
and their densities. Commercial and industrial land uses are
located in nodes throughout the unincorporated areas of Indian
River County.
37
NOV 19 ISS1
Roos 84 F,�GE867
NOV 19199'
POCK
The goals, objectives and policies are the most important parts of
the Comprehensive Plan. Policies are statements in the plan which
identify the actions which the county will take in order to direct
the community's development. As courses of action committed to by
the county, policies providethe basis for all county land
development' related decisionS. While all comprehensive plan
policies are important, some ha.re more applicability than others in
reviewing plan amendment requests. Of particular applicability for
this request is Future Land Use Policy 1.15.
- Future Land Use Policy, 1.15
Future Land Use Policy 1.15 states that the Commercial land use
designation is intended for uses such as retail and wholesale
trade, offices, businesses and personal services, residential
treatment centers, limited residential uses, and other similar type
uses. In addition, that policy states that all commercial uses
must be located within an existing or future Urban Service Area.
Since the subject property is located within a commercial/
industrial node within the county's urban service area and the
applicant proposes to develop the property with commercial uses as
allowed within the Commercial land use designation, the proposed
request is consistent with policy 1.15 and the commercial/
industrial corridor policy.
While policy 1.15 is particularly applicable to this request, other
comprehensive plan policies also have relevance. For that reason,
staff evaluated the subject request for consistency with all plan
policies. Based upon that analysis, staff determined that the
request is consistent with the comprehensive plan.
Potential Impact on Environmental Quality
In that the subject property has already been converted from
undeveloped land to citrus, no significant environmental impact is
anticipated as a result of this rezoning.
Compatibility with the Surrounding Area
Compatibility is not a major concern for this property. The
subject property is centrally located within a commercial/
industrial node. Property to the east of the subject property has
already been zoned for light industrial development. While the
subject property and adjacent surrounding properties are
undeveloped, vacant parcels or are in active citrus development,
the requested zoning for the subject property would be compatible
with the commercial zoning northwest of the subject property and
the commercial/industrial node land use designation of all
surrounding properties. The subject property will be buffered from
the more intense industrial development to the east by the county's
strictbuffering and landscaple requirements found in the Land
Development Regulations.
Based upon the analysis perforrhed, stafffeelsthat the requested
commercial zoning would be compatible with the surrounding area.
Conclusion
The rezoning is compatible with the surrounding area, consistent
with the goals, objectives and policies of the comprehensive plan,
and meets all applicable concurrency criteria. The subject
property is located in an area deemed suitable for commercial uses
of various -types• and has met all applicable criteria. Staff
support the subject request.
318
The Vice Chairman opened the public hearing and asked if
anyone wished to be heard in this matter.
Attorney Christopher Marine, representing the applicant, Mr.
Jenkins, asked one change be made to the legal description of the
property. He explained that the surveyor excluded the rights-of-
way from the total acreage figure and the applicant wanted those
areas included in the rezoning to insure that the entire property
would have the same zoning. He demonstrated on the enlarged map
where the rights-of-way are located and suggested he would
cooperate with the County Attorney or County Administrator to make
the correction.
Attorney Vitunac advised that since roads really do not have
a zoning it is not a legal concern; however, it would be better for
the applicant to make this correction in case some of the right-of-
way did not get developed.
It was determined that no one else wished to be heard and the
Chairman closed the public hearing.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by,
Commissioner Bowman, Chairman Bird abstaining, the
Board unanimously (4-0) adopted Ordinance No. 91-47
amending the zoning ordinance and accompanying
zoning map from A-1 to CG for the property generally
located on the southeast corner of 82nd Avenue S.W.
and 9th Street S.W. and described in the ordinance,
with the net acreage to include rights-of-way as
requested by the applicant.
ORDINANCE NO. 91- 47
AN ORDINANCE OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, AMENDING THE
ZONING ORDINANCE AND THE ACCOMPANYING ZONING MAP FROM A-1 TO
CG, FOR THE PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE SOUTHEAST CORNER
OF 82ND AVENUE S.W. AND 9TH STREET S.W., AND DESCRIBED HEREIN,
AND PROVIDING FOR EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission, sitting as the
local planning agency on such matters, has held a public hearing
and subsequently made a recommendation regarding this rezoning
regkest; and
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River
County, Florida, did publish and send its Notice of Intent to
rezone the hereinafter described property; and
39
NOV 19 1991
EOOK 84 ME BA
NOV 191991,
BOOK 6) 4 ;cam
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners has -determined that
this rezoning is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan of
Indian River County; and
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners has held a public
pursuant to this rezoning request, at which parties in
interest and' citizens were heard;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT OiDAINED, by the Board of County
Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, that the Zoning of
the following described property situated in Indian River County,
Florida, to -wit:
The West 500 feet of the North 300 feet of the North 755.20
feet of the West one-half Of Tract 4, Section 25, Township 33
South, Range 38 East, accdrding to the last general plat of
lands of the Indian River Farms Company Subdivision as
recorded in Plat Book 2, page 25, St. Lucie County public
records, said lands now lying and being in Indian River
County, Florida.
hearing
Said parcel contains 3.44 acres net; and
The North 300 feet of the North 755.20 feet of the West one-
half of Tract 4,` Section 25, Township 33 South, Range 38 East
less the West 500 feet thereof, according to the last general
plat of lands of the Indian River Farms Company Subdivision as
recorded in Plat Book 2, page 25, St. Lucie County public
records, said land now lying and being in Indian River County,
Florida;
Said parcel contains 1.14 acres net.
Be changed from A-1 to CG.
All with the meaning and intent and as set forth and described in
said Zoning Regulations.
Approved and adopted by the Board of County Commissioners of
Indian River County, Florida, on this 19 day of November , 1991.
This ordinance was advertiseld in the Vero Beach Press -Journal
on the 28 day of October 1991 for a public hearing to be
held on the 19 day of NoveMber , 1991 at which time it was
moved for adoption by Commissioner Eggert , seconded by
Commissioner Bowman , and adopted by the following
vote:
Chairman Richard N. Bird Abstained
y Vice Chairman Gary C. Wheeler Aye
Commissioner Carolyn K. Eggert Aye
Commissioner Margaret C. Bowman Aye
Commissioner Don C. Scurlock, Jr. Aye
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
BY:
ej__,a//66)
Richard N. Bird, Chairman
40
PROGRESS REPORT ON DEVELOPMENT OF NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL NODE
LOCATED AT NORTHWEST CORNER OF S.R. 60 AND 74TH AVENUE
The hour of 9:05 o'clock A. M. having passed, the Deputy Clerk
read the following Notice with Proof of Publication attached, to
wit:
VERO BEACH PRESS -JOURNAL
Published Daily
Vero Beach, Indian River County, Florida
COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER: STATE OF FLORIDA
Before the undersigned authority personally appeared J. J. Schumann. Jr. who on oath
says that he is Business Manager of the Vero Beach Press -Journal, a daily newspaper published
at Vero Beach in Indian River County. Florida; that the attached copy of advertisement, being
in the matter of X;42?..,
In the/ Court, was pub-
dd e7s'A /rte//
fished in said newspaper in the issues of
Affiant further says that the said Vero Beach Press -Journal is a newspaper published al
Vero Beach, In said Indian River County, Florida, and that the said newspaper has heretofore
been continuously published in said Indian River County, Florida. each daily and has been
entered as second class mail matter at the post office in Vero Beach. in said Indian River Coun-
ty, Florida, for a period of one year next preceding the first publication of the attached copy of
advertisement; and affiant further says that he has neither paid nor promised any person. firm
or corporation any discount, rebate. commission or refund for the purpose of securing this
advertisement for publication in the said newspaper.
Sworn to and subscribed before me this
day off/_ �Zc A D. 19 gl
J
(Business Manager)
0/
tu
RM -8
1 r
of
S.R. 60
CN
RO
RMH-8
Tx!
wren .e.
1
N
Subject
Property
NOTICE — PUBLIC HEARING
NEIGHBORHOOD NODE DEVELOPMENT REPORT
A hearing to receive eo enents and consider a
progress report on the status of development of a
neighborhood node prar..ct on popwny owned by
Paul V. and Denise E. Mihotty. and located on the
north side of State Road 80 west of 74th Avenue
wit be held pursuant to Section 911.10(9)(b)2.e. Of
the Indian River County Land Development Regula-
tions. The subject property contains 3 acres and
Be, In the Northeast to of Section 1. Township 33
River South. RageFlorida 38 East. lying and beirq in Iran
A public hearing at which parties In interest and
Citizens that have an appatusty to be heard wi
be held by the Board of County Consnisswners of
Indian River County. Florida.' In the County Comma
sion Chambers of the County Adrneustration Build-
ing. totaled at 1840 25th Street, Vero Beach. nitr-
ide on Tuesday, November 19, 1991 at 9:05 a.m.
After the public hearr g. thehe Board of Canty Com-
missioners will decide w Iver to terminate the
rade approval or extend appoval for six months.
Anyone who may wish to appeal any decision
which may be made et this meeting wap need to en-
sure that a verbatim record of the proceeding e
made. which includes testimony and evidence upon
which the appeal Is based.
IMaan River County
Board of Canty Commissioners
0cL 28, 1991 Dick Bed, Chainmen 845259
Community Development Director Bob Keating made the following
presentation:
41
L 19 1S91
Boni( 4 FrAUE l l
Pr"
NOV 19
99
BOOK
TO:
James Chandler
County Administrator
DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE
ober M. Keatin
THRU: Stan BolingAICP
Planning Director
FROM: Sasan Rohani 5•Q•
Chief, Long -Range Planning
DATE: November 12, 1991
RE: PROGRESS REPORT ON THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD
COMMERCIAL NODE LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF S.R.
60 AND 74TH AVENUE
It is requested that the data Therein presented be given formal
consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their regular
meeting of November 19, 1991.
DESCRIPTION' AND CONDITIONS
This is a progress report on the status of development of a
neighborhood commercial node. The subject property is owned by
Paul V. and Denise E. Minotty, and is located on the north side of
State Road 60 west of 74th Avenue (see attachment #1) . The
subject property consists of ±3 acres, is designated as a
neighborhood commercial node overlaying an 4-1 (Medium Residential
up to 8 units/acre) land use plan designation, and is zoned CN,
(Neighborhood Commercial District).
This report is provided to the Board of County Commissioners,
pursuant to the provisions of section 911.10(9)(b)2.e. of the
county's land development regulations (LDRs), so that the Board may
consider the node's development status and, if warranted, initiate
action to terminate node approval and authorize rezoning of the
property from CN (Neighborhood Commercial) to RM -8 (Residential,
Multi -family up to 8 units/acre). Pursuant to LDR provisions, the
current property owners have been notified of the November 19th
meeting and the authority of the Board to re-designate.the subject
property at the meeting.
Progress Report and Board Consideration '
The purpose of a neighborhood co mercial-node progress report, as
stated in the county's LDRs, is to allow the Board the opportunity
to evaluate the need for and appropriateness of undeveloped land
that has been -designated for neighborhood commercial use. The
neighborhood commercial node overlay designation and corresponding
CN zoning are applied, maintained, and evaluated in a manner
different from other land use designations and zoning districts.
Unlike all other commercial zonj'ing districts, CN zoning may be
granted on.property located outs de of commercial/industrial nodes
shown on the land use plan. Trus, the CN node designation and
zoning may be.approved on properties having non-commercial and non-
industrial land use designations,; such as properties designated as
MD -1. Therefore, the neighborhood node and CN zoning approval can
be granted on agriculturally or residentially designated properties
without an amendment to the landiuse plan.
42'
The function of neighborhood commercial areas is also different
from that of the county's other commercial designations and
districts. Neighborhood commercial areas are designed to meet the
convenience retail needs of surrounding residents, are limited in
size, use, and location, and are essentially granted on a "use it
or lose it" basis. The progress report provision was incorporated
in the CN district requirements to give the Board an opportunity to
determine if development of the node has commenced and progressed.
If the Board finds that adequate progress has not occurred, this
provision allows the Board to terminate the node approval or grant
a six month extension of node approval.
The neighborhood node termination provision is important because of
the neighborhood node separation requirement. As provided for in
the CN district requirements, no neighborhood node shall be
established within one nile of another neighborhood node. That
requirement was established to ensure that the neighborhood nodes
would be limited in number and sufficiently dispersed. However, it
was recognized at the time that these requirements were drafted
that the separation provision would work only if node approval was
subject to revocation for non -development.
History of Subject Property Designation/Zoning
In 1985, Adult Communitles Total Services (ACTS), Inc., requested
to rezone 7.26 acres located north of S.R. 60 and west of 74th
Avenue from R -3A, Retirement District, to C -1A, Restricted
Commercial District. This 7.26 acres included the subject ±3 acre
parcel. The applicant also requested that this property be
designated as a neighborhood node to allow for the C -1A zoning. 1 It
should be noted that at the time of the request no CN district
existed; the C -1A district was the most restricted commercial
district. Thus, at that time the C -1A district was the most
appropriate district for a neighborhood commercial node.
On April 11, 1985, while considering the designation/rezoning
request, the Planning and Zoning Commission tabled action on the
request pending further staff analysis of the then -existing
criteria used in establishing neighborhood nodes. At its April 25,
1985 meeting, the Planning and Zoning Commission, based upon
further staff analysis and input from node workshops held in 1983
and 1984, recommended adoption of new neighborhood commercial node
criteria which included the following restrictions:
No nodecould exceed six (6) acres in size; and
No node could be established within one mile (5,280') of
another neighborhood commercial node, other commercial or
residential node or an MXD (mixed use) area. This
separation distance could be reduced by 10% to 4,752' via
a special waiver granted by the community development
director (based upon special characteristics and
criteria).
The 7.26 acre parcel involved in the neighborhood node/rezoning
request did not meet either of these recommended criteria. [It
should be noted that these criteria were ultimately adopted by
ordinance 'by the Board of County Commissioners on June 5, 1985.
The effective date of that ordinance was June 17, 1985.]
Because the 7.26 acre proposal did not meet the recommended
criteria, the Planning and Zoning Commission denied the ACTS
request at the April 25th meeting (see attachment #3). ACTS then
appealed the Planning and Zoning Commission's denial to the Board
of County Commissioners. On June 12, 1985, the Board approved a
neighborhood commercial node designation covering three (3) acres
of the subject property, and also rezoned the three acres from RM -
8, to C -1A (see attachment #4). Although the approval was not
consistent with the new neighborhood node criteria (specifically
the separation -distance requirement) adopted June 5, 1985, the new
43
0! 19 NT
C�O� : Fs:G,E 871
e.'%
NOV 19 199
Ci `.j CAi [ U 1 yt
criteria did not become effective until June 17, 1985.
Subsequently, the county adopted new zoning district requirements,.
including a new neighborhood commercial (CN) district, and later in
1985, the three acre site was assigned to a CN district during the
county's administrative rezoning process. (See attachment #5 for
a chronology of events.) Tills three acre site is the subject
property now owned by Paul C. and Denise E. Minotty.
Surrounding Land Use and Zoning Pattern
The present land use plan designation for this property is M-1,
Medium -Density Residential up to 8 units/acre. The zoning is CN,
Neighborhood Commercial District. All areas surrounding the
subject property are also designated on the county's land use plan
as M-1, Medium -Density Residen ia1 up to 8 units/acre. Properties
to the north and west are zoned RM -8, Multiple Family Residential,
up to 8 units/acre (Indian River Estates still owned by ACTS),
while land to the east across 74th Avenue is zoned RMH-8, Mobile
Home Residential up to 8 units/acre (Village Green). To the south
of the subject property is a ±3 acre tract designated as a
neighborhood commercial node and zoned CN. This tract has been
developed as the Seald Sweet administrative offices.
The subject neighborhood commercial node is within 3,900 feet (0.72
mile) of the commercial/industrial node located at the intersection
of I-95 and S.R. 60, and is within 300' of the developed
neighborhood commercial node at the southwest corner of SR 60 and
74th Avenue (Seald Sweet).
Site Plan and Building Permit information
In 1988, David Robinson, acting on behalf of Arthur Newton,
submitted a major site plan application to construct a 21,856 sq.
ft. retail complex on this site, (SP -MA -88-10-77). A site plan for
the subject property was approved in 1989. The applicant did not
satisfy all the conditions set forth as part of the site plan
approval, and, therefore, the Site plan was never released. The
site plan expired on August 24, 1990. Consequently, no building
permit has been issued, no construction has commenced, and
currently there is no active approved site plan to develop the
site.
ANALYSIS AND ALTERNATIVES
c Analysis
Although the subject property has been designated for neighborhood
commercial development for overlsix years, no development exists on
the site and no approved site pans to develop the property exist.
During that time, the neighborh od node located across S.R. 60 from
the subject site has been developed and is occupied. Given the
lack of development activity Hon this property, it is staff's
position that terminating the neighborhood commercial node
designation of the site for lack of development would be consistent
with the .CN guidelines contained in Chapter 911 of the LDRs (see
attachment #2).
As established, the subject neighborhood node fails to meet the
minimum separation distance between the site and other neighborhood
commercial and commercial nodes. For that reason, termination of
node approval would preclude reestablishment of a neighborhood node
on the subject property. In addition, termination of neighborhood
node approval in this case would eliminate an existing non-
conforming zoning designation.
Lastly, it should be noted thatlrecently no interest in developing
neighborhood commercialuses oh either the subject property or in
the surrounding area has been expressed to staff. The last such
development interest expressed to staff involved the Seald Sweet
site which has now been developed and is occupied.
44
c Alternatives
Pursuant to Section 911.10(a)(b)2.3. of the LDRs, there •are
essentially two alternatives available to the Board with respect to
the site's neighborhood commercial node designation. These
alternatives are as follows:
1. Terminate the neighborhood node designation and initiate
a county administrative rezoning to change the zoning
designation of this property to its original zoning (RM -
8, Multiple -Family Residential District, up to 8
units/acre) which is consistent with the ste's
underlying M-1 land use plan designation.
2. Extend this neighborhood node designation for another six
months, allowing a limited amount of time for the Owner
to obtain site plan approval and to comzence
construction. If no site plan approval is obtained and
no construction commences on the property within this six
month period, the neighborhood node approval would
automatically terminate and staff would initiate a
rezoning of the site to RM -8.
CONCLUSION
It is staff's position that the existing neighborhood commercial
node designation and CN zoning of the subject property are not
warranted. Not only is there an existing developed neighborhood
node within 300 feet of the subject property, but a general
commercial node also exists little more than a half mile from the
site. Since no development has. occurred on the property in the six
years that the node designation has existed, this indicates that
commercial development of the site is not warranted. Forhose
reasons, staff feels that node approval should be terminated
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners terminate
the neighborhood node designation and direct staff to initiate a
rezoning of the subject property to its original zoning of RM -8,
Multiple -Family Residential (up to 8 units/acre).
The Chairman returned to the meeting and took back the gavel.
He opened the public hearing and asked if anyone wished to be heard
in this matter.
Attorney William J. Stewart, representing Dr. Paul 'T. and
Denise E. Minotty, came before the Board to elaborate on the facts
and circumstances presented by Mr. Keating and to explain pr. and
Mrs. Minotty's position with respect to this particular parol. He
said Dr. and Mrs. Minotty were not the applicants who secured the
site plan. They acquired the property in 1989 after the site plan
was approved and after the property was rezoned. That site plan
was for a strip center, which Dr. and Mrs. Minotty had no intention
of completing. Their plan was and still is to develop a
professional office complex; particularly, a medical office
complex. Mr. Stewart agreed no activity has taken place and that
the site plan has expired. He did not feel the location of this
particular parcel in relation to others was a good reason to revoke
this zoning because it was a situation that was created. Inlother
words, this is not the typical non-conformance which occurs when
45
NOV ':919.1
BOOK 84 FA: -,E875
Ov19�;
BOOK FALL' if
laws are changed; this was non -conforming when it was created. As
far as the node across the street, Mr. Stewart felt the Board
established that node with full knowledge of Dr. Minotty's CN node.
He stated that it is unlikely that Dr. Minotty within the next six
months will come forward with a site plan to develop this property
for professional office because it could not be done adequately in
that period of time. He also recognized that the Board has the
choice of either rezoning or a six-month extension. Mr. Stewart
pointed out that if this neighborhood commercial node is lost and
the property reverted to multiple family, there does not seem to be
any way professional offices would be permitted in a higher density
residential zone. Mr. Stewart felt, with the location of this
parcel in close proximity to Indian River Estates, it would be a
perfect place for professional office. He further suggested the
Board should consider allowing professional office in higher
density residential zones because they are not that dissimilar.
Mr. Stewart agreed with staff's factual presentation and agreed
this project certainly falls iri the category of "use it or lose
it." He said he could not tell the Board that another six months
would make a difference, but he asked the Board to consider
retaining the zoning for this parcel because he felt it would be
appropriate for this situation.
Chairman Bird asked, if the CN zoning were eliminated, would
this site ever qualify again for POI or any other type of zoning
that might allow professional medical office or something similar.
Community Development Director Bob Keating advised the PRO
district, like the CN district, can be established in a residential
area as delineated on the comprehensive plan if it is at least five
acres. The exception is a PRO Can be two and a half acres if it
abuts a commercial zone or corridor. The Minotty parcel does not
meet that criteria, even though there is a neighborhood commercial
node across the street.
Commissioner Scurlock rec'lled when this was originally
discussed the property was owned by ACTS, Indian River Estates was
going to be developed, and this neighborhood commercial node would
serve the residents of Indian River Estates because there would be
internal access to this particular site. The owner was told the
circumstances of the time limit. In the meantime, there have been
other requests for this type of development which have been denied.
Commissioner Scurlock found it difficult to allow this zoning to
remain forever because the original people did not live up to their
agreement. They built residential units instead, lessening the
parcel to three and a half acres rather than the necessary five
acres.
46
Attorney Stewart explained Dr. and Mrs. Minotty dlid not
purchase the property from ACTS. There had been interim owners.
Chairman Bird saw a need for a medical center in that area
because of all the elderly people in the mobile home parks and
retirement communities, but could not see hanging on to this zoning
with the thought that this may happen. On the other handl if we
take it away now, it cannot requalify as a neighborhood commercial
node because it did not qualify in the first place. The choice
seems to be to leave it in place or rezone it to multiple family.
Commissioner Scurlock commented that there is space in every
existing commercial node.
Commissioner Eggert recalled the original plan was to give
people an opportunity to walk to little shops.
Attorney Stewart agreed the original site plan was for a
typical strip center. He understood the Commission's concern about
the proliferation of these nodes. Dr. Minotty is asking that if
the Board terminates this node as commercial, in the event he comes
back with a request to develop a professional office center, he
would like the staff and the Board to give it consideration.
Director Keating explained the options are to terminate the
zoning or to extend it for six months. If nothing happens in six
months, then termination would proceed.
Commissioner Eggert clarified, and Director Keating agreed,
nothing has happened for two years and this is a request; for a
rezoning public hearing.
Scott Meyers, 781 Doctor Avenue, Sebastian, representing Brian
Williams, the Administrator of Indian River Estates, requested the
Board leave the zoning as it is, neighborhood commercial. He said
Indian River Estates opposes rezoning this parcel to multiple
family residential.
It was determined that no one else wished to be heard and the
Chairman closed the public hearing.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Scurlock, the Board unanimously
terminated the neighborhood node designation and
directed staff to initiate rezoning of the subject
property to its original zoning of RM -8, Multiple -
Family Residential.
The Chairman recessed the meeting briefly at 10:02 A. M. and
the Board reconvened at 10:15 A. M. with all members present.
47
NOV 19 M1
��a��K F L 016
NO 19 1991
EooK
FwC LLJ1b
�
STREET LIGHTING DISTRICT ASSESSMENTS
County Administrator Jim Chandler made the following
presentation:
TO: Board of County Commissioners DATE: November 5, 1991 FILE:
Through: James Chandler
County Administrat r
SUBJECT:
Street Lighting District
Assessments
FROM• . Randy Dowling REFERENCES:
Ass't. to County Admin.
BACKGROUND
During the recent budget hearings, the Commission requested staff to look into
the assessment methods of the County's street lighting districts. To date, the
County has 12 Board approved street lighting districts and many single street
lights spread over the entire county . ( see Attachment Al. The assessment
method for all of the districts is either on a per lot basis where the district has
uniform lot sizes or per parcel/acre Where the district has non-uniform lot sizes.
In summarizing the County's current street lighting district establishment
procedures, a developer, homeowner's association, or individual requests the
Board to form a district. County staff then prepares an ordinance creating the
district and its boundaries. A public hearing is conducted and, if approved,
the assessment is normally billed annually on the tax bill as a non ad valorem
assessment. The district's budget is established annually in association with the
County's budget.
CURRENT
A review of case law indicates that the assessment methods used by the County
are legally acceptable. However, the courts recognize that no system of
appraising benefits or assessing costs has yet been developed that is not open
to some criticism. Staff also conducted a telephone survey to ascertain how
other counties assess street lighting] districts. The results, which are attached
as Attachment B, indicates that there is no predominant method used. In
summary, Collier, St. Lucie, and Broward counties assess street lighting
districts according to the assessed value of the property; Orange and Polk
counties assess on a per house basis; Hillsborough County assesses according to
lot size or front footage; Brevard 'County has no street lighting districts but
pays for street lights from general revenue; Martin County has no provisions for
residential street lights; and Palm. Beach County only installs and pays for major
roadway street lighting with general ! revenues while all residential street lighting
is provided directly from FPL through agreements with developers, incorporated
homeowners' association, or individuals. Staff discounted the assessed value
assessment method because that method could leava some property owners paying
little or nothing for street lighting when the homestead exemption is considered.
Staff further studied Palm Beach County's street lighting arrangement of having
the electric service provider deal (directly with the county concerning major
roadway street lighting and directly with the developer, individual, or
homeowner association concerning residential street and security lighting, thus
eliminating the county as middleman. Staff has had discussions with FP&L and
the City of Vero Beach regarding this arrangement. Both electric service
providers were receptive to the arrangement and are willing to work with county
48
staff to implement it. Since the County's adopted LDRs require most new
developments to have street lighting, staff foresees a marked increase in street
lighting districts. For future requests concerning residential street or security
lighting, the developer, individual, or incorporated homeowners'association
would be able to deal directly with FP&L or the City, thereby eliminating the
county as middleman and saving the administrative charge the county imposes on
its billings. In addition, these procedures will be applicable to certain of the
existing street lighting districts that have incorporated homeowners' associations.
Staff will determine how many of these existing street lighting districts could be
turned over to FP&L or the City for direct billing. The remaining districts
where no formal authority, i.e. homeowners' association, exists would 4till be
billed through the county's non ad valorem assessment procedures. If the Board
concurs with this approach, staff will develop the specific details and bring them
back to the Board for final approval.
RECOMMENDATION
Based upon the preceding information, staff recommends no changes to the
existing per lot or per parcel/acre assessment methods. Staff feels the existing
methods are as equitable as any of those reviewed and that each property owner
within the districts receives some benefit for their assessment dollars. Staff also
recommends that the Board authorize staff to pursue and bring back to the
Board for final approval, the arrangement described above whereby future
requests for residential street lighting be handled directly with FPL or the City.
Administrator Chandler felt there are a few established
lighting districts for which Florida Power & Light have indicated
they may be willing to begin direct billing. Both FP&L and the
City of Vero Beach are willing to meet and discuss potential
programs for direct billing of street lighting.
Commissioner Scurlock felt this was a new policy because in
the past FP&L and the City of Vero Beach would not enter into
agreements directly with individuals, which is the reason the
countyhas taken the role of pass-through from the company to the
P g P Y
residents.
Commissioner Eggert inferred, and Mr. Chandler confirmed, that
in no county was this assessing done in direct proportion to the
benefits received from street lights.
Commissioner Eggert asked about the relationship of residents
of other counties to FP&L, and FP&L's responsiveness, or lack of
it, to the complaints of residents.
Administrator Chandler replied that all the preli inary
conversations have been with the power company. There have been no
discussions with associations or groups of residents and there is
a need to address and clarify many points before a final
recommendation could be made.
Commissioner Eggert was concerned that paying development
costs up front might be prejudicial to some parts of our county.
Administrator Chandler felt the power companies are trying to
be sure they get a return on capital cost investments and will
enter into agreements with condos and associations, and that is
something we will have to look at in terms of other areas. This is
49
NOV 191 91
50
8 !l eCC
r
NOV 19 99
LBO.
F'.GEOjU
the potential for us until such a point in time that we may be
providing street lighting in all of Indian River County, which is
down the road.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by
Commissioner Eggert, the Board unanimously directed
staff to continue with Our current methodology in
assessing street lighting districts as well as
continuing to work with Florida Power & Light and
the City of Vero Beach tcp explore possibilities of
future requests for street lighting being handled
directly between residents and the power company.
APPROVAL TO SUBMIT TWO APPLICATIONS FOR EMS GRANT PROGRAM FOR
COUNTIES FOR FY 92-93
The Board reviewed memo from Emergency Services Director Doug
Wright dated November 13, 1991:
TO: Board of County Commissioners
THROUGH:
County A 'ttnisrator
FROM: Doug Wrighri, Director
Department of Emergency Services
James Chandler
DATE: November 13, 1991
SUBJECT: Approval To Submit Two Applications for FY 92-93 EMS
Grant Program for Counties
It is respectfully requested the information contained herein be
given formal consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at
1 the next scheduled meeting.
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
The Department of Health and ReYabilitative Services, Office of
Emergency Medical Services (EMS) Matching Grant Program assists
public and private organizations in improving and expanding EMS
systems. Funds are collected from various traffic fines and
related court proceedings as authorized by Chapter 401, Part II,
Florida Statutes. These funds are deposited into the state EMS
Trust Fund with forty percent of the funds collected being used for
the EMS Matching Grant Program.
Matching Grant applications have been prepared describing the needs
and proposing matching grant objectives and time frames in which
the objectives will be obtained.
This, in all probability, will be the last year for the next two
years that county matching funds and county awards money will be
available. It has been expressed by the State EMS office that the
available funds for the next two years may be utilized by the State
of Florida to off -set State deficits.
50
The equipment requested in the matching grant applications for FY
92-93 includes the following: two Modular Ambulances, eight
computer work stations, a software package, and an increase in
computer memory.
The funding for new equipment is structured as follows:
Proposed Equipment County Cash Match State Match Total
Two ALS Transport -
Vehicles 60,000 60,000
Eight Computer
Work Stations 8,000 8,000
Eight Computer
Modems 2,400 2,400
Software Package 200
Increase Computer
Memory 1,500
Technician Setup
Costs 520
120,000
16,000
4,800
200 400 I
1,500
520
3,000 ,
1,040 !�
Total 72,620 72,620 145,240
As a part of the six year plan approved by the referendum on March
12, 1991, monies have already been pre -approved by the Board in the
amount of $60,000 in the 92-93 fiscal year for the refurbishi g of
two existing ALS ambulances. With the County Matching Grant
Awards, we would be able to purchasetwo new modular ambulances
adding additional backup units to our ALS resources. The computer
equipment at the Emergency Services stations would be utilized by
both the EMS and Fire divisions.
ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS
Two new ALS transport vehicles will provide Indian River County
with modern, reliable emergency ambulances, along with providing
for additional ambulances to be utilized at standby events, m 1ti-
casualty incidents and transport of the special needs population
during evacuation.
The purchase and network of computer/software equipment will allow
the Emergency Services EMS and Fire divisions to transmit response
information to the main offices allowing current staff a more
time/cost effective method of compiling state mandated responses and
trauma information with the ability to electronically transfer the
information to the state EMS office. Improved inventory control of
medical supplies and capitol equipment would be realized.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners approve the
FY 92-93 EMS Matching Grant Application. Staff also requests that
the Board authorize the Chairman to execute the necessary docum'nts
to apply for funds from the Department of Health and Rehabilita ive
Services in the amount of $72,620.00 to improve and expand the
prehospital EMS system in the County.
51
NOV 9 199
BOOK
F'AGE881
NOV 19 199
BOOK 84F't `vE
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Scurlock, the Board unanimously adopted
Resolution 91-174 authdrizing a matching grant
application to Florida Department of Health and
Rehabilitative Services for System
Evaluation/Quality Assurance project, and Resolution
91-175 authorizing a matching grant application to
Florida Department of Health and Rehabilitative
Services for Emergency Transport Vehicles project,
as recommended by staff.
RESOLUTION 91-174, WITH A COPY OF GRANT APPLICATION ATTACHED, AND
RESOLUTION 91-175, WITH A COPY O,' GRANT APPLICATION ATTACHED, ARE
ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF CLERK TO THE BOARD
RESOLUTION NO. 91- 174
A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA,
AUTHORIZING THE APPLICATION FOR FUNDING COUNTY
EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES (EMS)' MATCHING
GRANT AWARDS TO BE SUBMITTED TO THE STATE OF
FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND
REHABILITATIVE SERVICES.
} WHEREAS, The Florida Department of Health and Rehabilitative
Services has announced that applications for funding County
Emergency Medical Services (EMS) Matching Grant awards are now
'being accepted and a grant application has been prepared for Indian
River County; and
WHEREAS, an application for 'matching grant funds fiscal year
1992-93 had been prepared by the County; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COM-
MISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTt, FLORIDA, that the Chairman is
authorized to sign and execute the application for matching grant
funds certifying that monies from the EMS Grant Program For
Counties will improve and expandthe County's pre -hospital EMS
system and. that the funds will ot be used to supplant existing
County EMS budget allocations.
The foregoing Resolution was offered by Commissioner
Eavert who moved its aoption. The motion was seconded
by Commissioner Scurlock an4, upon being put to a vote, the
vote was asrfollows:
Chairman Richard N. Bird Ayes
Vice -Chairman Gary C. Wheeler gyp
Commissioner Don C. Scurloclk, Jr. pyp _.
Commissioner Margaret C. Bowman pyp
Commissioner Carolyn K. Eggert pyp
. The Chairmn thereupon declat d the resolution duly passed and
adopted this iv day of Novembe , 1991.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
BY:
52
'chard N. Bird, Chairman
RESOLUTION NO. 91-175
A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA,
AUTHORIZING THE APPLICATION FOR FUNDING COUNTY
EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES (EMS) MATCHING
GRANT AWARDS TO BE SUBMITTED TO THE STATE OF
FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND
REHABILITATIVE SERVICES.
$ WHEREAS, The Florida Department of Health and Rehabilitative
Services has announced that applications for funding County
Emergency Medical Services (EMS) Matching Grant awards are now
being accepted and a grant application has been prepared for Indian
Diver County; and .
WHEREAS, an application for matching grant funds fiscal year
1992-93 has been prepared by the County; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COM-
MISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that the Chairman is
authorized to sign and execute the application for matching grant
funds certifying that monies from the EMS Grant Program For
Counties will improve and expand the County's pre -hospital EMS
system and that the funds will not be used to supplant existing
County EMS budget allocations.
The foregoing Resolution was offered by Commissioner
Eggert who moved its adoption. The motion was seconded
by Commissioner Scurinck and, upon being put to a vote, the
vote was as follows:
Chairman Richard N. Bird
Vice -Chairman Gary C. Wheeler
Commissioner Don C. Scurlock, Jr.
Commissioner Margaret C. Bowman
Commissioner Carolyn R. Eggert
Ayp
Aye
Ayp
Ayp
p
The Chairman thereupon declared the resolution duly passed and
adopted this 19 day of November , 1991.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
BY: ICS
53
NOV 19 N 1
Richard N. B
rd, Chairman
BOOK 8 FA E S3
i9
PUCK
8 FAL,EC :
SELECTION OF FIRM FOR TOURIST STUDY
The Board reviewed memo from OMB Director Joe Baird dated
November 13, 1991:
TO: Members of the Board
of County Commissioners
November 13, 1991
SELECTION OF FIRM FOR TOURIST STUDY
Joseph A. Baird
OMB Director
DATE:
SUBJECT:
FROM:
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
On Wednesday, November 13, 1991, a committee composed of Gary Wheeler, Doug
Wright, Charles Vitunac, Joseph Baird, Richard Bireley, George Bunnell and Jim Merrill
met to listen to oral presentations from firms interested in performing the Tourist Study.
The committee ranked the four firms in the following order:
1. Regional Research Associates
2. Mid -Florida Marketing and Research
3. Fishkind and Associates
4. Strategy Research Corporation
Committee members unanimously ranked Regional Research Associates as number one.
RECOMMENDATION
j Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners authorize staff to draft a
contract with Regional Research Associates for an amount not to exceed $50,000.
•
MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Wheeler, to authorize staff to draft a
contract to conduct a Tourist Study with Regional
Research Associates, not to exceed $50,000, as
recommended by staff.
Under discussion, Commissioner Scurlock said he is getting
more and more comment on this particular issue and he thought there
are people in the community who would prefer to see this money used
for advertising. He was supporting the motion because of the
committee and the composition of the committee and where the
dollars are generated. He also was aware of the point that our
dollars might be more effective in terms of generating additional
business by advertising.
Chairman Bird felt the two are related: you need to know what
is bringing people here, what attracts tourists; then you know
better how to gear your advertising to reach them.
Commissioner Eggert stressed the need for a broad-based study,
54
such as this will be, for purposes of applying for grants and so
forth; so this is not a frivolous study. She also pointed out that
there may be a misunderstanding regarding the $50,000 and the fact
that this money is already included in our budget.
Director Baird assured the Board that the contract will
include language for the study to cover information to help
businessmen target their advertising most effectively.
THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION.
It was voted on and carried unanimously.
PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING SERVICES FOR ROUND ISLAND PARK
IMPROVEMENTS
Public Works Director Jim Davis made the following
presentation:
TO: James E. Chandler,
County Administrator
FROM: Terry B. Thompson, P.E.
Capital Projects Manager
SUBJECT: Professional Engineering Services for
Round Island Park Improvements
DATE: November 13, 1991
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
On October 8, 1991, Indian River County accepted a $130,000
Waterways Assistance Project grant for Round Island Park
Improvements from the Florida Inland Navigation District
(FIND). The County has applied for $150,000 from the
Florida Boating Improvement Program to match the grant the
County accepted from FIND and $150,000 from the Florida
Recreation Development Assistance Program (FRDAP) for
additional. improvements.
Staff has submitted and received permits for proposed
improvements from the Corps of Engineers and the Department
of Environmental Regulation. Coastal Technology Corporation
has submitted the attached proposal for construction plans
preparation and permitting of the proposed site
improvements. The compensation due the Consultant for the
services described in the proposal is $9,990. A conceptual
site plan (copy attached) was previously prepared by Coastal
Technology for the FRDAP grant application.
Staff will.negotiate a separate contract with John Foster,
P.A. to adapt the restroom plans he previously prepared for
Treasure Shores Park to the Round Island Park, site. John
Foster made revisions to the Golden Sands Park restroom
design for use at Treasure Shores Park, but due to FEMA
requirements to elevate the structure on piles the plans
were never used.
55
NOV
MOV i9 1991
EkOOK 84 EAU C SC
County staff will prepare and provide Coastal Technology
with a traffic study, landscape plan, and
boundary/.topographic survey for permit submittals. Coastal
Technology will prepare and submit permit applications to
the Saint John's Water Management District, the Department
of Transportation and Indian River County. Construction
phase services inclyding assembling the.contractdocuments,
bidding, shop drawing review, inspections, change orders,
pay estimates, as -built survey, and preparation of record
drawings and certifications will be provided by the County.
ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS
The alternatives are as follows:
Alternative No. 1
Authorize the attached Agreement between Indian
River County and Coastal Technology. Since
Coastal Technology prepared the FRDAP grant
application, the firm is very knowledgeable of
Round Island Park and the site conditions.
Alternative No. 2
Issue a request for proposals -and select a firm to
perform the services in accordance with CCNA
procedures. This alternative will delay project
implementation and may result in a higher cost.
RECOMMENDATIONS AND FUNDING
Staff recommends that Alternative No. 1 be approved.
Funding is budgeted in Parks Department Fund
001-210-572-033.13.
OP
56
Commissioner Eggert wanted to be sure we are not contracting
with Coastal Tech automatically and skipping the bid process just
because they did the first phase of this project.
Public Works Director Davis explained this design contract is
below the CCNA (Competitive Consultant Negotiation Act) threshold
of ten thousand dollars. He also felt the bid process is time-
consuming for staff, and everyone else, and Coastal Tech has
performed well on other projects.
Commissioner Bowman was concerned about the drainage and
surface water runoff in this.
Mr. Davis assured her drainage and storm water management are
addressed in the contract.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by
Commissioner Wheeler, the Board unanimously approved
and authorized the Chairman to execute the agreement
with Coastal Tech for engineering services relative
to Round Island Park Site Improvements in the amount
of $9,990, as recommended by staff.
SAID AGREEMENT IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF
CLERK TO THE BOARD
PETITION FOR WATER SERVICE IN COURTSIDE SUBDIVISION - 38TH SQUARE,
SW, NORTH OFF 5TH STREET SW
The Board reviewed memo from Assessment Projects Manager James
Chastain dated November 1, 1991:
DATE: NOVEMBER 1, 1991
TO:
JAMES E. CHANDLER
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
FROM: TERRANCE G. PINTO
DIRECTOR OF UTILITY SERVICES
PREPARED JAMES D. CHAST
AND STAFFED MANAGER OF AS
BY: DEPARTMENT OF
SUBJECT:
NT PROJECTS
ITY SERVICES
PETITION FOR WATER SERVICE IN COURTSIDE S/D
38TH SQUARE, SW - NORTH OFF 5TH STREET, SW
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY PROJECT NO. UW -92 -02 -DS
BACKGROUND
A petition has been received for a water main extension for
Courtside Subdivision/38th Square, SW, to supply potable water to
its residents. We are 'now coming to the Board of County
Commissioners to seek approval to begin design of the above project.
(See attached petition and plat map.)
57
NOV 191991
BOOK 84 PAGE 8S 7
411SV 129 199 POOK 84 f.,.GE 8 j8,
ANALYSIS
The subdivision contains 29 lots, which shall benefit
project. The 20 property owners signing the petition
68.97% of the properties to be served.
All of the lots in this project presently have septic
wells, with which the property owners have concerns
potential health hazards.
The attached map displays the area to benefit from the assessment
project.
This project is to be paid through the assessment of property owners
along the proposed waterline route. In the interim, financing will
be through the use of impact fee funds. Design services will be
provided by the Department of Utility Services.
RECOMMENDATION
The staff of the Department of Utility Services recommends approval
of the above -listed project, in order that they may proceed with the
design engineering work in preparation for the special assessment
project.
from this
represent
tanks and
regarding
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Scurlock, the Board unanimously
approved the project for water service in Courtside
Subdivision, 38th Square S.W., north off 5th Street
S.W., and ordered staff to proceed with design
engineering work in preparation for the special
assessment, as recommended by staff.
PHASE I DEVELOPMENT OF THE NORTH COUNTY WATER TREATMENT FACILITY
The Board reviewed memo from Projects Engineer William McCain
dated October 24, 1991:
DATE: OCTOBER 24, 1991
TO:
FROM:
STAFFED AND
PREPARED BY: WILLIAM cCAIN
CAPITAL• NGINEER
DEPAR u- T •F UTILITY SERVICES
JAMES E. CHANDLER
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
TERRANCE G. PINT
DIRECTOR OF UTIL
SUBJECT:
PHASE I DEVELOPMENT OF THE NORTH COUNTY WATER
TREATMENT FACILITY
IRC PROJECT NO. UW -92 -01 -WC
BACKGROUND:
In preparation for the construction of Phase I of the North County
Water Treatment Plant (WTP), we have brought several previous items
to the Board of County Commissioners for approval. They are as
follows:
58
1) Board of County Commissioners' approval for the in-house
design of water transmission lines from Hobart Park to
State Road 512, to serve the North County Middle and High
Schools. This item included an explanation of the
necessity of the North County Water Plant facility to
provide fireflow to these facilities (see attached agenda
item and minutes approved on August 13, 1991). As can be
seen from this agendaitem, this project must be expedited
due to the proposed construction schedule for the North
County High School.
2) Board of County Commissioners' approval for the design of
the North County Water Distribution System with Post,
Buckley, Schuh and Jernigan (see attached agenda item and
minutes approved on November 6, 1990).
3) Board of County Commissioners' approval of Phase I of the
North County Water Distribution System with Post, Buckley,
Schuh and Jernigan. This project was a stop -gap measure
to interconnect several package water plants on U.S.
Highway 1, with the intention_ of taking them off-line
as soon as a North County water facility could be
constructed (see attached agenda item and minutes approved
on September 25, 1990).
We have now completed negotiations with our water plant consultant,
Camp Dresser and McKee Inc., for Phase I of the North County WTP
(see attached scope of services and work authorization).
ANALYSIS:
The first phase of the North County WTP will mainly consist of the
following:
1) 2 million gallon prestressed concrete ground storage tank
2) Pumping station with booster pumps, piping, tank, chlorine
room, etc.
3) Emergency generator and associated fuel storage
4) Water main connections, instrumentation, and associated
electrical work
The intent of this contract is not only to provide the above -listed
facilities, but also to perform the preliminary engineering design
report for the entire facility, and complete all associated
permitting relative to the plant (i.e., brine discharge, DER, and
site plan approval). After these tasks are completed, we intend to
come back to the Board with a final design and construction contract
for the whole facility. For a full understanding of the scope of
this project, please see the attached scope of services and work
authorization with Camp Dresser and McKee Inc.
The total estimated construction cost of Phase I of this project is
$2,037,180.00, with engineering costs as follows:
1) Site planning for Hobart Park R.O. Plant $ 53,021.00
with all associated permitting for site
plan approval
2) Preliminary engineering for Phase I 27,300.00
of this facility
3) Final design, bidding, and general 142,600.00*
services during construction (7% of
construction costs)
59
NOV 19199)
BOOK
84 rtv,E889
4) Resident project inspection (2.8% of
construction costs)
5) Permitting services (for Phase I
pumping station, etc.)
6) Provide preliminary R.O. plant
engineering and all permitting
for ultimate plant
Total:
BOOK
FAG
57,000.00*
14,600.00
91,304.00
$385,825.00
* Note: Figure will be adjusted when firm construction costs are
known.
Funding for design of this project will be from the impact fees.
RECOMMENDATION:
The staff of the Department of Utility Services recommends that the
Board of County Commissioners approve the attached work
authorization with Camp Dresser and McKee Inc. in the amount of
$385,825.00.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by
Commissioner Eggert, the Board unanimously approved
and authorized the Chairman to execute the work
authorization with Camp Dresser & McKee, Inc., in
the amount of $385,825.00, as recommended by staff.
SAID WORK ORDER IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF
CLERK TO THE BOARD
SEPTAGE HANDLING FACILITY AT THE NORTH COUNTY WASTEWATER TREATMENT
PLANT
The Board reviewed memo from Capital Projects Engineer William
McCain dated October 31, 1991:
60
DATE: OCTOBER 31, 1991
TO:
FROM:
JAMES E. CHANDLER
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
TERRANCE G. PINTO
DIRECTOR OF UTILITY SERVICES
PREPARED WILLIAM F McCAIN
AND STAFFED CAPITAL •'+JECTS ENGINEER
BY: i DEPARTMOF UTILITY SERVICES
SUBJECT:
SEPTAGE HANDLING FACILITY AT THE NORTH COUNTY
WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT (WWTP)
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY PROJECT NO. SE -92 -01 -DC
BACKGROUND
For the past several years, the Department of Utility Services has
been operating an interim septage handling facility at the Gifford
WWTP. The Regional Sludge/Septage and Grease Facility construction
contract was awarded on September 24, 1991 (see attached Agenda Item
and Minutes dated September 24, 1991) and is due to be under
construction in the next several months. The Regional Facility is
to be constructed at the Gifford WWTP site, requiring the existing
temporary facility to be removed. To this end, we are proposing to
construct another septage receiving facility at our North County
WWTP site for continued processing. This septage facility will be
in full operation for at least two years during the construction of
the Regional Facility and will serve in the future as a permanent
emergency septage dumping facility. Design of the receiving
facility at the North County WWTP has been completed in-house, and
we are now seeking the Board of ..County Commissioners' approval to
proceed with its construction.
ANALYSIS
An itemized list of expenditures relative to the proposed North
County septage receiving facility is as follows:
1. Precast concrete holding/receiving tank with $1,210.00
O'Malley Precast (see attached proposal for
signature). Three quotes were received for
this structure and are attached (range of
$1,210.00 - $1,893.00).
2. ABS Pumps and all miscellaneous installation 4,316.00
materials (see attached ABS proposal for
signature). _
•
3. Excavation and compaction for tank installation 600.00
(see attached proposal from Tri -County
Excavating for signature).
4. Crane services for off-loading and setting of 400.00
precast tank (not to exceed cost).
5. Miscellaneous piping and electrical material - 1,500.00
all installation is to be performed by staff
(not to exceed cost).
6. Control panel for facility to be relocated 0
from existing Temporary Sludge Facility.
7. Soil compaction tests. 250.00
TOTAL COST TO BE EXPENDED (labor not
included, will be performed by field
personnel)
61
NOV 191991
$8,276.00
ROOK. 64 F',1GE 80i
r
CV I
'991
BOOK 84
PAGE 892
At this time, the Department of Utility Services is requesting
approval of the attached proposals from ABS Pumps, O'Malley Precast,
and Tri -County Excavating. We are also requesting approval of all
other expenditures as outlined above. Funding for this project will
be from the Impact Fee Fund.
RECOMMENDATION
The staff of the Department of Utility Services recommend that the
Board of County Commissioners approve the above -referenced project
in its entirety.
MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED
by Commissioner Eggert, to approve the entire
project for Septage Handling Facility at the North
County Wastewater Treatment Plant, as recommended by
staff.
Under discussion, Commissioner Eggert noted that labor was not
included and asked how much labor would cost.
Utilities Services Director Terry Pinto said labor would be
performed by our field personnel and an exact figure has not been
computed but he expected it would be a couple thousand dollars.
THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION.
It was voted on and carried unanimously.
THREE CONTRACTS FOR SUBJECT PROJECT ARE ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF
CLERK TO THE BOARD
SOUTH COUNTY REVERSE OSMOSIS PLANT - CHANGE ORDER #2 AND ADDITIONAL
ENGINEERING SERVICES WITH CAMP DRESSER & MCKEE, INC.
The Board reviewed memo from Capital Projects Engineer William
McCain dated October 23, 1991:
62
DATE: OCTOBER 23, 1991
TO:
FROM:
PREPARED
AND STAFFED
BY:
SUBJECT:
JAMES E. CHANDLER
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
TERRANCE G. PINTO
DIRECTOR OF UTILITY S VICES
WILLI
CAPIT N. .
DEPAR`O ,41,0•
Jl
F McCAIN
OJ TS ENGINEER
UTILITY SERVICES
SO CO R.O. PLANT
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY PROJECT NO. UW -89 -07 -WC
CHANGE ORDER NO. 2 AND ADDITIONAL ENGINEERING
SERVICES WITH CAMP DRESSER & McKEE, INC.
BACKGROUND
The expansion of the South County Reverse Osmosis Plant (3 MGD
softening plant expansion) is now being finalized. °As a result of
this finalization, we are now bringing the final Change Order (No.
2) to the Commission for approval. As part of this Change Order, we
are proposing a penalty of $19,000.00 to the contractor to help
cover additional engineering fees due to a delay in substantial
completion of the project (see Item No. 3 below). As a result of
the contractor expediting the availability of 1.5 MGD of the new
expansion, we are proposing to waive the ordinary liquidated damages
in lieu of the contractor's picking up $19,000.00 out of a total of
$22,950.00 in additional engineering services. We feel this is
warranted, due to the early availability of the first 1.5 MGD skid
we were able to bring on line approximately 150,000 GPD of
previously permitted dry -line connections. The contractor was
substantially delayed by pulling his efforts toward providing the
first 1.5 MGD skid early due to the dry -line permit situation which
existed at that time. The actual final Change Order without this
item (see No. 3 on Attachment B) would be for a total increase of
$17,253.00, which is still less than .6% of the total construction
cost, and is well within acceptable limits for a project of this
size.
,ANALYSIS
Attached please find
Item Descriptions, B
Documentation. Also
Addendum No. 8 B-1.
follows:
NOV 19199
a copy of Change Order No. 2, Attachment A -
- Change order Cost Summary, C - Supporting
please see a copy of'CDM's Work Authorization
The items addressed_in this Change Order are as
1. 81 -day contract extension on substantial
completion
2. 81 -day contract extension on final
completion
3.* Credit for additional engineering costs
between February 25, 1991 and May 17, 1991
4. Increase for electrical specification
change
5. Increase for transformer vault safety
fencing
6. Increase due to conflict location of 10"
underground storm drain
7. Increase to contractor for additional fill
under new generator building
8. Increase for replacement of failed power
and control cables to Well No. 2 (emergency
action)
63
BOOK.
$ 0.00
$ 0.00
<$19,000.00>
$1,940.00
$1,233.00
$1,500.00
$1,691.00
$10,488.00
ov 1
x991
POOK
1
9. Credit for use of existing motor starters/ <$350.00>
with slight modification
10. Increase for additional insulation jacket $2,183.00
on sodium hydroxide storage tank
11. Increase for interfacing existing high $1,800.00
service pumps with new control wires
12. Increase for supply of 10" Dezurik valve $2,071.00
to replace failed valve
13. Increase for supply of second 10" valve, $1,097.00
only difference paid between replacement of
existing versus new
14. Credit for the deletion of one day O&M <$400.00>
generator training
15.** Credit to owner for deletion of Allen <$6,000.00>
Bradley training
Total - Change Order No. 2 <$1,747.00>
* As explained in the Background section of this Agenda Item,
this $19,000.00, along with $3,950.00 additional monies, will
allow the Utilities Department to pay for the engineering
services outlined in the attached Work Authorization Addendum
No. 8 B-1.
**
This credit will be utilized for Allen Bradley training at the
Utilities Department's discretion.
•
In addition to the above outlined changes, we also wish to be
authorized to purchase a temperature and humidity monitoring device
for the water plant's computer room at a cost of $450.00 (see
attached cut sheet).
In summary, the Board is requested to authorize the following
expenditures:
$ 22,950.00
$ 6,000.00
$ 450.00
for additional engineering services, $19,000 of
which is shown as a credit in Change Order No. 2.
for Allen Bradley computer training. This training
will encompass the time of several operators in
learning the capabilities.of the control software
for the plant. The advanoed course (also included)
will enable the operator to manipulate screen
readout as well as generate and modify monthly
performance reports.
for the purchase of the above -listed monitoring
equipment.
$ 29,400.00 Total monies to be expended
/ RECOMMENDATION
The Board is requested to approve Work Authorization Addendum No.
8 B-1 with CDM, and Change Order No. 2 for a deduct of $1,747.00 to
the South County R.O. Contract, and the expenditures outlined above.
MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED
by Commissioner Eggert, to approve Change Order #2
for a deduction of $1,747.00 and Work Authorization
Addendum No. 8 B-1 as summarized above, and to
authorize the Chairman to execute the necessary
documents, as recommended by staff.
64
Under discussion, Commissioner Scurlock asked' for
clarification on the finalization of the contract, retainage and
the $6,000 for training.
Director Pinto explained that staff has negotiated a good
contract to clear up the few punch -list items that are left. The
$6,000 will be used to send men out for training on an as -needed
basis and it will be at our discretion and under our control.
THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION.
It was voted on and carried unanimously.
SAID WORK AUTHORIZATION IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF
CLERK TO THE BOARD
AGREEMENT FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF CHARGES FOR PROVIDING WHOLESALE
WASTEWATER SERVICES TO CITY OF SEBASTIAN
The Board reviewed memo from Utility Services Director Terry
Pinto dated November 12, 1991:
DATE: NOVEMBER 12, 1991
TO: JAMES E. CHANDLER
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
FROM: TERRANCE G. PINTO
DIRECTOR OF UTIJITY'-'SERVICES
STAFFED AND HARRY E. ASHER
PREPARED BY: ASSISTANT DIREC'OR bF UTILITY SERVICES
SUBJECT: AGREEMENT FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF CHARGES FOR
PROVIDING WHOLESALE WASTEWATER SERVICES TO CITY OF
SEBASTIAN
BACKGROUND:
On April 3, 1990, the Board of County Commissioners approved the
Department's proposed agreement with CH2M Hill to furnish Economic
and Financial Consulting and Services as may be authorized by the
County from time to time. Task One of the agreement was to perform
a complete study and review of the utility ordinance and rate and
charges in effect at that time. Task One of the agreement was
completed and on March 12, 1991, the Board of County Commissioners
adopted Ordinance 91-9 and Resolution 91-31 adopting the -rates,
fees, and charges for use by the Department of Utility Services
effective April 1, 1991.
65
NOV 191991
FAL,E895
ANALYSIS:
POOK;'4 F'GC
As the Board of County Commissioners is aware, the City of'Sebastian
has requested a revocation or cancellation of the franchise given to
the County to provide water and wastewater service within the city
limits of the City of Sebastian. The County has agreed to
relinquish its franchise rights within the City and on March 13,
1991, the County sent a letter to the City offering to relinquish
its franchise rights. On April 5, 1991, the City conditionally
accepted the County's offer subject to completion of the necessary
documents containing the terms and conditions acceptable to both
parties, so that agreements, ordinances, and resolutions may be
rescinded in such manner as to not impact third parties.
The County and City staff members have met on several occasions to
work out interim plans to effect the separation of the utility
systems and are developing the provisions of.an interlocal agreement
as an acceptable way to satisfy the concerns of all parties. One
provision of the interlocal agreement would be for Indian River
County to accept and treat wastewater generated within the
wastewater system owned and operated by the City of Sebastian. This
provision will require the County to "Develop a nondiscriminatory,
cost -of -service rate to be charged to the City for treatment of the
wastewater, which rate shall take into account the fact that the
City is utility service provider for all classes of units within the
City. The rates and components which make up the rates would be
attached and incorporated into the agreement."
The Department reviewed these requirements with CH2M Hill, its rate
consultant, and requested a Scope of Services for the development of
gates and charges for providing wholesale wastewater service to the
'City of Sebastian. The fee for providing the Scope of Services
under Work Authorization Six (attached) will be $9,640.00, with a
charge of $1,490.00 for additional meetings if required. The
project is to be funded from account No. 471-218-536-033.19 (other
professional services - wastewater).
RECOMMENDATION:
The staff of the Department of Utility Services recommends approval
of the attached Work Authorization Six and authorization for the
Chairman of the Board of County Commissioners to execute the
agreement.
Commissioner Scurlock was concerned about an article in the
newspaper which reported that someone from CH2M Hill was contacted
by the press and hung up on the reporter. Mr. Scurlock talked to
the reporter and she confirmed the occurrence. He wanted to bei,
sure this behavior does not reflect on the County because Indian'
River County employees and agents should be polite and courteous.
At the very least, the reporter could have been referred to our
County Administrator.
County Administrator Chandler agreed there is no question we
are supposed to be accessible and responsive to people.
Commissioner Scurlock felt the message would be conveyed and
recognized Mr. McIntyre in the audience and assumed he heard the
comment.
66
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by
Commissioner Wheeler, the Board unanimously approved
and authorized the Chairman to execute Work
Authorization 6 with CH2M Hill for Development of
Charges for Providing Wholesale Wastewater Services
to City of Sebastian, as recommended by staff.
SAID WORK AUTHORIZATION IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF
CLERK TO THE BOARD
ROSELAND PLAZA FORCE MAIN - FINAL PAY REQUEST AND CHANGE ORDER
The Board reviewed memo from Utility Services Director Terry
Pinto dated November 5, 1991:
DATE: NOVEMBER 5, 1991
TO: JAMES E. CHANDLER
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
FROM: TERRANCE G. PINTO
DIRECTOR OF UTILITI%SER "ZICES
PREPARED NOEL J. McMAHON l�
AND STAFFED ENVIRONMENTAL SPE I LIST"
BY: DEPARTMENT OF UTILITY S RVICES
SUBJECT:
ROSELAND PLAZA FORCE MAIN
FINAL PAY REQUEST AND CHANGE ORDER
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY PROJECT NO. US -91 -30 -CS
BACKGROUND
The Indian River County Board of County Commissioners approved, on
October 1, 1991, the installation of the force main to connect
Roseland Plaza to the North County Sewer System. This was done to
eliminate the Roseland Plaza wastewater treatment plant. The
aforementioned project is now complete.
ANALYSIS
Attached please find the Final Pay Request in the amount of
$1,373.86. Also attached is Change Order No. 1, with a net increase
of $700.00 for the removal of three trees and additional excavation,
as was necessitated by site conditions.
RECOMMENDATION
The staff of the Department of Utility Services recommends that the
Board of County Commissioners approve the attached Change Order and
Final Pay Request.
67
NOV
BOOK 8 PAE 8U 4
env19ii1
BOOK
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by
Commissioner Eggert, the Board unanimously approved
and authorized the Chairman to execute the Change
Order #1 to the Line Extension and Miscellaneous
Labor Contract Work Authorization No. 2 with
Driveways, Inc., and the Final Pay Request on the
same contract in the amount of $1,373.86, as
recommended by staff.
SAID DOCUMENTS ARE ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF
CLERK TO THE BOARD
ROSELAND PLAZA UTILITIES - DISPOSAL OF TREATMENT PLANTS
The Board reviewed memo from Utility Services Director Terry
Pinto dated November 12, 1991:
DATE: NOVEMBER 12, 1991
TO: JAMES E. CHANDLER
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
FROM: TERRANCE G. PINTA
/
DIRECTOR OF UTILiTi SERVIC
PREPARED NOEL J. McMAHON
AND STAFFED ENVIRONMENTAL SP IAL T
BY: DEPARTMENT OF UTILITY SERVICES
SUBJECT: ROSELAND PLAZA UTILITIES
DISPOSAL OF TREATMENT PLANTS
BACKGROUND
The Indian River County Board of County Commissioners on August 14,
1990, approved the takeover agreement of the Roseland Plaza
Utilities; i.e., water and wastewater, including distribution and
collection piping systems. On October 1, 1991, the Board approved
the installation of a four -inch force main from the existing
Roseland Plaza lift station to an existing manhole in the North
County Sewer System. (See attached agenda item dated September 17,
1991.)
ANALYSIS
i The four -inch force main was installed and the wastewater treatment
plant was taken off line on October 23, 1991. The terms of the
above takeover agreement state that the County must remove the waste
treatment plant after the Plaza is connected to .the North County
Sewer System.
Any cost associated with the removal of this treatment plant will be
funded from the impact fee fund. This plant has little or no value.
'Any parts that can be used in other County owned treatment plants
,have been removed.
RECOMMENDATION
The staff of the Department of Utility Services recommends that the
Board of County Commissioners authorize the Department of Utility
Services to negotiate with a vendor for the removal of the Roseland
Plaza Wastewater Treatment Plant. 68
ON MOTION by Commis
Commissioner Eggert
authorized the Depar
negotiate with a vend
Plaza wastewater trea
Toner Scurlock, SECONDED by
the Board unanimously
ment of Utility Services to
r for removal of the Roseland
went plant.
SAID DOCUMENT WILL BE P CED ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF
CLERK TO THE BOARD
WHEN FULLY EXECUTED AND RECEIVED
COUNTY BOARDS SITTING AS QUA
County Attorney Vitunac
explains that when the Board
judge. He quoted, "The stron
to the establishment of rul
judges apply with equal force
or quasi-judicial functions
paraphrase this case into an
that for matters which are sc
an advertised public hearing
to speak and the other parti
which is not a rezoning matt
should consider that the B
capacity. In the cited case,
or a special exception wer
matter. There are othe
administrative permits, and s
judicial but they are not cov
were not in this case.
Commissioner Scurlock a
all matters that require pub
Commission level, period.
Attorney Vitunac adde
Commissioner has a right to
legislative function.
Commissioner Wheeler re ognized the intent of this rule but
felt it could be carried too far and could move the Commissioners
farther away from their constituents. As a result, we may end up
with elected officials operating in a vacuum. He cited examples of
issues where on-site inspections or consultation with staff may be
necessary to make a decision. He felt the situations where the
Board acts as a judge are rare and parties in those situations have
the recourse of appeal to a court.
I -JUDICIAL BODIES
distributed copies of case law which
sits as a judge, it must act like a
constitutional compulsions which led
s regarding the disqualification of
to every tribunal exercising judicial
Attorney Vitunac attempted to
asy rule we can all follow. He said
eduled to come before the Board with
notice for which a party has a right
s have a right to give evidence and
r or a comprehensive plan change, we
and is acting in a quasi-judicial
people who advertised for a variance
considered to be a quasi-judicial
matters, such as subdivisions,
to plan appeals, that are also quasi -
red in this case simply because they
ked if a simple rule would be that
is hearing be dealt with here at the
that as an elected official, a
alk about rezoning because that is a
69
NOV 19198
POGK b4FA.GE 89
N V 1991
BOOK 84 PAGE 'JUG
Attorney Vitunac agreed and added that, in fact, an essential
element is that damage to a plaintiff caused by a one-sided
communication would have to be proven in court.
Commissioner Wheeler felt this rule was directed at one-sided
communication. He recalled that when controversial issues have
come up, Commissioners have spoken with all parties.
Commissioner Scurlock made the point that certain subjects may
be discussed in one-sided private conversations which are not
brought up in the public forum but may weigh heavily in the
decision making process.
Commissioner Wheeler felt there is a remedy in the right to
appeal. He agreed with the concept but stressed the need to keep
government accessible to the citizens.
Commissioner Eggert felt the advertising of public hearings
gives complaining parties the opportunity to be heard.
Attorney Vitunac gave an example of a child care facility
where the complaining party would be a neighbor. All that neighbor
has to do is say there was (a) one-sided communication with a
Commissioner and (b) he was prejudiced by it. This rule says he
has a right to go to circuit court and that would add another six
months and a lot of expense to every issue that went before the
Board.
Commissioner Eggert led discussion regarding a particular
instance where members of the Board were told they could not or
should not meet with someone who already held a development order.
She could not understand how that would fall in the category of
quasi-judicial when it has already gone through all the processes.
Chairman Bird recalled that incident and there was a question
and the matter was referred to the County Attorney, whose advice
was there might be a conflict of interest and we should avoid
talking to this individual.
Attorney Vitunac felt this subject would be explored further
and may result in legislation. His advice was that if there is an
advertised public hearing at which an applicant will get a permit
if he makes a certain showing of facts, then the Board is acting as
a judge. The exception would be rezoning and comprehensive plan
land uses. He further explained that if a decision is totally
discretionary of the Board, then it is legislative. If the
decision is made on the showing of the applicant, then it is
judicial.
70
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.
There being no further business, on Motion duly made, seconded
and carried, the Board adjourned at 11:00 o'clock A. M.
ATTEST:
NOV 191991
arton, Clerk Richard N. Bird, Chairman
71
NOOK 84 PAGE 501