HomeMy WebLinkAbout3/10/1992BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
AGENDA
REGULAR MEETING
TUESDAY, MARCH 10, 1992
9:00 A.M. - COUNTY COMMISSION CHAMBER
COUNTY ADMINISTRATION BUILDING
1840 25TH STREET
VERO BEACH, FLORIDA
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Carolyn K. Eggert, Chairman
Margaret C. Bowman, Vice Chairman
Richard N. Bird
Don C. Scurlock, Jr.
Gary C. Wheeler
9:0_ I. CALL TO ORDER
James E. Chandler, County Administrator
Charles
P.
Vitunac,
County
Attorney
Jeffrey
K.
Barton,
Clerk to
the Board
2. INVOCATION - None
3. 'PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - Comm. Richard N. Bird
4. ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA/EMERGENCY ITEMS
a. Chaiman Eggert noted Item 9 B.3, should be moved to Item 11 H A , & req.
addns. of discussion on Policy on Review Comnittees.
b. Comn'r. Wheeler req. addn of a Request to the Board. (Item 13E)
S. PROCLAMATION AND PRESENTATIONS
Adoption and presentation of Proclamation Honoring John
Tippin for His Many Years of Service on the Indian River
County Planning and Zoning Commission
6. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Special Meeting of 1/24/92
7. CONSENT AGENDA
A. Accept Resignation of Louis Parante from TPC; Approval
W. Lynn Velde as Replacement
(letter received 2/27/92)
B. Acceptance of John Tippin's Resignation from P 8 Z
Commission; Appointment of John Marino to Complete
the Unexpired Term
(letter dated February 25, 1992)
C. Affordable Housing Advisory Committee
( memorandum dated February 28; 1992 )
D. Community Services Block Grant Housing Rehabilitation
Program Federal Fiscal Year 1992
( memorandum dated February 28, 1992 )
E. Release of Easement Request by Larry G. Bender, Lots
1 8 2, Blk. 10, King's Highlands Subdivision
( memorandum dated February 27, 1992 )
MAR 10 1992 �';nK s,
R 10 NS2
9:05 a. m.
7. CONSENT AGENDA (cont'd. ):
F. Bid #92-72 / North County Water Dist. System Phase
( memorandum dated February 27, 1992 )
G. Florida East Coast Railway (F. E. C.) Lease Agreement
with Citrus Utilities ( Reflections)
( memorandum dated February 27, 1992 )
H. Citation Procedures for Code Enforcement - Request
to Schedule Public Hearing
( memorandum dated March 4, 1992 )
i . Cancellation of Taxes on Certain Property Acquired
by Indian River County
( memorandum dated March 2, 1992 )
J. Cancellation of Delinquent Taxes R/W Acquisition -
Parcel 101, C:R. 510
( memorandum dated February 19, 1992 )
S. CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS AND
GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES
None
9. PUBLIC ITEMS
A. PUBLIC DISCUSSION ITEMS
Request for Board Clarification; LAAC Purpose, Goals
and Objectives
( memorandum dated February 18, 1992 )
B. PUBLIC HEARINGS
I. County Initiated Rezoning of Approx. 3 Acres
From CN to RM -8
( memorandum dated March 2, 1992 )
2. Anderton Investments, Inc. and Mills Request to
Rezone Approximately 46.26 Acres from A-1 to
RS -3 .and RM -8
( memorandum dated February 19, 1992 )
3. Silver Oaks / 51st Court Water Line Assessment
Project Final Assessment Roll and Res. No. 4
( memorandum dated February 27, 1992 )
4. AN ORDINANCE OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY,
FLORIDA, UPDATING THE STANDARD TECH-
NICAL CODES TO REFLECT THE LATEST
EDITIONS AND AN EDITORIAL CHANGE
( memorandum dated February 19, 1992 )
5. AN ORDINANCE OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY,
FLORIDA, PLACING RESTRICTIONS ON THE
PROCEEDS FROM THE SALE OF THE OLD
LIBRARY SITE
( memorandum dated February 12, 1992 )
6. Exchange of County -Owned Land Near Tracking
Station Park for Gifford Community Center Land
( memorandum dated February 6, 1992 )
10. COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S MATTERS
None
11. DEPARTMENTAL MATTERS
A.. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
None
B. EMERGENCY SERVICES
None
C. GENERAL SERVICES
None
D. LEISURE SERVICES
.None
E. OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
None
F. _ PERSONNEL
None
G. PUBLIC WORKS
Consulting Services for the Replacement of the 20th
Ave. Bridge over the South Relief Canal - Marshall,
McCully 6 Assoc., - Final Payment
( memorandum dated March 2, 1992 )
H. UTILITIES
I. No. Beach R.O. Plant Expansion
( memorandum dated February 18, 1992 )
2. No. County Wastewater Treatment (WWTP) Expansion
and Effluent Disposal, Phase II
( memorandum dated February 18, 1992 )
3. Silver Oaks / 51st Court Water Main Extension
Final Pay Request
( memorandum dated February 26, 1992 )
12. COUNTY ATTORNEY
Claim of William Taylor for Unclaimed Tax Funds
( memorandum dated February 26, 1992 )
13. COMMISSIONERS ITEMS
A. CHAIRMAN CAROLYN K. EGGERT
B. VICE CHAIRMAN MARGARET C. BOWMAN
r- r
'-A A-.iC J
BOOK FA.' F.
13. COMMISSIONERS ITEMS (cont'd.):
C. COMMISSIONER RICHARD N. BIRD
D. COMMISSIONER DON C. SCURLOCK, JR.
E. COMMISSIONER GARY C. WHEELER
14. SPECIAL DISTRICTS
A.__ NORTH COUNTY FIRE DISTRICT
None
B. SOUTH COUNTY FIRE DISTRICT
None
C. SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL DISTRICT
1. Approval of Minutes - Meeting of 1/21/92
2. Approval of Minutes - Meeting of 2/4/92
3. IRC Bid #92-39 / Dragline Model 51-61
( memorandum dated February 27, 1992 )
4. Contract for Property Appraisals
( memorandum dated March 2, 1992 )
15. ADJOURNMENT
ANYONE WHO MAY WISH TO APPEAL ANY DECISION WHICH MAY BE MADE
AT THIS MEETING WILL NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD OF
THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE WHICH INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY AND
EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL WILL BE BASED.
Tuesday, March 10, 1992
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, March 10, 1992,
at 9:00 o'clock A. M. Present were Carolyn K. Eggert, Chairman;
Margaret C. Bowman; Vice Chairman, Richard N. Bird, Gary C.
Wheeler, 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.
Commissioner Richard N. Bird led the Pledge of Allegiance to
the Flag.
ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA/EMERGENCY ITEMS
Chairman Eggert noted Item 9.B.3., Silver Oaks Final
Assessment, was incorrectly shown as a public hearing and should be
moved to 11.H.4. She also requested the addition of a discussion
on Policy on Review Committees.
Commissioner Wheeler requested addition of a Request to the
Board.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bowman, SECONDED by
Commissioner Scurlock, the Board unanimously added
and moved the above items to the Agenda.
PROCLAMATION AND PRESENTATION
Adoption and Presentation of Proclamation Honoring John Tiepin for
His Manv Years of Service on the Indian River County Planning and
Zoning Commission
Chairman Eggert read aloud the following Proclamation honoring
John Tippin for his service on the Indian River County Planning and
Zoning Commission and presented it to him.
BOOK
GEAR 110 1
MAR i 0 1992 BOOK
P R O C L A M A T I O N
HONORING JOHN TIPPIN
FOR HIS MANY YEARS OF SERVICE
ON THE INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
WHEREAS,. John Tippin was appointed to '.the Indian River
County Planning and Zoning Commission on September 24, 1980; and
WHEREAS, John has served with distinction as Vice Chairman
of that board from 1981 to 1986; and
WHEREAS, he was unanimously elected chairman of the Indian
River County Planning and Zoning Commission on July 24, 1986, and
has remained in the chairmanship of that board until his
resignation effective March 10, 1992; and
WHEREAS, John Tippin has been diligent in recognizing
private property rights in all requests presented to the Indian
River County Planning and Zoning Commission; and -
WHEREAS, Mr. Tippin always conducted orderly and dignified
meetings, identifying each meeting in its numerical sequence, and
he gave much 'food for thought' at each meeting through his well
known monologues; and
WHEREAS, John Tippin devoted many voluntary hours to this
county, sharing his knowledge and experience in a variety of
planning and zoning matters; and
WHEREAS, John was involved in -the 1982 and 1990
Comprehensive Land Use Plans and many amendments to the plans:
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT PROCLAIMED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS of Indian River County, Florida, that special
thanks and appreciation be given to John Tippin for his years of
diligent and dedicated service on the Indian River County
Planning and Zoriing Commission, and
The Board further extends to John Tippin best wishes in all
his future endeavors.
Adopted this 10th day of March, 1992.
`A
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Indian River County, Florida
Carolyn Egyert," iairman
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
The Chairman asked if there were any additions or corrections
to the Minutes of the Special Meeting of January 24, 1992. There
were none.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Wheeler, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bowman, the Board approved the Minutes
of the Special Meeting of January 24, 1992 as
written.
CONSENT AGENDA
A. Accept Resignation of Louis Parente from TPC
,ARproval of W. Lynn Velde as Replacement
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by
Commissioner Wheeler, the Board unanimously
accepted, with regret, the resignation of Louis
Parente from the Transportation Committee, and
appointed W. Lynn Velde to fill the vacancy.
B. Acceptance of John Tippin's Resignation from P & Z Commission
Appointment of John Marino to Complete the Unexpired Term
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by
Commissioner Wheeler, the Board unanimously
accepted, with regret, the resignation of John W.
Tippin from the County Planning and Zoning
Commission, and appointed John Marino to complete
the unexpired term.
C. Affordable Housing Advisory Committee
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by
Commissioner Wheeler, the Board unanimously
appointed Margaret Rocke to the Affordable Housing
Advisory Committee as representative from the Indian
River County Housing Authority.
D. Community Services Block Grant Housing Rehabilitation Program
Federal Fiscal Year 1992
The Board reviewed memo from I.R.C. Housing Authority Director,
Guy Decker dated February 28, 1992;
3
BOOK
AP U 1992 BOOK
TO: The Honorable Me mrs of the DATE: February 2s, 1992 FILE:
Board of County Commissianei s , A '
7iIIiQIGH: H. T. 'Soong' Dean, Director
Department of General Sevin
CcmmmitY Se=viaes Block Grant
Homin9Rehabilitation Program
Federal Fiscal Year 1992
6
FROM: Guy L. Daces, Jr., ' r REFERENCES:
Soeaitive Director
I.R.C. Housing Authority
It is reornaended that the data herein presented be given formal
consideration by the County Commission.
• •i' r' • • •• • • ,
Tine State of Florida's Depart of Conn ty Affairs has
«nae again
allocated $6,097 to Indian River County under their CSBG
Fusing authority would ; i,t; ; �4 dam• and the
tine housing aorus.,i t; n,: this grant to Provide
rehabilita-
tion which activates retnabilitati an funding
from metal sources • Timis p=ocgam wzU. man from April -1. 1992 to
September' 30, 1992.
The Farmers Home Ado; ni stration Section 504 Program provides bousi n
rehabilitation loans and grants to low-mcome and fly persons who lack
the finances to make their homes decent, safe and sanitary and free of
bealth and safety defects.
This 1992 Program is targeted in the Sebastian Area of the County and
14 lows -income and elderly owners will have their homes
and sanitary standards. It's also brought up tsafe
targeted in i�Tabasso and Winter Beach ach Areas.
AUTMATTwnc mD A—LYSIS:
This is our tenth year of finding under legislation passed by the
Cis which Consolidates varion social Program into the block grant
categories.
•,a1• -1 • •
' "Pectfully z"Quest the County Commission to authoriue its Ch -Ar-
man to emx=te the Award Agreement for submission to the
Canmani.ty Affairs for this CSBG g rant. artmmnt of
This 4 or
for fourteen 1il7 about imPMOvements in safety and sanitation
4) homixmners"th an average cost of $5, 000
$6,097 grant plus $2,69'? in cash and in -hind contributions y the unit. Tine
Authority Will be Supp ted with $72,000 in loans and grants f
Farmers Home Administration rom the
nistration.
This
pV0Wam rern•i n m no additional County funds.
4
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by
Commissioner Wheeler, the Board unanimously
authorized the Chairman to execute the Community
Services Block Grant Award Agreement for submission
to the Department of Community Affairs, as
recommended by staff.
PARTIALLY SIGNED COPY OF AWARD AGREEMENT
IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF CLERK TO THE BOARD
E. Release of Easement Request by Larry G. Bender. Lots 1 & 2
Block 10, Kings Highlands Subdivision
The Board reviewed memo from Code Enforcement Officer Charles
Heath dated February 27, 1992:
TO: James E. Chandler
County Administrator
DIVISION HAD CONCURRENCE:
A 44=0
iobert V. SerrFingICP
Community Devi _12t. Director
THROUGH: Roland M. DeBlois, AICP
Chief, Environmental Planning
& Code Enforcement
FROM: Charles W. Heath
Code Enforcement Officer
DATE: February 27, 1992
SUBJECT: RELEASE OF EASEMENT REQUEST BY:
Larry G. Bender
Lots 1 & 21 Block 10, King's Highlands Subdivision
It is hereby requested that the data herein presented be given
formal consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their
regular meeting of March 10, 1992.
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS:
The County has been petitioned by Larry G. Bender, owner of the
subject property, for the release of the common three (3) foot side
lot utility and .drainage easements of Lots 1 & 21 Block 10, King's
Highlands Subdivision. It is the petitioner's intention to come
into compliance with county regulations by eliminating an easement
over which an existing residence has been built.
The residence was constructed with a valid building permit in July
of 1979. Since no easements were shown on the submitted building
plans, those plans were approved under permit no. 13807, dated July
25, 1979.
The current zoning classification of the property is RS -61 Single -
Family Residential District. The Land Use Designation is L-21 Low
Density Residential, allowing up to six (6) units per acre.
5
GOOK
MAR 101
MAR, 1 1992
,VIK
ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS:
The request has been reviewed by the Southern Bell Telephone
Company, Florida Power & Light Company, United Artists Cable
Corporation, the Indian River County Utilities Department and the
Road and Bridge and Engineering Divisions. Based upon their
reviews, staff has determined that release of the easements would
not result in -any adverse impact to utilities being supplied to the
subject property.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends to the Board, through the adoption of a
resolution, the release of the common three (3) foot side lot
utility and drainage easements of Lots 1 & 2, Block 10, King's
Highlands Subdivision, being the southerly three (3) feet of Lot 1,
and the northerly three (3) feet of Lot 2, according to the plat
thereof as recorded in Plat Book 4, Page 90 of the Public Records
of Indian River County, Florida.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by
Commissioner Wheeler, the Board unanimously adopted
Resolution 92-42 abandoning certain easements in the
King's Highlands Subdivision, Lots 1 & 2, Block 10,
as recommended by staff.
F,r'(J' ',EHIFIED
C O R R E C T I V E * JEFFREY K. BARTON
:LERK CIRCUIT COURT
RESOLUTION NO. 92-42 NOIAN RIVER CO., FLA
RECORD VERIFIEU A RESOLUTION OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA,
JEFFREY K. BARTON ABANDONING CERTAIN EASEMENTS IN THE KING'S
0 CLERK CIRCUIT COURT HIGHLANDS SUBDIVISION, LOTS 1 & 2, BLOCK 10,
P INDIAN RIVER CO., FLA ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF AS RECORDED IN
z PLAT BOOK 4, PAGE 90 OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF
A INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA.
za
0
0
Ha WHEREAS, Indian River County has easements as described below,
Q W and
AH
0 z WHEREAS, the retention of those easements serves no public
U H
W
z o purpose,
wz
p"w NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of County
wx Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida that:
o� w
W
This release of easement is executed by Indian River County,
H
E-4
a Florida, a political subdivision of the State of Florida, whose
Z
0 mailing address is 1840 25th Street, Vero Beach, Florida 32960,
0 H H Grantor, to Larry G. Bender, his successors in interest, heirs and
wz
H a u assigns, whose mailing address is 4695 57th Avenue, Vero Beach,
=0W
H U A Florida 32967 Grantee, as follows:
6
c0
cm
w
Indian River County does hereby abandon all right, title and
interest that it may have in the following described easements:
the common three (3) foot side lot utility and drainage
easements of Lots 1 & 2, Block 10, King's Highlands
Subdivision, being the northerly three (3) feet of Lot 2,
and the -Southerly three (3) feet of Lot -1, as recorded
in Plat Book 4, Page 90; Section 21, Township 32 South,
Range 39 East, Qf the Public Records of Indian River County.
THIS RESOLUTION was moved for adoption by Commissioner
Scurlock
L
, seconded by Commissioner Wheeler
and adopted on the 10 day of _ March , 1992, by the
following vote:
G,
Commissioner Carolyn K. Eggert Aye
�- Commissioner Gary C. Wheeler Aye
zCommissioner Richard N. Bird Aye
v� Commissioner Margaret G. Bowman Aye
Commissioner Don C. Scurlock, Jr. _ Aye
The Chairman thereupon declared the resolution duly passed and
adopted this 10 , day of March , 1992.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
r.
By
Caroly K . ' Egg
Cha man - l
7
MOK
N
FF
MAR 10 1992, BOOK �� FA•;c �•�
F. Bid #92-72 - North County Water Distribution -System -Phase I
The Board reviewed memo from Purchasing Manager Fran Boynton
dated February 27, 1992:
DATE: February 27, 1992
TO: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
THRU: James E. Chandler, County Adm' 'strator
H.T. "Sonny" Dean, Director
Department of General Se
FROM: Fran Boynton, Purchasing Manager "V
SUBJ: 92-72/North County Water Dist. System Phase I
Utilities Department
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
Bid Opening Date: February 13, 1992
Specifications mailed to: Fourteen (14) Vendors
Replies: Eight (8) Vendors
VENDOR
BID TABULATION
1.TLC Diversified $204,062.00
West Palm Bch, FL
VENDOR
S.Schopke Const.
Melbourne, FL
BID TABULATION
$249,900.00
2.G.E. French $221,321.80 6.Vic Lane Const. $269,789.94
Okeechobee, FL Merritt Island, FL
3.GBS Excavating $221,637.53 7.JoBear $270,117.25
Ft Pierce, FL Palm Bay, FL
4.P & C Const. $226,973.70 8.Speegle Const. $311,196.50
Murdock, FL Cocoa, FL
TOTAL AMOUNT OF BID: $204,062.00
BUDGETED AMOUNT: $307,250.00
SOURCE OF FUNDS: Utilities Impact Fees
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the bid be awarded to TLC Diversified as the
lowest, most responsive and responsible bidder meeting specifica-
tions set forth in the Invitation to Bid.
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.
8
-I
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by
Commissioner Wheeler, the Board unanimously awarded
Bid 92-72 for North County Water Distribution System
Phase I to TLC Diversified, Inc., in the amount of
$204,062.00, and authorized the Chairman to execute
the agreement as set out in the above staff
recommendation.
SAID AGREEMENT
IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF CLERK TO THE BOARD
G. Florida East Coast Railway (FEC) Lease Agreement with Citrus
Utilities (Reflections)
The Board reviewed memo from Utility Services Director Terry
Pinto dated February 27, 1992:
DATE: FEBRUARY 27, 1992
TO: JAMES E. CHANDLER
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
FROM: TERRANCE G. PINTO
DIRECTOR OF UTILITY SERVICES
PREPARED LCA
LLI MCCAIN
AND STAFFED j�O�JESCTENGINEER
BY: ARTY SERVICES
SUBJECT: FLORIDA EAST COAST RAILWAY (F.E.C.) LEASE AGREEMENT
WITH CITRUS UTILITIES (REFLECTIONS)
BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS
On September 24, 1991, the Indian River County Board of County
Commissioners approved an agreement with Citrus Utilities
(Reflections) for connection to our sewer system (see attached
agenda item and minutes). As a result of this, we must now take
over the existing lease agreements with the F.E.C. for the
Reflections utility crossings (see attached lease agreements). The
attached agreements must first be executed by the Board.of County
Commissioners and then be returned to the F.E.C. for their
execution. We will then receive back two fully complete agreements.
RECOIDEMATION
The staff of the Department of Utility Services recommends that the
Board of County Commissioners execute the attached agreements with
the F.E.C. so that the changeover in facilities can be completed.
�j
MAR�� 1
`t
BOOK rNuE JRu
,
BOOK 8b PAGE �. 4
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by
Commissioner Wheeler, the Board unanimously approved
and authorized the Chairman to execute two
agreements with the Florida East Coast Railway in
connection with the Reflections utility crossings.
TWO AGREEMENTS
ARE ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF CLERK TO THE BOARD
H. Citation Procedures for Code Enforcement - Request to Schedule
Public Hearing
The Board reviewed memo from Assistant County Attorney Terry
O'Brien dated March 4, 1992:
TO: Board of County Commissioners
FROM: Terrence P. O'Brien - Assistant County Attorney"Itere)
DATE: March 4, 1992
SUBJECT.: CITATION PROCEDURES FOR CODE ENFORCEMENT
The Florida Legislature authorized local governments to adopt citation
procedures for the enforcement of local codes. Chapter 162, Florida
Statutes sets forth procedures for the enforcement of all of the codes
except for contractors operating in violation of Chapter 489, F.S.
Chapter 489, F.S., has slightly different procedures. Accordingly, the
attached ordinance covering both situations has been prepared for
Commission consideration.
A public hearing date of April 7, 1992 is recommended.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by
Commissioner Wheeler, the Board unanimously approved
a public hearing on April 7, 1992 to discuss an,
Ordinance for Citation Procedures for Code
Enforcement, as recommended by staff.
10
I. Cancellation of Taxes on Certain Property Acquired by Indian
River County
The Board reviewed memo from Deputy County Attorney Will
Collins dated March 2, 1992:
TO: The Board of County Commissioners
FROM: b0(_- William G. Collins II - Deputy County Attorney
DATE: March 2, 1992
SUBJECT: Cancellation of Taxes on Certain Property Acquired by Indian
River County
Attached for your consideration are two resolutions prepared for the purpose
of cancelling any delinquent or current taxes which may exist on the
following properties acquired by Indian River County for public purpose:
1. Lots 6 and 7, Block 45, ORIGINAL TOWN OF VERO (a/k/a TOWN. OF
INDIAN RIVER), according to the plat thereof, as recorded in Plat
Book 2, page 12, of the Public Records of St. Lucie County, Florida;
said land now lying and being in Indian River County, Florida.
Acquired from S. R. Hubbard and Sally E. Hubbard for the new
courthouse site. (RES.#92-43)
2. A parcel of land lying in Section 23, Township 32 South, Range 39
East, Indian River County, Florida (fully described in that Special
Warranty Deed recorded in O.R. Book 918, Page 480, Public Records of
Indian River County, Florida) .
Acquired from GHA Grand Harbor, Ltd., a Florida limited partnership
for construction of a Fire/EMS Station. ( RES. #92-44 )
RECOMMENDATION:
Authorize the Chairman of the Board of County Commissioners to execute the
attached Resolutions and the Clerk to send certified copies of same to the
Tax Collector so that any delinquent or current taxes can be cancelled.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by
Commissioner Wheeler, the Board unanimously adopted
Resolution 92-43, canceling certain delinquent taxes
upon publicly -owned lands, as recommended by staff.
11
L,Up d,s r e
�K rri�C IIP
MAR 10 1992
2
C, '
BOOK �b F� �E io��.:r
RESOLUTION NO. 92- 43
A RESOLUTION OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY,
FLORIDA, CANCELLING CERTAIN TAXES UPON
PUBLICLY OWNED LANDS, PURSUANT TO SECTION
196.28, FLORIDA STATUTES.
WHEREAS, section 196.28, Florida Statutes, allows the Board of
County Commissioners of each County to cancel and discharge any and all
liens for taxes, delinquent or current, held or owned by the county or the
state, upon lands heretofore or hereafter conveyed to or acquired by any
agency, governmental subdivision, or municipality of the state, or the United
States, for road purposes, defense purposes, recreation, reforestation, or
other public use; and
WHEREAS, such cancellation must be by resolution of the Board of
County Commissioners, duly adopted and entered upon its minutes properly
describing such lands and setting forth the public use to which the same are
or will be devoted; and
WHEREAS, upon receipt of a certified copy of such resolution,
proper officials of the county and of the state are authorized, empowered,
and directed to make proper entries upon the records to accomplish such
cancellation and to do all things necessary to carry out the provisions of
section 196.28, F.S. ;
NOW,' THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that any and all
Hens for taxes delinquent or current against the following described lands,
which were acquired for a new courthouse complex, are hereby cancelled
pursuant to the authority of section 196.28, F.S.
Lots 6 and 7, Block 45, ORIGINAL TOWN OF
VERO (a/k/a TOWN OF INDIAN RIVER),
according to the plat thereof, as recorded in
Plat Book 2, Page 12, of the Public Records of
St. Lucie County, Florida; said land now lying
and being in Indian River County, Florida.
The resolution was moved for adoption by Commissioner Scurlock-,
and the motion was seconded by Commissioner Wheeler , and, upon being
put to a vote, the vote was as follows:
Chairman Carolyn K. Eggert Aye
Vice Chairman Margaret C. Bowman Aye
Commissioner Richard N. Bird Aye
Commissioner Don C. Scurlock, Jr. Aye
Commissioner Gary C. Wheeler Aye
The Chairman thereupon declared the resolution duly passed and
adopted this 10 day of March , 1992.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
By
,C� G
12 Carolyn .Eggert' ahairman
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by
Commissioner Wheeler, the Board unanimously adopted
Resolution 92-44, canceling certain taxes upon
publicly owned lands, as recommended by staff.
RESOLUTION NO. 92- 44
A RESOLUTION OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY,
FLORIDA, CANCELLING CERTAIN TAXES UPON
PUBLICLY OWNED LANDS, PURSUANT TO: SECTION
196.28, FLORIDA STATUTES.
WHEREAS, section 196.28, Florida Statutes, allows the Board of
County Commissioners of each County to cancel and discharge any and all
liens for taxes, delinquent or current, held or owned by the county or the
state, upon lands heretofore or hereafter conveyed to or acquired by any
agency, governmental subdivision, or municipality of the state, or the United
States, for road purposes, defense purposes, recreation, reforestation, or
other public use; and
WHEREAS, such cancellation must be by resolution of the Board of
County Commissioners, duly adopted and entered upon its minutes properly
describing such -lands and setting forth the public use to which the same are
or will be devoted; and
WHEREAS, upon receipt of a certified copy of such -resolution,
proper officials of the county and of the state are authorized, empowered,
and directed to make proper entries upon the records to accomplish such
cancellation and to do all things necessary to carry out the provisions of
section 196.28, F.S.;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that any and all
liens for taxes . delinquent or current against the following described lands,
which were acquired for the construction of a Fire/EMS Station, are hereby
cancelled pursuant to the authority of section 196.28, F.S.
See attached Special Warranty Deed describing
lands, recorded in O.R. Book 918, Page 480,
Public Records of Indian River County,
Florida.
The resolution was moved for adoption by Commissioner Scurl or_k ,
and the motion was seconded' by Commissioner Wheeler , and, upon being
put to a vote, the vote was as follows:
Chairman Carolyn K. Eggert Aye
Vice Chairman Margaret C. Bowman Aye
• Commissioner Richard N. Bird Aye
Commissioner Don C. Scurlock, Jr. Aye
Commissioner Gary C. Wheeler Aye
The Chairman thereupon declared the resolution duly passed and
adopted. this 10 day of March , 1992.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
By
CarolyrV K. Egger Chairman
13 ,
MAR 10 1992
I
�-IE R i ® 1992
COOK 8b PALE i4d
J. Cancellation of Delinquent Taxes Right -of -Way Acquisition
Parcel 101, C.R. 510
The Board reviewed memo from County Attorney Charles Vitunac
dated February 19, 1992:
TO: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
"' \
Ul�
FROM: Charles P. Vitunac, County Attorney
DATE: February 19, 1992
RE: CANCELLATION OF DELINQUENT TAXES
R/W ACQUISITION - PARCEL 1019 C.R. 510
The Tax Collector has requested that the County adopt the attached
resolution cancelling delinquent taxes on land which the County has
recently purchased.
RECOMNIENDED ACTION: Board authorize the Chairman to execute this
resolution and the Clerk to send a certified copy of it to the Tax
Collector so that the taxes can be cleared.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by
Commissioner Wheeler, the Board unanimously adopted
Resolution 92-45, canceling certain delinquent taxes
upon publicly -owned lands, as recommended by staff.
Re: CR #510 (Parcel #101)
2/20/02<Laff"13RESO/Vlc
RESOLUTION NO. 92-
A
2 A RESOLUTION OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY,
FLORIDA, CANCELLING CERTAIN DELINQUENT
TAXES UPON PUBLICLY -OWNED LANDS,
PURSUANT TO SECTION 196.28, FLORIDA
STATUTES.
WHEREAS, section 196.28, Florida Statutes, allows the Board of County
Commissioners of each County to cancel and discharge any and all liens for
taxes, delinquent or current, held or owned by the county or the state,
upon lands heretofore or hereafter conveyed to or acquired - by any agency,
governmental subdivision, or municipality of the state, or the United States,
for road purposes, defense purposes, recreation, reforestation, or other
public use; and
14
WHEREAS,. such cancellation must be by resolution of the Board of
County Commissioners, duly adopted and entered upon its minutes properly
describing such lands and setting forth the public use to which the same are
or will be devoted; and
WHEREAS, upon receipt of a certified copy of such resolution, proper
officials of the county and of the state are authorized, empowered, and
directed to make proper entries upon the records to accomplish such
cancellation and to do all things necessary to carry out the provisions of
section 196.28, F.S.;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that any and all
liens for taxes delinquent or current against the following described lands
are hereby cancelled, pursuant to the authority of section 196.28, F.S.
The resolution was moved for adoption by Commissioner Scurlock ,
and the motion was seconded by Commissioner Wheeler , and, upon being
put to a vote, the vote was as -follows:
Chairman Carolyn K. Eggert Aye
Vice Chairman Margaret C. Bowman Aye
Commissioner Richard N. Bird Aye
Commissioner Don C. Scurlock, Jr. Aye
Commissioner Gary C. Wheeler Aye
The Chairman thereupon declared the resolution duly passed and
adopted this 10 day of March
PUBLIC DISCUSSION ITEMS
. 1992.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
By, �-
Caroly K . Eg e
airman
REQUEST FOR BOARD CLARIFICATION: LAAC PURPOSE GOALS AND
OBJECTIVES
Commissioner. Scurlock recalled that when it was formed the
Land Acquisition Advisory Committee (LAAC) had certain directions
and directives from the Commission with a specified composition of
membership. The goal of the Commission was to have a diverse group
with a broad cross -representation of the community. That diversity
resulted in debate as to the actual purpose and goals of LAAC and
that debate revolved around one basic question. Certain members on
the committee feel the goal and purpose is specific to meeting the
requirements of the Comprehensive Land Use Plan and not a lot more.
15
EAR H 199
aorK irk
HAI 101997
BOOK PAGE %
Other members see a broader purpose for the committee in terms of
acquiring more land than what is required in the Comp Plan.
Chairman Eggert referred to a letter dated March 29,-1990 in
which she asked the municipalities for a list of property to be
considered, and this list was not to be limited to environmentally
sensitive land but also recreational, park land and land for any
other necessary use.
Environmental Planning Chief Roland DeBlois made the following
presentation:
TO: James E. Chandler
County Administrator
DEPARTMENT HEAD CONCURRENCE:
_._ o ert M. Keating, AICP
Community Develop nt ector
FROM: Roland M. DeBlois AICP
Chief, Environmental Planning
DATE: February 18, 1992
RE: Request for Board Clarification; LAAC
Purpose, Goals and Objectives
It is requested that the data presented herein *be given formal
consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their regular
meeting of March 10, 1992.
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
Over the course of the past year, there has been considerable
discussion and debate by members of the county Land Acquisition
Advisory Committee (LAAC) regarding the specific goals and
objectives of.LAAC. Opinions range from the strict fulfillment of
minimum acreage acquisition commitments set forth in Conservation
Objective 6 of the Comprehensive Plan, to a broad, all encompassing
interpretation whereby the acquisition program is a continuing
process going beyond the minimum acreage, including environmental
sensitive wetland as well as upland acquisitions.
As such, the Land Acquisition Advisory Committee has requested that
the Board of County Commissioners review this matter and provide
clarification.regarding the purpose of LAAC.
16
For reference, following is a summary of acreage acquisition
commitments set forth in Conservation Objective 6:
Community Type
Acreage
Timeframe
Policy/Obi.
General/Upland
750
2010
Obj. 6
Xeric Scrub
50
1991
Pol. 6.2
Coast./Trop.
100
1992
Pol. 6.3
Hammock
Pine Flatwoods/
300
1993
Pol. 6.14
Prairie
ALTERNATIVES & ANALYSIS
Resolution 90-104:
County Resolution 90-104, which established LAAC, set forth the
following purposes of the Committee:
1. Carry out the policies of the Conservation Element of the
Indian River County Comprehensive Plan, particularly Objective
6, Upland Vegetation Communities, with special., emphasis on
Policies 6.1 through 6.6 by 1992;
2. Work with the County and all municipalities to make priorities
for future land acquisition;
3. Work with private groups and landholders in addition to state
and federal agencies for the acquisition of land;
4. Work with current developments and golf courses to place
currently preserved land into conservation easements for
permanent preservation; and
5. Develop funding mechanisms for the acquisition of land. (If
a referendum is decided upon, date and amount should be
determined.)
Moreover, the opening justification statement of the resolution
explains that "Indian River County has adopted policies in its
Comprehensive Plan which encourage the acquisition of tracts of
valuable native land, environmentally sensitive land, or lands
which have great recreational worth."
Thus, while purpose statement #1 emphasizes the minimum acreage
acquisition commitments of Conservation Objective 6 of the
Comprehensive Plan, the resolution as a whole appears to direct
LAAC to consider acquisition beyond the specified minimum upland
acreages.
Land Acquisition Guide:
Chapter I of the Land Acquisition Guide describes the purpose,
objectives and policies of the guide (see attached): The primary
objective of the guide as set forth in Chapter I is to "outline
procedures for protecting environmentally significant land."
"Environmentally significant lands" are further described as
including: natural communities; forest resources; rare plants and
animals (habitat); coastal and wetland resources; and
archaeological features.
17
AR 10, 199
VIAR 1992 Boos
The policy statement in chapter I reads: "Indian River County,
Florida will acquire lands consistent with _:the resource
conservation goals and- objectives as set forth in the Land
Acquisition Guide; State acquisition guidelines (when applicable);
and policies of Objective 6 of the Conservation Element of the
Indian River County Comprehensive Plan."
The purpose, objectives and policies of the guide -are consistent
with the purposes outlined in Resolution 90-104, in that emphasis
is provided for the acquisition of upland vegetation communities as
required in Cons ervation^Objective 6• of the Comprehensive Plan;
other environmentally significant lands are also referenced in the
guide for acquisition consideration.
Region Upland Set -Aside Policy:
Although not specifically referenced in Resolution 90-104 or the
Land Acquisition Guide, one of the primary reasons for the
establishment of a county land acquisition program is to address
the discrepancy. between the county's 10-15% upland native plant
community set-aside requirement and the Treasure Coast Regional
Planning Council's (TCRPC) 25% requirement.
In that respect, emphasis should appropriately be placed on
satisfying the policies of Conservation Objective 6 of the
Comprehensive Plan, which identify specific acreage amounts
calculated to sufficiently "close the gap" between the 10-15% and
25% requirements. But, to satisfy other specific policies of the
Comprehensive Plan such as Conservation Element'policies 5.5 and
6.15 (see attached), long term, continuing acquisition efforts must
be addressed.
RECOMMENDATION -
Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners clarify to
LAAC that the primary objective of LAAC is to fulfill the specific
acreage acquisition commitments of the policies of Conservation
Element Objective 6; however, the Committee is also charged with a
longer term objective of acquiring environmental significant lands
(beyond the minimum specified acreage), including environmental
sensitive wetlands as well as native upland plant communities.
Chairman Eggert recalled that during the Comprehensive Plan
bargaining process we attempted to commit to no more acreage than
the minimum requirement. However, in terms of long-range planning
for the County, we would be remiss if we felt the only thing needed
to protect clean air, habitat and environment was to do the minimum
that was in the Comp Plan. We need public land for other things
also, and if we are going to go after matching grants and things
like that, we are going to be required by the state to have an
ongoing committee that can produce public input. Our goal should
be expanded from the minimum requirements of the Comprehensive Land
Use Plan.
18
� � r
Commissioner Scurlock felt the ability of LAAC to do more than
meet the minimum requirements of the Comp Plan would be determined
by our ability to pay. We are using zoning and site plans and
conservation easements to encourage preservation, but he could
foresee the Board designing a plan which the community can support
to provide funding, and maximizing those funds by choosing the best
properties to fulfill the Comp Plan requirements. Then the next
step would be a long-range plan to benefit not only our environment
but for recreation and other public uses. The important point is
to design a plan the community will support.
Chairman Eggert and Commissioner Bowman agreed and urged
consideration of conservation easements.
Commissioner Scurlock felt the density transfers in our Comp
Plan could be used in creative ways. LAAC has the opinion that in
addition to maximizing dollars by matching grants, we might lease
property rather than buying it and the owner could preserve the
portion we are interested in. There are all kinds of options.
Commissioner Bird clarified, and Commissioner Scurlock agreed,
that it would be a referendum for a funding source to be done in
some publicity form.
MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Bowman, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bird, to approve staff recommendation
that the Board of County Commissioners clarify to
LAAC that the primary objective of LAAC is to
fulfill the specific acreage acquisition commitments
of the policies of Conservation Element Objective 6;
however, the Committee is also charged with a longer
term objective of acquiring environmentally
significant lands (beyond the minimum specified
acreage), including environmentally sensitive
wetlands as well as native upland plant communities.
Under discussion, Chairman Eggert felt the recommendation did
not include "recreational or other" and asked if that could be
included in the motion.
Commissioner Bowman thought it was included in the phrase,
"However the committee also is charged with a longer-term objective
of acquiring environmentally significant_ land beyond the minimum
specified acreage including sensitive wetlands as well as native
upland plant communities."
Chairman Eggert preferred that the motion be amended to
include other items in the Comp Plan, recreational needs and other
public needs that necessitate the acquisition of land because she
F9]
a 14 6,
BOrK i�J EA�,r
MAR i®1992
@OOK
�PAGE A
felt these items are referred to in the Comp Plan but not in the
recommendation as such.
Commissioner Scurlock thought the Comp Plan gives first
consideration to multi -use properties. If a property is for
recreation only, it would not be placed on the list.
Mr. DeBlois said that in his experience if a piece of property
is completely for recreation purposes and does not necessarily have
an environmental land tinge to it, the general opinion of LAAC has
been that this should go before the Parks and Recreation Committee.
Commissioner Bird presented a situation where we determine a
need for a site for some recreational purpose and identify a
general area and a general size whereby that property could be
subject to acquisition by these funds that are being generated.
However, there are some people who may feel very strongly about
environmental preservation who would see the development of the
site in the active recreation manner as being at cross purposes.
They would not want the trees taken down to build ballfields and
tennis courts.
Mr. Keating agreed and stated that the recreation element of
the Comp Plan differentiates between resource-based recreation and
activity -based recreation. Many times environmentally sensitive
land acquisition is compatible with the recreation element but the
resource-based recreation is not; therefore it is one criterion on
the land acquisition matrix to the extent that the committee is
looking at some of the higher priority objectives in the plans,
such as meeting our environmentally sensitive land acquisition
objectives. In dealing with a funding source that has been limited
to the higher priority objectives in the plan, the committee has
focused on environmentally sensitive land. Mr. Keating stated that
he had always assumed that if land was acquired for additional
active recreation, we would have a different funding source, and to
the extent the land acquisition advisory committee would be
involved in site selection and actual acquisition, it would have to
work with the Parks and Recreation Committee.
Chairman Eggert wanted to avoid problems in the future where
we may buy land without going through the Land Acquisition Advisory
Committee because we feel it is mostly for another purpose but LAAC
members may feel they should have looked at.
Commissioner Scurlock felt the primary goal has been and
should be acquisition of environmentally sensitive land and
properties that are about to disappear, followed by .property with
joint use as passive recreation. In that way recreation is
considered as an additional asset as opposed to the primary reason
for buying it in the first place.
20
_ M
Chairman Eggert did not feel the wording of the recommendation
includes that point.
The Chairman opened the public hearing and asked if anyone
wished to be heard in this matter.
Bob Burnett, representing Lost Tree Village Corporation, came
before the Board and stated he attended most of the meetings of the
Land Acquisition Advisory Committee. One of the points addressed
at the last meeting was the expansion of the role of this committee
to include representation of development interests. He was in
favor of a 15th member to give a developer's viewpoint at the
meetings.
Commissioner Wheeler believed we are looking to benefit the
entire community so the entire community should be involved and
make recommendations.
Herndon Williams, 3554 Ocean Drive, member of LAAC, came
before the Board. Mr. Williams thought that with the economic
climate and taxation problems, the regulatory requirement that this
county provide a certain amount of acreage of different types
called for the concentrated effort of the committee to be placed on
meeting those regulatory requirements as its first priority. There
are other committees looking into other aspects of land, such as
the recreation committee. He did not want to see LAAC's
concentration diluted by trying to look so far into the future that
we consider uses that are beyond the regulatory requirement.
Chairman Eggert assured Mr. Williams that she felt LAAC should
first concern itself with the regulatory minimums. LAAC's second
concern should be environmentally sensitive or important land, but
the Comp Plan has other items in it that should be included as part
of land acquisition. She felt we are always going to have a form
of land acquisition committee no matter what we do under DCA or
growth management rules.
Mr. Williams was in favor of adding a 15th member representing
the developer interest.
Commissioner. Bowman suggested LAAO needs technical scientific
people, such as a technical advisor or biologist with an
understanding of ecosystems.
Commissioner Bird noted we have Roland DeBlois as advisor, but
Commissioner Bowman stressed she meant someone with expertise in
ecosystem, not environment.
Commissioner Scurlock felt the committee could take one more
member, but if it grows much larger it might become impossible to
manage.
21
MAR A 1992
RUOK63 MUE f�4o
F -
MAR H 1992
800K '
FAl'iE 14 vi
Talmage Rogers, 5445 Rosewood Road, member of LAAC, spoke
against the motion. He felt strict requirements help the committee
interpret its responsibilities and felt the motion broadened it
quite widely. He believed most of the land the committee has
considered is land that, once acquired and in the public domain,
can serve a variety of uses. He was concerned about the issue of
wetlands and the problems the committee has discussed in that
regard. Wetlands were not a part of the County's Comprehensive
Land Use Regulations which were the debate that sparked the
promotion of the committee in the first instance, nor are they the
responsibility of the county. They already fall under the
jurisdiction of the federal government and some of those powers are
passed to the state and those are quite defined. To pass the
responsibility of wetlands into the hands of LAAC or anyone else at
the local level introduces into the problem another layer of
government; it is already overregulated to the point of confusion.
Commissioner Bird clarified, and Mr. Rogers concurred, that
the scope of LAAC should be limited to uplands, coastal/tropical
hammock, xeric scrub, pine flatwoods, prairie, and keep the
wetlands and recreational sites out unless a recreational site
would be part of that uplands.
Chairman Eggert withdrew her suggestion that
Commissioner Bowman amend her motion to include
recreational and other public needs that necessitate
the acquisition of land.
Commissioner Bowman stressed that the most economically
significant ecosystem in this county is our wetlands, our
fisheries, our shell fisheries, because everything depends on
wetlands. She cautioned that our wetlands are not adequately
protected by federal or state law.
Mr. DeBlois agreed with Mr. Rogers that we have many
restrictions to development of wetlands, so they are fairly well
protected compared to most uplands. In the sequence of evaluating
property many times the conclusion would be that wetlands are
protected to a point where acquisition by fee simple purchase might
not be appropriate. However, there are specific policies in the
Comprehensive Plan beyond Objective 6 that specifically reference
that the County must consider the acquisition of wetlands. For
example, policy 5.2 of the Drainage Sub -element requires
specifically that by October 1990 Indian River County will purchase
a minimum of 100 acres of 100 -year floodplain lands for
preservation and management. In most cases, that is wetland. In
22
some cases privately owned wetlands, such as mosquito impoundments,
could be managed and restored by working with the private property
owners. In other cases the only real way to do this would be
through public ownership, and those are the types of properties for
which St. Johns River Water Management District are more likely to
contribute 50 percent cost sharing. So there certainly is a
function that can be served in looking at wetlands provided that we
keep in mind there is a sequence of review and the regulatory
protections are taken into consideration.
Chairman Eggert suggested the staff recommendation be read
again before taking a vote on the motion.
Discussion ensued about the wording in the recommendation and
Commissioner Scurlock clarified, and Chairman Eggert and
Commissioners Bowman, Bird and Wheeler agreed, that the Land
Acquisition Advisory Committee are charged also with the objective
of acquiring environmentally sensitive land beyond the minimum
acreage specified in Objective 6. So staff recommendation is to go
beyond that minimum objective to include consideration of wetlands.
Chairman Eggert stated that the phrase "including sensitive
wetlands" means we should look at parcels that have both wetlands
and uplands and not one to the exclusion of the other..
Mr. Rogers said that while that may be her interpretation
there are members in LAAC who interpret that as a directive to go
after wetlands.
Commissioner Scurlock agreed there are some members of the
committee who gave a great deal of weight to the wetlands portions
while other members felt it was not the primary goal.
Chairman Eggert thought that could be addressed in the
directions to the Land Acquisition Advisory Committee.
Commissioner Scurlock clarified that he does not object to the
language, "charged with the longer term objective of acquiring
environmentally significant land beyond the minimum, including -
environmentally sensitive wetlands," but felt that should not be
the focus because this is not a wetlands acquisition committee.
Commissioner Bird recalled that our primary shortfall is in
uplands and that was the starting point for the Land Acquisition
Advisory Committee.
Mr. Keating recounted that when we were doing the Comp Plan we
saw that wetlands were pretty well regulated and under control to
some degree; therefore, it was felt that priorities should be in
the upland acquisition.
Chairman Eggert stressed that the motion is not to change the
focus of LAAO, and the Land Acquisition Guide should very
specifically reflect that.
23
MAR J®1992
600K flu[
r
BOOK
Commissioner Bird clarified and Chairman Eggert and
Commissioners Bowman and Scurlock agreed that the primary charge to
LAAC is to fulfill Objective 6, but there is flexibility to -include
wetlands as a minor element.
THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR A VOTE ON THE MOTION MADE BY
COMMISSIONER BOWMAN EARLY IN THIS DISCUSSION, AS
FOLLOWS:
MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Bowman, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bird, to approve staff recommendation
that the Board of County Commissioners clarify to
LAAC that the primary objective of LAAC is to
fulfill the specific acreage acquisition commitments
of the policies of Conservation Element Objective 6;
however, the Committee is also charged with a longer
term objective of acquiring environmental
significant lands (beyond the minimum specified
acreage), including environmental sensitive wetlands
as well as native upland plant communities.
It was voted on and carried unanimously.
Chairman Eggert led discussion regarding a 15th member.
Commissioner Bowman felt strongly that they need a technician.
Discussion ensued regarding various fields of expertise.
Commissioner Scurlock noted LAAC has been using the services
of various professional and technical people, including staff.
Nancy Offutt, resident of Vero Beach, was in favor of adding
a developer to the Land Acquisition Advisory Committee because
their input is important.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Wheeler, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously approved
the addition of a 15th member to the Land
Acquisition Advisory Committee.
Chairman Eggert directed that staff should advertise for
resumes to be sent in and a recommendation be presented to the
Board.
24
_I
PUBLIC HEARINGS
COUNTY INITIATED REZONING OF APPROXIMATELY 3 ACRES FROM CN TO RM -8
The hour of 9:05 o'clock A. M. having passed, the County
Attorney announced that this public hearing has been properly
advertised as follows:
VERO BEACH PRESS -JOURNAL
Published Daily
Vero Beach, Indian River County, Florida
COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER: STATE OF FLORIDA
Before the undersigned authority personally appeared J. J. Schumann, Jr. who on oath
says that he Is Business Manager of the Vero Beach Press -Journal, a daily newspaper published
at Vero Beach in Indian River County, Florida; that the attached copy of advertisement, being
a
in the matter
in the Court, was pub-
lished in said newspaper in the issues of
Affiant further says that the said Vero Beach Press -Journal is a newspaper published at
Vero Beach, in said Indian River County, Florida, and that the said newspaper has heretofore
been continuously published in said Indian River County, Florida, each daily and has been
entered as second class mail matter at the post office in Vero Beach, In said Indian River Coun-
ty, Florida, for a period of one year next preceding the first publication of the attached copy of
advertisement; and affiant further says that he has neither paid nor promised any person, firm
or corporation any discount, rebate, commission or refund for the purpose of securing this
advertisement for publication in the said newspaper.
Sworn to and subscribed before me this day D 19-
' ~ (8usiness*Manager)
NOTICE - PUBUC HEARM
Notice of County Initiated hearing to consider the
adoption of a cry ordinance rezoning land from:
CN, Neighborhood Comms Node to RM -8, Mul-
e-Femily Residential District (subct ownedbuyp to 8 unitalacre).
Paul nd Denise
Minotty end =on o the northwest corner of
74th Avenue and State Road 60. The subject prop -
arty cont t 1,q 3 acres is Iyhg In the
38,
OV and being in Indian River�� 33, Rd
Canty. Fiorcie.
A public hearing at which parties In Interest and
citizens shag have an oppo�uNty to be heard, w@
be held by the Board of County Commlasioners of
Indian Chambers County,
the�da, in Die CoWV Cornmis-
slon Ing, located at 1840 25th Streuntyet, Vero �n Fi�or-
Ida on Tuesday, March 10, 1992, at 9:05 am.
The Board of County Cownissioners may adopt.
a less intense zoning district than the district re-
quested provided It is wf Nn the same general use
cetAnyone who may wish to appeal any decision
which may be made at this meeting wm need to en-
sure that a verbatim record of the proceedings Is
made. which includes tesdrnony and evidence upon
which t e a npp FIs based.
IndiaCounty
Board of County orrers
B
Feb. 19, 1.2�Ca�yn FG Eggert, C hainnan
877725
Community Development Director Bob Keating commented from a
memo dated March 2, 1992:
25
MAR A 1992
tIAR 10 1992
BOOK 8b PAGE 153``
TO: James Chandler
County Administrator
DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE
40be, A. R atin A
THRU: Sasan Rohani �-�-
7
.Chief, Long -Range Tanning
FROM: Cheryl A. Twor
Senior Planner, g- ge Planning
DATE: March 2, 1992
RE: COUNTY INITIATED REZONING; OF APPROXIMATELY 3 ACRES FROM
CN TO RM -8 (RZON-91-11-0077)
It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal
consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their regular
meeting of March 10, 1992.
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
This is a county initiated request to rezone approximately 3 acres
of land located at the northwest corner of State Road 60 and 74th
Avenue. The subject property. is owned by Paul V. and Denise E.
Minotty. Currently, the property is zoned CN, and until recently
was designated as a neighborhood commercial node.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 911.10(9)(b)2.e. of the
county's land development regulations, a progress report on the
status of development of this neighborhood commercial node was
presented to the Board of County Commissioners on November 19,
1991. This report provided information to the Board of County
Commissioners regarding the node's development status and regarding
the Board's alternatives of terminating or extending node approval .
At that meeting, the Board of County Commissioners voted 5 to 0 to
terminate the neighborhood commercial node designation and direct
staff to initiate the rezoning process for the subject property
from CN to RM -8.
On January 9, 1992, the Planning and Zoning Commission voted 5 to
1 to recommend that the Board of County Commissioners approve the
rezoning of the subject property to PRO, Professional Office
District, as requested by the owner, instead of staff's
recommendation to rezone to RM -8, Multiple -Family Residential
District.
Existing Land Use Pattern
The subject property is currently vacant land designated as M-1,
Medium Density Residential - 1 (up to 8 units/acre) on the county's
future land use plan map, and is zoned CN, ( Neighborhood Commercial
District). Properties to the north and west are zoned RM -8,
Multiple Family Residential District, (up to 8 units/acre); this
area consists of the Indian River Estates Life Care Facility. Land
to the east across 74th Avenue is zoned RMH-S, Mobile Home
Residential District (up to 8 units/acre), and contains the Village
Green Mobile Home Park. 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. 26
Future Land Use Pattern
The present land use plan designation for -the subject property is
M-1, Medium -Density Residential (up to 8 units/acre). All areas
surrounding the subject property are also designated as M-1 on the
county's future land use map. This designation permits various
types of medium density residential development up to 8 units/acre.
The subject property 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 State Road 60 and 74th
Avenue (Seald Sweet).
The Purpose and Function of CN Nodes
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 zoning districts, CN zoning
may be granted on property located outside of commercial/industrial
nodes shown on the future land use map. Thus, 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 M-1. Therefore, neighborhood node and CN
zoning approval can be granted on agriculturally or residentially
designated properties without an amendment to the land use plan.
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. A progress report provision was incorporated in
the CN district requirements of the county's Land Development
Regulations (LDRs) to give the Board of County Commissioners an
opportunity to determine if development of a node has commenced and
progressed. If the Board finds that adequate progress has not
occurred, this provision allows the Board to terminate 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 mile of another neighborhood node. That
requirement was established to ensure that 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.
The History of Subject Property Designation/Zoning
In 1985, Adult Communities 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-lA, Restricted Commercial
District. This 7.26 acre tract included the subject ±3 acre
parcel. The applicant also requested that this property be
designated as a neighborhood node to allow for the C-lA zoning. It
should be noted that at the time of the request no CN district
existed; the C-lA district was at that time the most restricted
commercial district, and thus, the most appropriate zoning 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,
27
BOOK f'
LIAR J 01992
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 node could exceed six (6) acres in size; and
No node could be established within one mile (5,2801) of
another neighborhood commercial node, other commercial or
industrial node or an MBD (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. 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.
Although the approval was not consistent with the new neighborhood
node criteria (specifically the separation distance requirement)
adopted June 5, 1985, the new criteria did not become effective
until June 17, 1985. Subsequently, the county adopted new zoning
district requirements, including a new neighborhood commercial (CN)
district; later in 1985, the three acre site was assigned a CN
district designation during the county's administrative rezoning
process. (See attachment #4 for a chronology of events.) This
three acre site is the subject property now owned by Paul V. and
Denise E. Minotty.
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.
Transportation
The subject property has access from 74th Avenue and State Road 60.
Currently, 74th Avenue is classified as a collector road on the
future roadway thoroughfare plan map. This segment of 74th Avenue
is a two-lane paved road with approximately eighty (80) feet of
existing public road right-of-way. State Road 60, a four -lane
divided roadway, is classified as an urban principal arterial road
with approximately one hundred sixty (160) feet of existing public
road right-of-way.
Utilities and Services
The site is within
is located in the
County Wastewater
is not built, this
The dividing line
areas for this az
the Urban Service Area. Specifically, the site
North County Water Service Area -and the West
Service Area. Since the North County Water Plant
area is served by the South County Water Plant.
between the north county and south county water
ea is State Road 60.
28
Environment
The subject property has been previously disturbed; there are
remnants of a driveway and wall on the site. Approximately one-
half (0.5) acre of the property is native.upland habitat, which is
relatively undisturbed. County land clearing and tree removal
permits will be required prior to development. However, since the
subject parcel is under five acres, upland preservation will not be
required.
The subject property is not located within a flood zone, as
identified by Flood Insurance Rating Maps (FIRM).
ANALYSIS
In this section, an analysis of the reasonableness of the
application will be presented. The analysis will include a
description of:
• concurrency of public facilities
• compatibility with the surrounding area
• consistency with the comprehensive plan
• potential impact on environmental quality
This section will also consider alternatives for development of the
site.
Concurrency of Public Facilities
This site is located within the County Urban Service Area (USA) , an
area deemed suited for urban scale development. The comprehensive
plan establishes standards for: Transportation, Potable Water,
Wastewater, Solid Waste, Drainage and Recreation (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 level of service for these
services and facilities are maintained.
Policy 3.2 of 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.
As per Section 910.07 of the County's Land Development Regulations,
conditional concurrency review examines the available capacity of
each facility with respect to a proposed project. Since
comprehensive plan amendments and 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
residential rezoning requests, the most intense use (according to
the county's LDRs) is the maximum number of units that could be
built on the site, given the size of the property and the maximum
density under the proposed zoning of the property. The site
information used for the concurrency analysis is as follows:
1. Size of Property: t3 acres
2. Size of Area to be Rezoned: t3 acres
3. Existing Zoning Classification: C N, Neighborhood
Commercial Node
4. Existing Land Use Designation: M-14, Medium Density
Residential -1 (up to 8
units/acre)
5. Proposed Zoning Classification: RM -8, Multiple -Family
Residential District. (up
29 to 8 units/acre)
6q, q,
BOOK
MAR 10 1992
MAR 10
1992
BOOK
PAGE 157
6.
Most intense use of the Subject Property:
24
units
As per Section 910.07(2) of the Concurrency Management Chapter of.
the County's Land Development Regulations, projects which do not
increase density or intensity of use are exempt from concurrency
requirements. This provision is particularly applicable to
rezoning requests involving a change from a commercial district to
a residential district. Since commercial/industrial zoning
districts are considered to be more intense in use than residential
districts, changing a property's designation from commercial to
residential represents no increase in intensity. Therefore, any
rezoning request, including the subject request, which involves a
change from CN to RM -8 would be exempt from the county's
concurrency requirements.
It is important to note that there will be no effect on service
levels for any public facility as a result of this rezoning. Since
non -residentially zoned properties are considered to have a higher
development potential (10,000 square feet of "retail commercial"
use per acre) than residentially zoned properties (the maximum
number of units based upon the acreage and the density of the
zoning request), there will be no increase in intensity of
development and therefore no additional impact on facilities from
a site zoned RM -8 than from a site zoned CN. In this case as in
all cases, a detailed concurrency analysis will be done at the time
of site development or redevelopment.
Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan
Rezoning requests are reviewed for consistency with all policies of
the comprehensive plan. Rezonings must also show consistency with
the overall designation of land uses as depicted on the Future Land
Use Map, which include agricultural, residential, recreation,
conservation, and commercial and industrial land uses and their
densities. Commercial and industrial land uses are located in
nodes throughout the unincorporated areas of Indian River County.
The goals, objectives and policies are the most important parts of
the Comprehensive Plan. Policies are 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 provide the basis for all county land
development decisions - including rezoning requests. While all
comprehensive plan policies are important, some have more
applicability than others in reviewing rezoning requests. Of
particular applicability for this request are Future Land Use
Policies 1.13, 1.14, 1.24, and 10.1.
Future Land Use Policy 1.13
Future Land Use Policy 1.13 states that the M-11 Medium Density
Residential -1, land use designation is intended for urban scale
development and intensities. In addition, that policy states that
these residential uses must be located within an existing or Future
Urban Service Area (USA).
Since the subject property is located within an area designated as
M-1 on the county's future land use plan map and is located within
the county's urban service area, the proposed request is consistent
with Policy 1.13.
Future Land Use Policy'1.14
Future Land Use Policy 1.14 identifies those uses allowed in the M-
1 land use designation. As reflected in policy 1.14, uses allowed
in the M-1 designation are limited to residential, recreation,
institution, and public uses. Only if a site designated as M-1 on
the future land use map is approved as a neighborhood commercial
30
M
node pursuant to future land .use policy 1.26 would commercial
zoning of the site be allowed. Since the Board of County
Commissioners terminated neighborhood node approval for the subject
property on November 19, 1991, the property must be rezoned to a
residential zoning category to be consistent with policy 1.14.
Future Land Use Policy 1.24
Future Land Use Policy 1.24 states that commercial and industrial
land use designations approved in response to a land use plan
amendment request by an applicant shall revert to their former
designation if construction on the site has not commenced within a
two year period, unless such timeframe is modified by the Board of
County Commissioners, as part of a development agreement. The
intent of policy 1.24 is the same as the eighteen month
construction timeframe incorporated in the CN district
requirements. In each case the intent is to discourage
speculation, while providing for necessary commercial development.
In this instance, the subject property has been designated for
neighborhood commercial development for over six years, no
development exists on the site and no approved site plans to
develop the property exist. This indicates a lack of commitment on
the part of the property owner to proceed with site development.
During that time, the neighborhood node located across S.R. 60 from
the subject site has been developed and occupied.
Because of the lack of development activity on this property, the
Board of County Commissioners voted on November 19, 1991, to
terminate the property's neighborhood commercial node designation.
It is staff's position that rezoning the site from CN to RM -8 would
be consistent with the CN guidelines contained in Chapter 911 of
the LDRs and with Future Land Use Policy 1.24.
Future Land Use Policy 10.1
Future Land Use Policy 10.1 states that the county's Land
Development Regulations (LDRs) shall include .amortization
procedures to ensure that those existing land uses which are non-
conforming with the Comprehensive Plan are gradually eliminated. _
Staff feels that the proposed rezoning is consistent with policy
10.1.
As established, the existing CN zoning of the subject property
fails to meet the CN zoning district's minimum separation distance
between the site and other neighborhood commercial and commercial
nodes. For that reason, rezoning the site to residential would
preclude reestablishment of a neighborhood node on the subject
property. In addition, the proposed rezoning to residential would
eliminate an existing non -conforming zoning designation, consistent
with policy 10.1.
Finally, it should be noted that no interest has been expressed
recently in developing neighborhood commercial uses on either the
subject property or in the surrounding area. The last such
development interest involved the Seald Sweet site which has now
been developed and occupied.
Potential Impact on Environmental Quality
In that the subject property has already been cleared for
development and contains an existing paved driveway and wall, 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 located centrally within the M-1 land use
designation, so the RM -8 rezoning request would be consistent with
31
MAR H M2
E'JAP � o 1992 BOOK 60 PAGE J59
the property's future land use plan map designation. In addition,
properties to the west, north and east have zoning categories which
allow up to 8 units/acre as well; Indian River Estates is zoned RM -
8 and Village Green is zoned RMH-8. While property to the south
has a CN, Neighborhood Commercial node designation, it is already
developed with the Seald Sweet administrative offices, and
expansion of that CN node will be prohibited through size and
dimension criteria of the county's LDRs and the node policies of
the comprehensive plan. For those reasons, staff supports this
request.
The PRO District
As indicated in the Description and Conditions section of the
report, the Planning and Zoning Commission voted to recommend that
the Board of County Commissioners rezone the subject property to
PRO, Professional Office District, instead of RM -8 as recommended
by planning staff. The Planning and Zoning Commission's action
occurred for several reasons. First, the commission felt that the
subject property, based upon size and location, was too small for
multi -family development. Second, the commission felt that the
site met the conditions to be rezoned PRO. Finally, the commission
felt that a professional office use would be appropriate for the
site.
It is planning staff's position that the site does not meet the
necessary criteria to be rezoned PRO. Like CN, PRO zoning allows
non-residential uses to be located in areas designated as
residential on the county's land use plan map. Also like CN, the
PRO district involves various criteria which must be met in order
to establish PRO zoning on a site. These criteria are incorporated
in Section 911.10(9)(x) of the county's land development
regulations.
According to these criteria, a PRO district must be at least 5
acres in size unless it abuts a commercial node or corridor,
whereupon the minimum district size may be reduced to 2} acres. In
this case, the subject property and area proposed for rezoning to
PRO is 3 acres in size, but does not abut a commercial node or
corridor. Instead, it lies adjacent to a neighborhood commercial
node.
Besides the size requirement, two other criteria must be met for
the PRO district to be less than 5 acres in size. These are that
the proposed PRO district must be located in a substantially
developed area and must be located in an area dominated by non-
residential uses. While the general area may be substantially
developed, the area is not dominated by non-residential uses. In
fact, the Seald Sweet neighborhood node on the south side of S.R.
60 is the only non-residential use in the area.
For these reasons, planning staff feel that the subject property
does not meet the criteria to be rezoned PRO.
Alternatives
The Board of County Commissioners has several alternatives to
consider regarding the subject property.
• The Board could rezone the subject property to RM -8.
Staff supports this recommendation based on compatibility
criteria and other reasons referenced in this analysis.
• The Board of County Commissioners could adopt a less.
intense residential zoning category which complies with
the M-1 land use designation for the subject property.
32
_ M
• The Board of County Commissioners could adopt the PRO
district as recommended by the Planning and Zoning
Commission. Staff would not recommend this alternative
based upon the analysis as presented above.
It is staff's position that retaining the CN zoning designation for
the subject property is not an alternative. Since the site's
neighborhood node designation has been terminated by the Board of
County Commissioners, the property must be rezoned to a residential
district or to PRO to be consistent with the county's land use plan
map.
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. In addition,
planning staff feel that the subject property does not meet the
requirements of the PRO district. As such, the rezoning to RM -8 is
justified since it meets all applicable concurrency requirements,
is consistent with the comprehensive plan, is compatible with the
surrounding' 'area and will have no significant impacts on
environmental quality. For those reasons, staff supports the
request to rezone the subject property from CN to RM -8.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners approve
this county initiated request to rezone the subject property from
CN to RM -8.
County Attorney Charles Vitunac explained that the _Planning &
Zoning Commission recommendation was based on their interpretation
of the criteria contained in Section 911.10(9)(a) of the County's
Land Development Regulations. That section states:
"The PRO district shall have a minimum district size
of 5 acres and a maximum district size of 25 acres.
The PRO district may be reduced to 2.5 acres if
a. abutting a commercial node or corridor.
b. located within a substantially developed area.
c. located in an area dominated by non-residential uses."
Attorney Vitunac advised that since there is no "and" or "or"
included in the language of this section, it is subject to
interpretation. Planning Staff's interpretation is that all three
must be met, while P & Z thought it required any one of them. Both
interpretations are reasonable. The Board will have an opportunity
to clarify that point when this ordinance is presented for
amendment in the near future.
Chairman Eggert remembered very specifically that the intent
of this section was that all three requirements had to be met.
33
"'!
BOOK i' F it
1AR U 1992
BOOK
F'AEE
Commissioner Bird understood that the object of the "use it or
lose it" rule of a neighborhood commercial node is that if it is
not used it would revert back to residential to blend in with the
adjacent and surrounding properties. However, in this particular
situation, because this parcel is at SR 60 and 74th Avenue, which
are two heavily traveled routes, and because this is a small 3 -acre
parcel, it becomes somewhat impractical for that site to be
developed as a stand-alone multi -family site. He felt it would be
impractical for a developer to build 12 or 15 apartments, which is
the most that could be built on it with all the setbacks and other
requirements. He could envision an office building on the site
which would be an asset to this huge residential center which he
expects will grow as the County grows. Commissioner Bird believed
this site would serve a more useful purpose under a Professional
Office District (PRO) zoning than multi -family.
Commissioner Bowman agreed and commented that we do not need
more residences in that area.
The Chairman opened the public hearing and asked if anyone
wished to be heard in this matter.
Attorney Bill Stewart, 3355 Ocean Drive, representing the
property owner, Dr. and Mrs. Minotty, agreed with Commissioner
Bird's opinion. He felt the Planning and Zoning Commission's
conclusion was that a professional office zoning is more rational
than multi -family on this parcel. He pointed out that rezoning the
property to PRO fulfills one future land use policy, to encourage
infill development. He pointed out this parcel is on an arterial
roadway and this would be infill development. With regard to the
requirements when a PRO is under 5 acres, the minutes of the P & Z
meeting reflect that the County Attorney's office rendered an
opinion that any requirement must be met rather than all of them
which was certainly a permissible interpretation. That is the
basis upon which the P & Z made their recommendation because we
meet two of the criteria listed, and obviously not the third. If
there is any ambiguity in the language an old legal maxim states if
it is going to be construed against anybody it should be construed
against those who drafted it rather than against those who are
trying to read it and understand it. He thought the language is
clear and that the P & Z came to the correct conclusion on this
parcel. Attorney Stewart hoped the Board would consider rezoning
it PRO, Professional Office District.
Commissioner Scurlock looked at the area as dominated by non-
residential use abutting a commercial node or corridor. He listed
34
Seald Sweet on the southwest corner, a grove on another corner, and
Indian River Estates with the beauty shops, nursing, medical
facilities, which he felt was not pure residential use; therefore,
he felt this parcel is located within an area dominated by non-
residential use.
Chairman Eggert guessed it could be a commercial node.
Attorney Stewart argued that it is a neighborhood commercial
node. The exception in the ordinance states that if you abut a
commercial node; PRO is acceptable. Planning staff took the
position that the neighborhood is not a commercial node, but the
Commercial Development ordinance uses the phrase "commercial node"
many times, and if this should not be a commercial, then the
wording of that ordinance should be changed.
Community Development Director Bob Keating explained that as
far as the wording pointed out by Mr. Stewart, staff differentiates
between neighborhood commercial nodes and the wording "commercial
node or corridor" because the intended meaning was "the commercial
nodes or corridors as delineated in the Comp Plan."
Commissioner Scurlock asked for clarification on the land use
designation of the grove and the non-residential aspect of Indian
River Estates Life Care Facility.
Community Development Director Keating considered Indian River
Estates a residential use. The grove would be considered a holding
type of use and since it is not considered non-residential and it
is not residential per se, staff considers it a wash.
Chairman Eggert noted that the PRO District size requirement
does not say it must be reduced to 2.5 acres, and Attorney Vitunac
agreed that even though it meets all three criteria, the ordinance
states that it "may" be reduced, not "must" be reduced.
The Chairman determined that no one else wished to be heard
and thereupon closed the public hearing.
MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Bowman, SECONDED by
Commissioner Wheeler, to adopt Ordinance No. 92-04
amending the zoning ordinance and the accompanying
zoning map from CN to PRO, for the property
generally located on the northwest corner of State
Road 60 and 74th Avenue, as recommended by the
Planning and zoning Commission.
Under discussion, Chairman Eggert believed it should not be
PRO because she remembered that discussion and the intent was that
all three criteria had to be met.
W.
L_ OAR 101
Commissioner Scurlock stated he is opposed to the motion.
THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION.
It was voted on and carried 3-2, Chairman Eggert and
Commissioner Scurlock voting in opposition.
ORDINANCE NO. 92-04
AN ORDINANCE OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, AMENDING THE
ZONING ORDINANCE AND THE ACCOMPANYING ZONING MAP FROM CN TO
PRO, FOR THE PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE NORTHWEST
CORNER OF STATE ROAD 60 AND 74TH AVENUE, AND DESCRIBED HEREIN,
AND PROVIDING FOR EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission, sitting as the
local planning agency on such matters, has held a public hearing
and subsequently made a recommendation regarding this rezoning
request; and
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River
County, Florida, did publish and send its Notice of Intent to
rezone the hereinafter described property; and
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners has determined that
this rezoning is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan of
Indian River County; and
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners has held a public
hearing pursuant to this rezoning request, at which parties in
interest and citizens were heard;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED, by the Board of County
Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, that the Zoning of
the following described property situated in Indian River County,
Florida, to -wit:
36
A portion of Tract 8, in Section 1, Township 33S, Range
38E, Indian River Farms Company Subdivision, as recorded
in Plat Book 2 at Page 25, Public Records, St. Lucie
County, Florida and lying in Indian River County,
Florida, being more particularly described as follows:
Commence at the SE corner of the NE} of said Section 1,
thence North 00°28'21" East along the East line of said
Section 1 for 162.731; thence North 89040140" West along
the North Right -of -Way line of State Road 60 for 80.00'
to the Point of Beginning; thence continue along the last
described course for 361.51; thence North 00027118" East
for 361.51; thence South 89036148" East for 361.51;
thence South 00028121" West along a line parallel with
and 80.00' West of the East line of said Section 1 for
361.5' to the Point of Beginning and containing 3.00
acres more or less.
Be changed from CN, Neighborhood Commercial District, to PRO,
Professional Office District.
All with the meaning and intent and as set forth and described in
said Zoning Regulations.
Approved and adopted by the Board of County Commissioners of
Indian River County, Florida, on this 10 day of March , 1992.
This ordinance was advertised in the Vero Beach Press -Journal
on the 19 day of February , 1992 for a public hearing to be
held on the 10 day of March , 1992 at which time it was
moved for adoption by Commissioner Bowman , seconded by
Commissioner Wheeler , and adopted by the following
vote:
Chairman Carolyn K. Eggert Nay
Vice Chairman Margaret C. Bowman Aye
Commissioner Gary Wheeler Aye
Commissioner Richard N. Bird _e
Commissioner Don C. Scurlock, Jr. Nay
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
BY: �L�tLA4-_z__
-
Carol K. Egg ,. Cha:irman
37
It ov FF uC
ilAp io 1992
BOOK 8b PAGE M
PUBLIC HEARING - ANDERTON INVESTMENTS INC. AND MILLS REQUEST TO
REZONE APPROXIMATELY 46.26 ACRES FROM A-1 TO RS -3 AND RM -8
The hour of 9:05 o'clock A. M. having passed, the County
Attorney announced that this public hearing has been properly
advertised as follows:
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
r
a
In the matter
In the Court, was pub-
lished in said newspaper in the issues of zz
Affiant further says that the said Vero Beach Press -Journal is a newspaper published at
Vero Beach, in said Indian River County, Florida, and that the said newspaper has heretofore
been continuously published In said Indian River County, Florida, each daily and has been
entered as second class mail matter at the post office in Vero Beach, in said Indian River Coun-
ty, Florida, for a period of one year next preceding the first publication of the attached copy of
advertisement; and affiant further says that he has neither paid nor promised any person, firm
or corporation any discount, rebate, commission or refund for the purpose of securing this
advertisement for publication in the said newspaper.
Sworn to and subscribed before me this l� day aV11,67. D. 19
(Business Manager)
(SEAL)
NOTICE - PUBUC HEARING
Notice of hearing to consider the adoption of a
countDylsordinams rezoning land from: A-1, Agricut-
trict, and RtrictM-8, ulUpMamiiyaa Residential District.
The snit �operty is owned by Anderton Invest-
ments Ire and C}ierles SuAivan and Is located
east of 90th Avenue, between 12th Street and 8th
Street. The subject. property containing approxi -
42 apes, Is located In the Southwest Va of
Sectipn 11, Township 33, Rare 38, lying and
being in Indian River County, Florida.
A public hear&ng at which parties in Interest and
dtizens ahati have an to be heard. will
be held by the Board of County Commissioners of
Indian River County, Florida, In the County Commis-
sion Chambers of the Cour" Administration Build-
Ing,
on Tuesday, March 10, 992. t 9:0Sted at 184025th Street, Vero5a.m Flor
The Board of County Commissioners may adopt
a less Intense zoning district than the district re-
quested
e-
q �tprovided It Is within the same general tm
which may be maAnyone who d eYatthis �� will decision
d m
en-
sure that a verbatim record of the proceedings Is
made, which Includes testimony and evidence upon
which theappeal lo based.
Indian Rhrer County
Board of County Commissioners
By: -s -Carolyn if. Eggert, Chairman
Feb.19,1992 877730
Community Development Director Bob Keating commented from memo
dated February 19, 1992:
38
I
f -s
12th. SIT _
RS -I
A -t
RI 6
A-1 N �
t0
RS -3, I
8 t h ST 1
NOTICE - PUBUC HEARING
Notice of hearing to consider the adoption of a
countDylsordinams rezoning land from: A-1, Agricut-
trict, and RtrictM-8, ulUpMamiiyaa Residential District.
The snit �operty is owned by Anderton Invest-
ments Ire and C}ierles SuAivan and Is located
east of 90th Avenue, between 12th Street and 8th
Street. The subject. property containing approxi -
42 apes, Is located In the Southwest Va of
Sectipn 11, Township 33, Rare 38, lying and
being in Indian River County, Florida.
A public hear&ng at which parties in Interest and
dtizens ahati have an to be heard. will
be held by the Board of County Commissioners of
Indian River County, Florida, In the County Commis-
sion Chambers of the Cour" Administration Build-
Ing,
on Tuesday, March 10, 992. t 9:0Sted at 184025th Street, Vero5a.m Flor
The Board of County Commissioners may adopt
a less Intense zoning district than the district re-
quested
e-
q �tprovided It Is within the same general tm
which may be maAnyone who d eYatthis �� will decision
d m
en-
sure that a verbatim record of the proceedings Is
made, which Includes testimony and evidence upon
which theappeal lo based.
Indian Rhrer County
Board of County Commissioners
By: -s -Carolyn if. Eggert, Chairman
Feb.19,1992 877730
Community Development Director Bob Keating commented from memo
dated February 19, 1992:
38
I
TO:
THRU:
FROM:
DATE:
James Chandler
County Administrator
DEP HEAD CONCURRENCE
Rober M. ea in , A
Community Developmen Director
Sasan Rohani !3 '�_
Chief, Long -Range P,
Cheryl A. Two -re
Senior Planner,
February 19, 1992
RE: ANDERTON INVESTMENTS,
APPROXIMATELY 46.26
(RZON-91-11-0093)
Planning
INC. AND MILLS REQUEST TO REZONE
ACRES FROM A-1 TO RS -3 AND RM -8
It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal
consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their regular
meeting of March -10, 1992.
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
This is a request to rezone approximately 46.26 acres of land
located east of 90th Avenue, between 12th Street and 8th Street.
The request includes three parcels, all of which are currently
zoned A-11 Agricultural District (up to 1 unit/5 acres). Parcel #1
is located on the south side of 12th Street, east of 90th Avenue
and contains approximately 10 acres. Parcel #2 is located on the
northeast corner of 90th Avenue and 8th Street and contains
approximately 35.65 acres. Parcel #3 is a small hiatus strip of
land located along the western boundary of parcel #1 and contains
approximately 0.61 acres. The property is owned by Anderton
Investments, Inc. and Charles Sullivan. The applicant, Bill Mills,
is requesting that Parcels .# 1 and #3 be rezoned from A-1 to RM -8,
Multiple -Family Residential District (up to 8 units/acre) and that
Parcel #3 be rezoned from A-1 to RS -31 Single -Family Residential
District (up to 3 units/acre). The purpose of this request is to
secure the zoning necessary for developing the property with
single-family and multiple -family residential uses.
On January 23, 1992, the Planning and Zoning Commission approved
staff's recommendation and voted 6-0 to recommend that the Board of
County Commissioners approve the rezoning of Parcel 2 to RS -3,
Single -Family Residential District, as requested by the applicant,
and voted to recommend the rezoning of Parcels 1 and 3 to RM -6,
Multiple -Family Residential District, instead of RM -8 as requested
by the applicant..
Existing Land Use Pattern
The subject property, which includes all three parcels, consists of
vacant land zoned A-1, Agricultural - 1 District (up to 1 unit/5
acres). Land to the north of parcels 1 and 3 is developed as Phase
III of the Heron Cay mobile home development, which is currently
zoned RMH-8, Residential Mobile Home District (up to 8 units/acre).
West of Parcels 1 and 3 is the Calvary Baptist Church, zoned RS -1,
Single -Family Residential District (up to 1 unit/acre), vacant land
zoned A-1, and single-family residences zoned A-1. The G & B
Tomato Farm lies on property to the east, which is also zoned A-1.
39
Door
r
�'iAR 10 1992
BOOK 60 IALL, 16'i'
Parcel number 2 lies to the South of Parcels 1 and 3. Land to the
east of Parcel 2 is zoned A-1 and consists of larger tracts with
single-family residences. Land to the south is primarily rangeland
or open field, zoned RS -3, Single - Family Residential District (up
to 3 units/acre) . Land to the west of Parcel 2 and 90th Avenue
consists mostly of vacant land with scattered single-family
residences, zoned A-1.
Future Land Use Pattern
The entire ±46.26 acres of the subject property and all adjacent
properties north, west and east lie within the M-1, Medium -Density
Residential - 1 (up to 8 units/acre) land use designation. This
designation permits various types of medium density residential
development. South of the subject property -and 8th Street,
properties lie within the L-1, Low -Density Residential - 1 (up to
3 units/acre) land use designation. This designation permits
various types of low density residential development.
Transportation
The subject property has access from 8th Street, 12th Street and
90th Avenue. South of parcel #2 lies 8th Street, which is
classified as a collector road on the future roadway thoroughfare
plan map. This segment of 8th Street is a two-lane paved road with
approximately sixty (60) feet of existing public road right-of-way.
West of parcel #2 is 90th Avenue, which is classified as a
collector road and currently has sixty-five (65) feet of existing
public road right-of-way. The northern boundaries of parcels #1
and #3 abut 12th Street, which is classified as a collector road
and contains approximately sixty (60) feet of existing public road
right-of-way.
Utilities and Services
The site is located within the South County Water Service Area and
the West County Wastewater Service Area.
Environment
According to the Flood Insurance Rating Maps (FIRM), most of the
subject property is located within the 100 year floodplain and is
designated as an A zone on the FIRM. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, National Wetlands Inventory maps show that there are
wetlands on the subject properties. Both aerial photography and
field verification have confirmed the existence of these wetland
areas.
While the exact size of the wetlands has not been determined, the
parcel descriptions below include a rough estimate of wetland
acreages. These wetland acreages and jurisdictional boundaries
will be more accurately defined by a wetland boundary survey which
will be required prior to the initiation of any land clearing or
site alteration activity. In addition to the wetlands boundary
survey, any alteration of wetlands on the subject properties will
also require permits from the county, St. Johns River Water
Management District and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
Although the wetlands on the subject properties are only
temporarily flooded, they appear to be part of a functional wetland
system. Consequently, a wetland boundary survey and a wetland
functional assessment will be required to determine if any wetland
alteration will be permitted by the county or if preservation will
be required.
The non -wetland portions of the subject properties contain native
upland habitats, including pine/palmetto scrub, forested uplands
and wetland transitional areas. Although some illegal dumping of
trash has taken place, the upland habitats are relatively
undisturbed. Upon development, the upland preservation
40
M
M
r—�
requirements of Chapter 929 of the County Land Development
Regulations will be applied.
- Parcels 1 & 3
Parcels 1 & 3 -contain approximately 2.5 acres of a temporarily
flooded scrub -shrub wetland that also runs through Parcel 2 and the
adjoining property to the east. The remaining portion of Parcels
1 S 3 consists of native upland habitat.
- Parcel 2
Parcel 2 contains two wetland areas. There are approximately five
(5) acres of temporarily flooded, scrub -shrub wetland in the
northeast corner of Parcel 2. The southwest corner of Parcel 2
contains approximately four (4) acres of temporarily flooded
forested wetlands. The remainder of Parcel 2 consists of varying
types of native upland habitat areas.
Together, the three parcels contain a diverse range of ecological
communities including temporary flooded scrub -shrub wetlands,
forested wetlands, forested uplands, scrub uplands and
wetland/upland transitional areas. As a result, any development
plans for this site will be required. to address wetland
preservation, upland habitat preservation and wetland protection
buffers.
ANALYSIS
In this section, an analysis of the reasonableness of the
application will be presented. The analysis will include a
description of:
O concurrency of public facilities
o compatibility with the surrounding area
C consistency with the comprehensive plan
o potential impact on environmental quality
This section will also consider alternatives for development of the
site.
Concurrency of Public Facilities
The site is located within the county Urban Service Area (USA), an
area deemed suited for urban scale development. The Comprehensive
Plan establishes standards for: Transportation, Potable Water,
Wastewater, Solid Waste, Drainage and Recreation (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 3.2 of 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 amendments 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
residential rezoning requests, the most intense use (according to
the county's LDR's) is the maximum number of units that could be
built on the site, given the size of the property and the maximum
density under the proposed zoning district. The site information
used for the concurrency analysis is as follows:
41
BOOK bu 'I.i;(r'P
F_
MAR io 1997-
r:
BOOK�F'A6E
1. Size of Property: ±46.26 acres
2. Size of Area to be Rezoned: ±46.26 acres
3. Existing Zoning Classification: A-1, Agricultural District
(up to 1 unit/5 acres)
4. Proposed Zoning Classification:
Parcel #1: ±10 acres -RM -B, Multiple -Family Residential
District (up to 8 units/acre)
Parcel #2: ±35.65 acres- RS -3, Single Family Residential
District (up to 3 units/acre)
Parcel #3: ± .61 acres -RM -B, Multiple -Family Residential
District (up to 8 units/acre).
5. Existing Land Use Designation: M-1, Medium -Density
Residential -1 (up to 8 units/acre)
6. Maximum Number of Units with Proposed Zoning : ±192 units
- 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 impacts is as follows:
1. Residential Use Identified in 5th Edition, ITE Manual:
±35.65 acres - Single -Family Detached Housing
±10.61 acres - Condominium/Townhouse
2. For Single -Family Dwelling Units, (code 210) in ITE Manual:
a. Average Weekday Vehicle Trip Ends: 9.55/dwelling unit
b. P.M. Peak Hour Rate: 1.012/dwelling unit
C. Outbound P.M. Peak Hour Split: 35%
d. Inbound P.M. Peak Hour Split: 65%
3. For Condominium/Townhouse Units, (code 230) in ITE Manual:
a. Average Weekday Vehicle Trip Ends: 5.86/dwelling unit
b. P.M. Peak Hour Rate: 0.55/dwelling unit
C. Outbound P.M. Peak Hour Split: 34%
d. Inbound P.M. Peak Hour Split: 66%
4. Formula for Determining New Trips (peak hour/peak season/peak
direction:
a. Number of Single Family Units X P.M. Peak Hour Rate X
Inbound P.M. Percentage
(Trip distribution is based on a Modified Gravity Model)
b. Number of Condominium/Townhouse Units X P.M. Peak Hour
Rate X Inbound P.M. Percentage
(Trip Distribution is based on a Modified Gravity Model)
5. a. P.M. Peak Hour/Peak Direction of Adjacent Roadway:
8th Street: West
12th Street: West
b. Total Peak Hour/Peak Season/Peak Direction Trips: ±103
6. Traffic Capacity on this segment of 8th Street at a Level of
Service "D": 630 Peak Hour/Peak Season/Peak Direction Trips
7. Traffic Capacity on this segment of 12th Street at a Level of
Service "D": 890 Peak Hour/Peak Season/Peak Direction Trips
S. Existing Traffic Volume on this segment of 8th Street:
116 Peak Hour/Peak Season/Peak Direction Trips
42
9. Existing Traffic Volume on this segment of 12th Street:
84 Peak Hour/Peak Season/Peak Direction Trips
Since the county's transportation level of service is based on peak
hour/peak season/peak direction characteristics, the transportation
concurrency analysis only addresses project traffic occurring in
the peak hour and affecting the peak direction of impacted
roadways. In this case, 8th Street and 12th Street have more
volume in the p.m. peak hour than in the a.m. peak hour, so the
p.m. peak hour was used for the transportation concurrency
analysis. According to recent count data on 8th Street and -on 12th
Street, the peak direction during the p.m. peak hour is west.
Given those conditions, the number of trips associated with the
parcel 2 request was determined first by taking the total number of
single-family residential units (107) allowed under the proposed
zoning for the 35.65 acre parcel, applying ITE's 1.012 p.m. peak
hour trips per single family residential unit factor to get total
peak hour trips, and applying the ITE single family residential use
p.m. peak hour inbound factor of 658 to the total p.m. peak hour
trips for the use to get the west bound (peak direction) peak hour
volume of trips for the parcel. The same methodology was used to
obtain -the parcel's p.m. peak hour exiting volume; however, a 358
outbound factor was used instead of the 658 inbound factor.
The same general calculation was made for parcels 1 and 3. With
the requested multiple -family zoning for the ±10.61 acres, the
number of trips associated with these parcels was determined by
taking the total number of condominium/townhouse units (85) allowed
under the proposed zoning, applying ITE's 0.55 p.m. peak hour trips
per condominium/townhouse unit factor to get total peak hour trips,
and applying the ITE condominium/townhouse use p.m. peak
hour/inbound factor of 668 to the total p.m. peak hour trips for
the use to get the west bound (peak direction) peak hour volume of
trips for Parcels 1 and 3. Using a modified gravity model and a
hand assignment, the trips for all three parcels were then assigned
to roadways on the network.
As a result of this assignment, two volumes were obtained for each
impacted roadway segment. These volumes represent the p.m. peak
hour volume for each direction of the roadway. Using the volume
assigned to the peak direction of each roadway, -a capacity
determination was made for each segment. This capacity
determination involved comparing the assigned volume to 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.
Based upon staff analysis, it was determined that 8th Street, 12th
Street, and the 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 rezoning. As indicated in that
table, there is sufficient capacity in all of the segments to
accommodate the most intense use allowed by the proposed rezoning.
43
'-,� . -4n
500K 8b FA,,A i u
L_ HAR 101 1992
RR 10 199
BOOK 8b PAU
TRAFFIC CONCURRENCY DETERMINATION
Impacted Road Segments
(peak hour/peak season/peak direction)
segment
La qmnn, Roadway Road To "D"DtYh
From
1910
S.R. 60
C.R. 512
I-95
540
1915
S.R. 60
I-95 .
82nd Ave
1680
1920
S.R. 60
82nd Ave
66th Ave
1760
1925
S.R. 60
66th Ave
58th Ave
1760
1930
S.R. 60
58th Ave
43rd Ave
2650
1935
S.R. 60
43rd Ave
27th Ave
2650
1940
S.R. 60
27th Ave
20th Ave
2600
2110
17th St.
U.S. #1
I.A. Blvd.
1990
2120
17th St.
I.A. Blvd.
S.R. 60
1760
2210
12th St.
82nd Ave
58th Ave
890
2220
12th St.
58th Ave
43rd Ave
830
2230
12th St.
43rd Ave
27th Ave
830
2240
12th St.
27th Ave
20th Ave
830
2410
27th Ave
So. Co. Line
Oslo Road
630
2420
27th Ave
Oslo Road
4th St.
830
2430
27th Ave
4th St.
Sth St.
830
2440
27th Ave
8th St.
12th St.
830
2450
27th Ave
12th St.
So.V.B. City Limits
830,
2460
27th Ave
So. V.B. City Lmts
16th St.
830
2470
27th Ave
16th St.
S.R. 60
830
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
2935
43rd Ave
S.R. 60
26th St.
830
2940
43rd Ave
26th St.
41st St.
630
3005
58th Ave
Oslo Road
4th St.
630
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
3320
82nd Ave
4th St.
12th St.
630
3330
82nd Ave
12th St.
S.R. 60
630
4830
8th St.
58th Ave
43rd Ave
630
4840
8th St.
43rd Ave
27th Ave
630
4850
8th St.
27th Ave
20th Ave
830
4860
8th St.
20th Ave
O. Dixie Hwy
830
4870
8th St.
O. Dixie Hwy
U.S. #1
830
4880
8th St.
U.S. #1
I.R. Blvd
830
4910
4th St.
82nd Ave
58th Ave
630
4930
4th St.
58th Ave
43rd Ave
630
4940
4th St.
43rd Ave
27th Ave
630
4950
4th St.
27th Ave
20th Ave
630
Roadway
Segment
Existing Demand
Existing Vested
Volume Volume
Total
Segment
Demand
Available
Segment
Capacity
Project
Demand
Positive
Concurrency
Determination
1910
292
3
295
242
6
Y
1915
1920
734
950
48
35
782
850
20
Y
1925
972
28
985
1000
740
732
16
12
Y
1930
972
19
991
1640
10
Y
Y
1935
612
12
624
2014
5
Y
1940
2110
878
680
11
6
889
1700
3
Y
2120
1179
3
686
1182
1298
575
20
10
Y
..
2210
81
3
84
803
10
y
2220
2230
81
225
2
5
83
745
10
Y
2240
400
2
230
402
595
426
2
1
Y
2410
319
12
331
287
2
Y
Y
2420
2430
391
405
11
402
417
3
Y
2440
405
1
1
406
406
423
423
5
6
Y
2450
369
2
371
457
5
Y
Y
2460
2470
369
2
371
457
5
Y
2910
369
225
4
11
373
453
3
Y
236
383
5
Y
M!
Existin Demand Total Available Positive
Roadway Ex st ng Vested Segment Segment Project concurrency
Segment Volume Volume Demand capacity Demand Determination
2915
360
7
367
256
5
Y
2920
454
4
458
168
5
Y
2925
454
4
458
368
10
Y
2930
373
4
377
449
10
Y
2935
373
4
377
449
5
Y
2940
283
8
291
331
5
Y
3005
144
2
146
486
3
Y
3010
144
2
146
486
5
Y
3015
144
4
148
478
10
Y
3020
144
6
150
474
5
Y
3025
400
7
407
416
5
Y
3030
414
12
426
392
5
Y
3320
162
6
168
456
15
Y
3330
162
17
179
434
10
Y
4830
99
17
116
497
60
Y
4840
193
10
203
417
45
Y
4850
342
4
346
480
30
Y
4860
342
16
358
456
15
Y
4870
351
26
377
427
5
Y
4880
198
6
204
620
5
Y
4910
103
2
105
523
l0
Y
4930
103
3
106
521
5
Y
4940
216
3
219
408
5
Y
4950
315
7
322
301
3
Y
- Water
The site is located within the South County Water Service Area.
Review of the south county water plant indicates that the plant's
remaining capacity is approximately 4 million gallons per day.
With the most intense use allowable under the proposed zoning
designation, the subject property will have a consumption rate of
192 Equivalent Residential Units (ERUs) or 48,000 gallons per day.
This is based upon the level of service standard 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 at the time of development or
to expand county water facilities or pay for their expansion if
capacity is not available at the time of site development. This is
consistent with Future Land Use Policy 2.7 which requires
development projects to maintain established levels of service.
- Wastewater
Wastewater generation for ±192 units on the subject property will
be approximately 192 Equivalent Residential Units (ERUs), or 48,000
gallons per day. This is based upon the county's adopted level of
service standard of 250 gallons per ERU per day. The site is
located in the West County Wastewater Area. Wastewater service is
available within approximately 1/4 mile of the subject property.
The West County Wastewater Plant has an available capacity of
525,000 gallons 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 wastewater
facilities or pay for their expansion if capacity is not available
at the time of site development. With this condition, the
wastewater 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
approximately 192 units of residential development on the subject
site will be approximately 307.2 waste generation units (WGUs), or
910.08 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.
45
BOOK Ni"A l
r I
11 BAR 10 N92
800K TE 0 '
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 developments are reviewed for compliance with county stormwater
regulations which require on-site retention and minimum finished
floor elevations. In addition, development proposals will have to
meet the discharge requirements of the county Stormwater Management
Ordinance. The subject property is located within the M-1
Drainage Basin. No discharge rate has been set for this basin by
the county. However, the site is located within the Indian River
Farms Water Control District,.and any development on the property
will be prohibited from discharging any run-off in excess of two
(2) inches in a 24 hour period, which is the approved Indian River
Farms Water Control District rate.
The minimum floor elevation level of service standard applies,
since the property lies within a floodplain. Consistent with
Drainage Policy 1.2, "all new buildings shall have the lowest
habitable floor elevation no lower than the elevation of the 100
year flood elevation as shown on the Federal Emergency Management
Agency FIRM, or as defined in a more detailed study report." Most
of the site -'is located within Flood Zone A, which is a special
flood hazard area located within the 100 -year floodplain. No
minimum elevation standard is specified for the A flood zone on the
Flood Insurance Rate Maps for this portion of the county. The
remainder of the property is located in Flood Zone X, which is
located outside the 500 -year floodplain and is classified a minimal
flood zone area.
Besides the minimum elevation requirement, on-site retention and
discharge level of service standards also apply to this request.
With the most intense use of this site, the maximum area of
impervious surface for the proposed request will be approximately
1,255,399 square feet, or 28.82 acres. The maximum run-off volume,
based upon that amount of impervious surface and the 25 year/24
hour design storm, will be ±336,000 cubic feet due to the Indian
River Farms Water Control District limitations. In order to
maintain the county's adopted level of service, the applicant will
be required to retain ±21 acre - feet of run-off on-site. It is
estimated that the pre -development run-off rate is ±13.7 cubic feet
per second.
Based upon staff's analysis, the drainage level of service will be
met by limiting off-site discharge to the Indian River Farms Water
Control District's maximum rate of 2 inches in 24 hours, and
requiring on-site retention of ±21 acre - feet of run-off for the
most intensive use of the property.
- Recreation -
A review of county recreation facilities and the projected demand
that. would result from the most intense development that could
occur on the property under the proposed zoning indicates that the
adopted levels of service would be maintained. The table below
illustrates the additional park demand associated with the proposed
development of the property and the existing surplus acreage by
park type.
46
With the execution of the developer's agreements as referenced 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 commercial and industrial land uses
and their densities. Commercial and industrial land uses are
located in nodes throughout the unincorporated areas of Indian
River County.
The goals, objectives and policies are the most important parts of
the Comprehensive Plan. Policies are 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 provide the basis for all county land
development related decisions. While all comprehensive plan
policies are important, some have more applicability than others in
reviewing rezoning requests. Of particular applicability for this
request are Future Land Use Policy 1.13, Future Land Use Policy
1..14 and Drainage Policy 8.1.
- Future Land Use Policy 1.13
Future Land Use Policy 1.13 states that the M-1, Medium -Density
Residential - 1 land use designation is intended for urban scale
development and intensities. In addition, that policy states that
these residential uses must be located within an existing or Future
Urban Service Area (USA). Since all three parcels of the subject
property are located within an area designated as -M-1 on the
county's future land use plan - map and are located within the
county's urban service area, the proposed request is consistent
with Policy 1.13.
Future Land Use Policy 1.14
Future Land Use Policy 1.14 is particularly applicable to this
request. While policy 1.14 sets a maximum density of 8 units/acre
for land designated as M-1 on the land use plan map, this policy
does not preclude establishment of a lower density zoning within M-
1 areas. In fact, Section 911.03 of the County's land development
regulations identifies a number of zoning districts which may be
applied to land within the M-1 land use designation. These zoning
districts range from RS -3 as the least intensive to RM -8 as the
most intensive, and include all zoning districts between RS -3 and
RM -8.
By allowing for the establishment of a range of zoning districts
with varying density limitations within the M-1 land use
designation, the comprehensive plan recognized that all properties
designated as M-1 are not the same and that the maximum density
specified by the M-1 designation should not be allowed by right for
all properties designated as M-1. Of particular concern during
plan preparation were the issues of transitional densities where
different land use designations abut and lower densities for
47
BAR J0 1992
BOOK Cmc 1AUE 63
LOS
Project
(Acres per
Demand
Surplus
Park Type
1000 population)
Acres
Acreage.
Urban District
5.0
1.92
220.84
Community (South)
1.25
0.48
12.365
Beach
1.5
0.57
76.65
River
1.5
0.57
37.64
With the execution of the developer's agreements as referenced 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 commercial and industrial land uses
and their densities. Commercial and industrial land uses are
located in nodes throughout the unincorporated areas of Indian
River County.
The goals, objectives and policies are the most important parts of
the Comprehensive Plan. Policies are 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 provide the basis for all county land
development related decisions. While all comprehensive plan
policies are important, some have more applicability than others in
reviewing rezoning requests. Of particular applicability for this
request are Future Land Use Policy 1.13, Future Land Use Policy
1..14 and Drainage Policy 8.1.
- Future Land Use Policy 1.13
Future Land Use Policy 1.13 states that the M-1, Medium -Density
Residential - 1 land use designation is intended for urban scale
development and intensities. In addition, that policy states that
these residential uses must be located within an existing or Future
Urban Service Area (USA). Since all three parcels of the subject
property are located within an area designated as -M-1 on the
county's future land use plan - map and are located within the
county's urban service area, the proposed request is consistent
with Policy 1.13.
Future Land Use Policy 1.14
Future Land Use Policy 1.14 is particularly applicable to this
request. While policy 1.14 sets a maximum density of 8 units/acre
for land designated as M-1 on the land use plan map, this policy
does not preclude establishment of a lower density zoning within M-
1 areas. In fact, Section 911.03 of the County's land development
regulations identifies a number of zoning districts which may be
applied to land within the M-1 land use designation. These zoning
districts range from RS -3 as the least intensive to RM -8 as the
most intensive, and include all zoning districts between RS -3 and
RM -8.
By allowing for the establishment of a range of zoning districts
with varying density limitations within the M-1 land use
designation, the comprehensive plan recognized that all properties
designated as M-1 are not the same and that the maximum density
specified by the M-1 designation should not be allowed by right for
all properties designated as M-1. Of particular concern during
plan preparation were the issues of transitional densities where
different land use designations abut and lower densities for
47
BAR J0 1992
BOOK Cmc 1AUE 63
ARI 500Kic PA[E
properties with development constraints. These issues were
resolved during plan preparation by providing the Board of County
Commissioners, through the zoning function, with the authority to
limit densities below the maximum allowed by a property's land use
designation, if conditions warrant.
With the subject request, the applicant seems to have applied this
reasoning to the Parcel,2 request. Since parcel 2 constitutes the
southernmost part of the M-1 district in this area and abuts
property designated as L-1 (low density with a maximum of 3 units
per acre) on the land use plan map, the applicant has recognized
that a transitional zoning district having a density substantially
less than the 8 units per acre maximum of the M-1 designation would
be appropriate for this site. For that reason, staff agrees with
the applicant's request to rezone Parcel 2 to RS -3.
Parcels 1 and 31 however, have characteristics which may justify a
lower density than the 8 unit per acre maximum allowed by the
property's M-1 land use designation. One such characteristic is
the property's flood designation. Since most of Parcels 1 and 3
are located within the 100 -year flood plain, drainage policy 8.1
applies. That policy indicates that only low density and low
intensity uses should be allowed in flood prone areas.
Conservation policy 4.3 is even more restrictive, indicating that
only low density land use designations having a maximum density of
3 units per acre or less should be allowed in flood prone areas.
In considering conservation policy 4.3, it is staff's position that
this policy addresses only land use map designations and therefore
would only apply to future land use plan map amendments. Since the
county used flood maps in setting plan densities and there are
land use densities higher than 3 units per acre applied to the
subject property and other land designated as flood prone, it is
recognized that other factors, including infill objectives and land
use compatibility concerns, were responsible for those
designations. Conservation policy 4.3, however, prohibits any
future land use plan map amendments that would establish a land use
designation higher than 3 units per acre in flood prone areas.
Drainage policy 8.11 however, is different. This policy indicates
that only low density uses should be allowed in flood prone areas,
regardless of the underlying land use designation. Since the
comprehensive plan identifies low density as 6 units per acre or
less, it is staff's position that parcels 1 and 3 could be rezoned
to a district allowing -residential development up to 6 units per
acre and still be consistent with drainage policy 8.1.
In analyzing the site and surrounding area, several factors provide
guidance as to the appropriate zoning for parcels 1 and 3. First,
the high density mobile home developments directly to the north and
relatively close to the east of parcels 1 and 3 would justify a
higher density for compatibility purposes. Second, the fact that
the flood maps show that part of the parcel 1 and 3 site is outside
of the 100 -year floodplain and the portion within the floodplain is
on the edge indicates that the area is transitional and may
accommodate densities on the higher end of the low density range.
Finally, the fact that a multi -family zoning classification would
provide more opportunities for clustering, preserving open space,
and limiting impervious surface than a traditional subdivision
under single-family zoning provides justification for a multi-
family district.
Based upon the above analysis, staff feels that the RM -8 zoning
district requested for parcels 1 and 3 is inappropriate and
inconsistent with the comprehensive plan. It is staff's position,.
however, that the property could be rezoned RM -6 and comply with
the plan's provisions and intent.
48
_ M
Potential Impact on Environmental Quality
The environmental characteristics of the subject property are
suitable for low density residential development, provided that the
existing wetland on the property is taken into consideration during
site development design and provided that wetland impacts are
minimized. Because the site has a diversity of habitats and
various environmental constraints, development plans will have to
address wetland preservation, upland habitat preservation and
wetland protection for the subject property.
LDR Chapter 928, Wetland and Deep Water Habitat Protection,
provides the necessary regulatory control to ensure that any
wetland impacts will be minimized and mitigated, as applicable.
For that reason, staff feels that this request is consistent with
the county's conservation and environmental protection policies.
Compatibility with the Surroundina Area
It is staff's position that the proposed request to rezone parcel
#2 of the subject property to RS -3 will result in development which
will be compatible with the surrounding area. The subject property
is on the fringe of the M-1 land use designation with property to
the south being in the L-1 land use designation. Since properties
to the south are already zoned for single family residential
development, --the RS -3 district proposed for parcel 2 would ensure
compatibility with the land to the south. While adjacent
properties to the west and east are agriculturally zoned, these
areas also contain single-family residences. Based upon the
analysis performed, staff feels that the requested RS -3 zoning for
parcel #2 would be compatible with the surrounding area.
As indicated above, staff has concerns regarding the request for
RM -8 zoning for parcels 1 and 3. Although the comprehensive plan
requires low density development in flood prone areas, staff feels
that RS -3 would not be appropriate for parcels 1 and 3. Because of
the proximity of high density mobile home developments, a low
density district higher than 3 units per acre is probably
warranted. Conversely, the RM -8 cannot be justified in terms of
the flood prone nature of the property. Also providing- support for
a density lower than the land use plan maximum is the county's past
policy of assigning lower densities to properties within the State
Road 60 corridor which are more distant from State Road 60. For
these reasons, staff feels that RM -6 would be appropriate for
parcels 1 and 3.
ALTERNATIVES
The Board of County Commissioners has several alternatives to
consider regarding the subject property. -
0 The Board of County Commissioners could rezone Parcels 1
& 3 to RM -8 and Parcel 2 to RS -3, as requested by the
applicant.
o The Board of County Commissioners could deny the
applicant's request to rezone Parcels & 3 to RM -8 and
Parcel 2 to RS -3.
C The Board of County Commissioners could rezone Parcel 2
to RS -3 and rezone Parcels 1 & 3 to a less dense zoning
category which complies with Drainage Policy 8.1,
relating to properties in flood prone areas. Staff
supports this recommendation based on the analysis
presented above.
49
MM H 17 i�(1K V LD f'r?i�C Y9 8y
FF,_ I
MAR io 1992 BOOK 1'A11 7 17
RECOMMENDATION
Based upon the analysis performed, staff recommends that the Board
of County Commissioners approve the request to rezone parcel #2 to
RS -3 and recommends that parcels #1 and #3 be rezoned to RM -6
instead of the requested RM -8.
The Chairman opened the public hearing and asked if anyone
wished to be heard in this matter. There being none, she closed
the public hearing.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by
Commissioner Scurlock, the Board unanimously adopted
Ordinance 92-05 amending the zoning ordinance and
the accompanying zoning map from A-1 to RS -3 and RM -
6, for the property generally located east of 90th
Avenue between 8th Street and 12th Street, as set
out in staff's recommendation.
ORDINANCE NO. 92-05
AN ORDINANCE OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, AMENDING
THE ZONING ORDINANCE AND THE ACCOMPANYING ZONING MAP FROM
A-1 TO RS -3 AND RM -6, FOR THE PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED
EAST OF 90TH AVENUE, BETWEEN 8TH STREET AND 12TH STREET,
AND DESCRIBED HEREIN, AND PROVIDING FOR EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission, sitting as the
local planning agency on such matters, has held a public hearing
and subsequently made a* recommendation regarding this rezoning
request; and
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River
County, Florida, did publish and send its Notice of Intent to
rezone the hereinafter described property; and
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners has determined that
this rezoning is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan of
Indian River County; and
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners has held a public
hearing pursuant to this rezoning request, at which parties in
interest and citizens were heard;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED, by the Board of County
Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, that the Zoning of
the following described property situated in Indian River County,
Florida, to -wit: 50
Parcel 1:
An undivided one-half interest in and to the following
described property: The West 10 acres of the east 20
acres of Tract 12, Section 11, Township 33S, Range 38E,
Indian River Farms Company, according to the last general
plat filed in the off of the Clerk of the Circuit Court
of St. Lucie County, Florida, in Plat Book 2, Page 25,
said land now lying and being in Indian River County,
Florida. Said parcel containing ±10 acres; and
Parcel 3:
Commencing at the Northwest corner of Tract 12, Section
11, Township 33S, Range 38E; thence along the center
section line North 89043101" East 656.60' to the Point of
Beginning. From the Point of Beginning parallel to the
West line of Section 11 South 0005100" West 1326.43' to
a point on the South line of Tract 12; thence along the
South line of Tract 12 North 89038111" East 19.82' to a
point; thence parallel to the East line of Tract 12 North
Oo00113" East 1326.40' to a point on the center Section
line; thence along said center Section line South
89o43'01" 19.94' to the Point of Beginning. Said parcel
containing ±0.61 acres.
Be changed from A-1, Agricultural -1 District, to RM -6, Multiple -
Family Residential District; and
Parcel 2:
All of Tract 13, less the North 5 acres of the West 20
acres of said Tract, all in Section 11, Township 33S,
Range 38E, according to the last general plat of lands of
Indian River Farms Company filed in the office of the
Clerk of the Circuit Court -of St. Lucie County, Florida,
said land now lying and being in Indian River County,
Florida; less road right-of-way. Said parcel containing
±35.65 acres.
Be changed from A-1, Agricultural -1 District, to RS -3, Single -
Family Residential District.
All with the meaning and intent and as set forth and described in
said Zoning Regulations.
Approved and adopted by the Board of County Commissioners of
Indian River County, Florida, on this 10 day of March , 1992.
This ordinance was advertised in the Vero Beach Press -Journal
on the 19 day of February , 1992 for a public hearing to be
held on the 10 day of March , 1992 at which time it was
moved for adoption by Commissioner Bird , seconded by
Commissioner Scurlock , and adopted by the following
vote:
Chairman Carolyn K. Eggert Nye
Vice Chairman Margaret C. Bowman Aye
Commissioner Gary Wheeler Aye
Commissioner Richard N. Bird Aye
Commissioner Don C. Scurlock, Jr. Aye
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
BY:
Carol K. E!V, , Chairman,
51
G
'�` I��;
BOOK
PUBLIC HEARING --SILVER OARS
Moved to Item 11.H.4.
c� PAGE !,
PUBLIC HEARING - UPDATE OF STANDARD TECHNICAL CODES TO REFLECT THE
LATEST EDITIONS AND AN EDITORIAL CHANGE
The hour of 9:05 o'clock A. M. having passed, the County
Attorney announced that this public hearing has been properly
advertised as follows:
VERO BEACH PRESS -JOURNAL
Published Daily
Vero Beach, Indian River County, Florida
COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER: STATE OF FLORIDA
Before the undersigned authority personally appeared J. J. Schumann, Jr. who on oath
says that he is Business Manager of the Vero Beach Press -Journal, a daily newspaper published
at Vero Beach In Indian River County, Florida; that the attached copy of advertisement, being
a_424/
In the matter of
In the Court, was pub-
lished in said newspaper in the issues of
Affiant further says that the said Vero Beach Press -Journal is a newspaper published at
Vero Beach, in said Indian River County, Florida, and that the said newspaper has heretofore
been continuously published in said Indian River County, Florida, each daily and has been
entered as second class mail matter at the post office in Vero Beach, in said Indian River Coun-
ty, Florida, fora period of one year next preceding the first publication of the attached copy of
advertisement; and affiant further says that he has neither paid nor promised any person, firm
or corporation any discount, rebate, commission or refund for the purpose of securing this
advertisement for publication in the said newspaper.
Sworn to and subscribed before me this day of' 19
p) usmess Manager)
- A 9 . �.
--- PUBLIC HEARING FOR y
PROPOSED ORDINANCE
The Board of County Commissioners of Indian
River County, Florida, hereby provides notice of a
Pubac
March 1Hearin
1992disaiss the 5 afo messcheduled for 9:0.on proposed
ordinance entltled:
AN ORDINANCE OF INDIAN RIVER COUN-
TY, FLORIDA, UPDATING THE STAND-
ARD TECHNICAL CODES TO REFLECT
THE LATEST EDITIONS ,AND AN EDI-
TORIAL CHANGE.
Anyone who mwish
ay madeathe to apon March peal
any decision which
1992, will need to ensure that a verbatim record of
estimony
aannd upon appeproceedings made, which al Is ba�aedt
Feb.20,1992 878139
The Board reviewed memo from Assistant County Attorney Terry
O'Brien dated February 19, 1992:
52
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
r r�
Board of County Commissioners
Terrence P. O'Brien - Assistant County Attorney -rro
February 19, 1992
PUBLIC HEARING 3/10/92 -
UPDATE OF STANDARD BUILDING CODE
The County has adopted by reference standard technical codes. These
codes are updated from time to time. The Building Code Board of
Adjustments and Appeals and the Building Division have recommended
the adoption of the new editions. To this end, the attached proposed
ordinance has been prepared.
Staff recommends approval of the proposed ordinance.
Building Director Ester Rymer advised the Board that the
Building Code Board of Adjustments and Appeals supported the
recommendation to upgrade these codes.
The Chairman opened the public hearing and asked if anyone
wished to be heard in this matter. There being none, she closed
the public hearing.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously adopted
Ordinance 92-06 updating the Standard Technical
Codes to ref lect the 1,ateat editions ;and an editorial
change, as recommended by staff.
ORDINANCE 92- 06
AN ORDINANCE OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY,
FLORIDA, UPDATING THE STANDARD
TECHNICAL CODES TO REFLECT THE LATEST
EDITIONS AND AN EDITORIAL CHANGE.
WHEREAS, Indian River County has adopted standard
technical codes for its Building Codes; and
WHEREAS, these technical codes are updated and new
additions issued from time to time; and
adopted,
WHEREAS, good practice dictates that the latest Code be
NOW, THEREFORE, be it ordained by the Board of County
Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida that:
53
T1 1,992
,-,
BOOK 0 fAA 1NJ
FF -
up i
-0. 1912
BOOK 8b PAGE ij
SECTION 1. AMENDMENT SECTION 401.01
Section 401.01 is hereby amended to reflect the following
editions of the Standard Technical Codes.
Standard Building Code (SBC) , 1991 Edition
Standard Plumbing Code (SPC), 1991 Edition
Standard Mechanical Code (SMC), 1991 Edition
Standard Gas Code (SGC), 1991 Edition
Standard Housing Code (SHC), 1991 Edition
Standard Unsafe Buildings Abatement Code
(SUBAC) , 1985 Edition
National Electrical Code (NEC) , 1990 Edition
SECTION 2. AMENDMENT SECTION 401.04
Section 401.04 is hereby amended to add the following
underlined wording:
Section 401.04 Fire prevention codes and standards.
Indian River County and the respective fire districts in
Indian River County adopt the following codes for the
purpose of prescribing rules and regulations governing
conditions that could cause a potential hazard to life and
property; provided, however, should the State of Florida
enact standards which adopt later editions than herein
specified, the editions set forth in the Florida Statutes shall
annly:
SECTION 3. REPEAL
Those portions of the Indian River County Code superseded
or in conflict with the provisions herein adopted, in particular
Chapter 401, are hereby repealed.
SECTION 4. SEVERABILITY.
If any section, or if any sentence, paragraph, phrase, or
word of this ordinance is for any reason held to be unconstitutional,
inoperative, or void, such holding shall not affect the remaining
portions of this ordinance, and it shall be construed to have been the
legislative intent to pass the ordinance without such unconstitutional,
invalid or inoperative part.
54
SECTION 5. EFFECTIVE DATE.
This ordinance shall become effective on becoming law.
Approved and adopted by the Board of County
Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, on this 10 day of
March , 1992.
This ordinance was advertised in the Vero Beach Press -
Journal on
the 2 0
day of F e b r u a r y,
1992, for a public hearing to
be held on
the 10
day of March
, 1992, at which time it was
moved for
adoption
by Commissioner
Scurlock and the motion
was seconded by Commissioner Bird , and, adopted by
the following vote:
Chairman Carolyn K. Eggert Aye
Vice Chairman Margaret C. Bowman Aye
Commissioner Richard N. Bird Aye
Commissioner Don C. Scurlock, Jr. Aye
Commissioner Gary C. Wheeler Aye
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
BY /- /�lit�
Carolv�S/KChair . Eggert
PUBLIC HEARING - ORDINANCE PLACING RESTRICTIONS ON THE PROCEEDS
FROM THE SALE OF THE OLD LIBRARY SITE
The hour of 9:05 o'clock A. M. having passed, the County
Attorney announced that this public hearing has been properly
advertised as follows:
55
MAR 101992 BOOK Fait A��
,
't i a 1992
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 Court, was pub-
lished in said newspaper in the issues of cvi .r!i' �i47
J or
Affiant further says that the said Vero Beach Press -Journal is a newspaper published at
Vero Beach, in said Indian River County, Florida, and that the said newspaper has heretofore
been continuously published in said Indian River County, Florida. each daily and has been
entered as second class mail matter at the post office in Vero Beach, in said Indian River Coun-
ty, Florida, for a period of one year next preceding the first publication of the attached copy of
advertisement; and affiant further says that he has neither paid nor promised any person, firm
or corporation any discount, rebate, commission or refund for the purpose of securing this
advertisement for publication in the said newspaper.
Sworn to and subscribed before m� this,,% �. day,.o19 a,
Business Manager)
F'A.6E
NOTICE
The Board of County Canmisatoners of Indian
Riven Cowriy. Florida, hereby pmvtd0 rx a of
PUBUC HEARING sdxsdW 9:OB A M. on
TUESDAY, MARCH 10, 1882, to disaw a pro.
posed
ONCor ORDINANCE OF ARDF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY,
FLORIDA, PLACING RESTRICTIONS ON THE
PROCEEDS FROM THE SALE OF THE OLD LI-
BRARY SITE.
maybe mmaader at � meeting to will r� decision
whloha verbaft record testhna�y � evidence
the appeal Is based. which
Feb. 13.1992 878287
The Board reviewed memo from County Attorney Charles Vitunac
dated February 12, 1992:
56
TO: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
FROM: Charles P. Vitunac, County Attorney
DATE: February 12, 1992
RE: FUTURE SALE OF OLD LIBRARY
The attached ordinance would place a restriction on the use of any
funds which might be realized by the County on any future sale of the
old library site. The restriction parallels one put on the deed to the
library from the City; however, because of a title problem caused by
the restriction, the City released the restriction and quitclaimed the
property to the County free and clear. The County accepted this
quitclaim deed on February 11, 1992.
If the County adopts this ordinance, any proceeds would be used for
only books, furniture, and equipment for the new library system.
Future County Commissioners would have the power to repeal the
ordinance and use the proceeds for any legal purpose.
RECONNOMED ACTION:
Adopt ordinance and authorize the Chairman to execute it.
Chairman Eggert recommended removing the word "new" from the
phrase "new library system" because "new" may have a different
meaning in the future.
Commissioner Bird asked if we need to be specific as to books,
furniture and equipment because there may be a need for another
site.
Chairman Eggert explained that the intent is to specify that
these funds are not to be used for construction and site. It also
expands the use of these funds for library purposes beyond the main
library, so she felt it was necessary to include this language.
The Chairman, opened the public hearing and asked if anyone
wished to be heard in this matter. There being none, she closed
the public hearing.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by
Commissioner Scurlock, the Board unanimously adopted
Ordinance 92-07, as amended, placing restrictions on
the proceeds from the sale of the old library site,
as recommended by staff.
57
boor.
r
GOOK;' E
ORDINANCE NO. 92- 07
AN ORDINANCE OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY,
FLORIDA, PLACING RESTRICTIONS ON THE
PROCEEDS FROM THE SALE OF THE OLD
LIBRARY SITE.
WHEREAS, the City of Vero Beach quitclaimed its rights in the old
library site across from City Hall; and
WHEREAS, said quitclaim contained a condition subsequent that if
the site were sold the proceeds would be used for "books and internal
requirements"; and
WHEREAS, this restriction places a cloud on the title and,
therefore, the City has removed the condition subsequent; and
WHEREAS, the County desires to fulfill the original intent of the
City;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that:
SECTION 1. RESTRICTION
If the old library site across from City Hall, i.e., Lots 27 through
39 inclusive, Block 1, LANGWICH SUBDIVISION, is sold, the proceeds from
said sale shall be used by the County for books, furniture, and equipment
for the - library system.
SECTION 2. EFFECTIVE DATE
This ordinance shall become effective on becoming law.
Approved and adopted by the 13oard of County Commissioners of
Indian River County, Florida, on this 10 day of March , 1992.
This ordinance was advertised in the Vero Beach Press Journal on
the 13 day of February , 1992, for a public hearing to be held on the
10 day of March , 1992, at which time it was moved for adoption by
Commissioner Bi rd , and the motion was seconded by Commissioner
Scurlock , and, upon being put to a vote, the vote was as follows:
Chairman Carolyn K. Eggert Aye
Aye
Vice Chairman Margaret C. Bowman Aye
Commissioner Don C. Scurlock, Jr. Aye
Commissioner Richard N. Bird Aye
Commissioner Gary C. Wheeler
The Chairman thereupon declared the ordinance duly passed and
adopted this 10day of March , 1992.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
By
Car4n K. E t
58 Chairman
PUBLIC HEARING - EXCHANGE OF COUNTY -OWNED LAND NEAR TRACKING
STATION PARK FOR GIFFORD COMMUNITY CENTER LAND
The hour of 9:05 o"clock A. M. having passed, the County
Attorney announced that this public hearing has been properly
advertised as follows:
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 dally newspaper published
at Vero Beach in Indian River County, Florida; that the attached copy of advertisement, being
In the matter
In the Court, was pub-
lished In said newspaper In the Issues of
Affiant further says that the said Vero Beach Press -Journal Is a newspaper published at
Vero Beach, in said Indian River County, Florida, and that the said newspaper has heretofore
been continuously published in said Indian River County, Florida, each dally 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 Ihg purpose of securing this
advertisement for publication in the said newspaper. ./
i
Sworn to and subscribed before me this day of %' p, 19 i c
(Business Manager)
VERO BEACH PRESS -JOURNAL
Published Daily
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
PUBLIC NOTICE i I
On the gl0=N= 1892, the Baud of
pprwthnetety Itly tred of lard owned the
C°umy in h� HNer l ore9 adjsoeI to Treckgrg .
Station Park with the Ttxvn m>< kr tsn Rharr Shores '
In exchan for dear title to 39 eves
of omni an which to W=ted==-1.39-
.1
the OHtvdt Cananuiq
Center. In addition the Town will pay the Comity
$125,000. Anyone interested In .tlmfficharmpge
sharM be present and will be given an opppaNdiy
to speak for or so to! Oma exchange.
any decision which
matte who made a1 Oft wish � need to enemas
that a wxbaWn recordofthe Is made
O=W wAXZ
which the sp willbe based. uponFeb.13. 4982 875280
MAR 10 1992
In the matter of �+
PUBLIC NOTICE
On the 10th °f March. 19N. the Board of
a wa cwskW -ChBrilikill an
County
ynet�dpy 8ve ire trot of two owned by the
in indtan Rive Shores a0werd to Tracklm
Cashty
station Perk with the Town of tndian River Shares
In the
hares
In exchange for dear title to .'
of land on wtddm rdwated pit
to addition B���
Court, was pub.
$1 ham•
AWM rei-v ed i
s 25 be � will be glvm ty
lished in said newspaper In the Issues of ��
present '
against the �
Anyone �m ay wish tosplifta � � ;
be made at Oda neett� Is made
a verbatim record of the upon
which troli'des if* tosilmorl and
which the BQp� will be based. 878128 '
Affiant further says that the said Vero Beach Press -Journal is a newspaper published at
Feb. 20.1aac
Vero Beach, in said Indian River County, Florida, and that the sold 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 subscribe d'efor�ilta 1 ' � - -day of �Zr -b. 19
—
59 ._ ..
BOOK ie f'A,r d�"'Ju
MAR 10 1992
r-
ilkl A 19972
BOOK 65 PAGE a
The Board reviewed memo from County Attorney Charles Vitunac
dated February 6, 1992:
TO: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
FROM: Charles P. Vitunac, County Attorney
DATE: February 6, 1992
RE: EXCHANGE OF COUNTY -OWNED LAND NEAR TRACKING
STATION PARK FOR GIFFORD COMMUNITY CENTER LAND
The Board of County Commissioners recently approved exchanging
approximately five acres of land in Indian River Shores near Tracking
Station Park for approximately 39 acres on which the Gifford Community
Center has been built. In addition the Town has agreed to pay the
County $125,000 and to restrict the use of the land to public uses.
Section 125.37, Florida Statutes, authorizes such an exchange, provided
that a notice setting forth the terms and conditions of any such
exchange shall first be published once a week for at least two weeks
before adoption by the Board of a resolution authorizing the exchange.
The appropriate notice has been published in the paper and the
attached resolution is presented to the Board for adoption to effectuate
the exchange of properties.
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Adopt the attached resolution authorizing
exchange of property, acceptance of $125,000, and execution of County
deed by Chairman.
Commissioner Scurlock asked about restrictions on the use of
the $125,000, and County Administrator Chandler responded that
after the discussion in January it was recommended that the funds
be utilized for park purposes, either acquisition or development.
Commissioner Bird advised that the Parks & Recreation
Committee has a. land acquisition fund and he recommended the
$125,000 be placed in that fund.
The Chairman opened the public
wished to be heard in this matter.
the public hearing.
60
hearing and asked if anyone
There being none, she closed
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by
Commissioner Wheeler, the Board unanimously adopted
Resolution 92-46 authorizing the Exchange of
approximately five acres of land in the Town of
Indian River Shores adjacent to Tracking Station
Park for land on which the Gifford Community Center
is located, of approximately 39 acres, plus the
payment of $125,000 by Indian River Shores to the
County, to be deposited into the County's Parks
Development Fund.
RESOLUTION NO. 92- 46
A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY,
FLORIDA, AUTHORIZING THE EXCHANGE OF
APPROXIMATELY FIVE ACRES OF LAND IN THE
TOWN OF INDIAN RIVER SHORES ADJACENT TO
TRACKING PARK FOR LAND ON WHICH THE
GIFFORD COMMUNITY CENTER IS LOCATED, OF
APPROXIMATELY 39 ACRES, PLUS THE PAYMENT
BY INDIAN RIVER SHORES TO THE COUNTY OF
$.1259000 TO BE DEPOSITED INTO THE COUNTY'S
PARKS DEVELOPMENT FUND.
WHEREAS, Indian River County is the owner of approximately five acres
of land in the Town of Indian River Shores adjacent to Tracking Station
Park; and
WHEREAS, the County has determined that the land is surplus to
the needs of the County and can be better used by the Town; and
WHEREAS, the Town has approximately 39 acres of land in the Gifford
community on which the County has built the Gifford Community Center,
which land is now surplus to the needs of the Town; and
WHEREAS, the Town and the County believe that the public interest
would be better served by the exchange of these properties, including a
payment by the Town to the County of $125,000; and
WHEREAS, the Town has agreed to restrict the use of the land being
transferred to it for public purposes only,
61
MAR 10 199
MAR, 1 0` `
BOOK 8b F'A.E Fl���
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that:
1. The Chairman of the Board of County Commissioners is authorized to
execute a County deed of the referenced property in return for which
the County will accept a quitclaim deed of the Gifford Community
property and a check for $125,000, which shall be deposited into the
County's Parks Development Fund.
2. The County deed shall contain a restriction that the land be used for
public purposes only.
The resolution was moved for adoption by Commissioner Scurlock ,
and the motion was seconded by Commissioner Bird , , and, upon being
put to a vote, the vote was as follows:
Chairman Carolyn K. Eggert Aye
v Vice Chairman Margaret C. Bowman Aye
Commissioner Don C. Scurlock, Jr. Aye
Commissioner Richard N. Bird Aye
Commissioner Gary C. Wheeler Aye
The Chairman thereupon declared the resolution duly passed and
adopted this Ip_ day of March , 1992.
BOARD- OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
INDIANN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
rolyn K r kgert
hairman
62
CONSULTING SERVICES FOR REPLACEMENT OF 20TH AVENUE BRIDGE OVER THE
SOUTH RELIEF CANAL - MARSHALL. MCCULLY It ASSOCIATES - FINAL PAYMENT
The Board reviewed memo from County Engineer Roger Cain dated
March 2, 1992:
TO: James Chandler
County Administrator
THROUGH: James W. Davis, P.E.
Public Works Director
FROM: Roger D. Cain, P.E. ✓�
County Engineer
SUBJECT: Consulting Services for the Replacement
Avenue Bridge over the South Relief Canal
McCully & Associates - Final Payment
DATE: March 2, 1992
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
of the 20th
- Marshall,
This bridge has been completed and is constructed. The consultant
was to provide some construction services during construction,
which he has done, and is now submitting a final pay request for
this project-: The original contract -was for $46,000.00, the total
of the payments made so far is $37,498.90, leaving an amount to be
paid to the consultant, including the release of retainage, of
$8,501.10.
ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS
Alternative No. 1 - Pay the final payment and release the retainage
in the amount of $8.501.10.
Alternative No._a - Not to make final payment and release and
continue to hold retainage.
RECOMMENDATION AND FUNDING
Public Works is recommending that because of the satisfactory
completion of the consulting services agreement, the final payment
and retainage should be released to the consultant, Marshall,
McCully & Associates in the amount of $8,501.10. Funding to be
from Account No. 111-214-541-033.19.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Wheeler, SECONDED by
Commissioner Scurlock, the Board unanimously
released the final payment and retainage to
consultant Marshall, McCully & Associates in the
amount of $8,501.10, as recommended by staff.
63
r -
BOOK. i� PA.lE j cO
u` AR, 10 1992 BOOK f'„GE 1
NORTH BEACH REVERSE OSMOSIS PLANT EXPANSION
The Board reviewed memo from Utility Services Director Terry
Pinto dated February 18, 1992:
DATE: FEBRUARY 18, 1992
TO: JAMES E. CHANDLER
COUNTY ADMINISTRAT
2,�
FROM: TERRANCE G. PINT
DIRECTOR OF UTIL T SERVICES
PREPARED WILLI cCAIN
AND STAFFED CA PIT �OF GINEER
BY: DEPAR TY SERVICES
SUBJECT: NORTH BEACH R.O. PLANT EXPANSION
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY PROJECT NO. UW -90 -10 -WC
BACKGROUND
On May 14, 1991, the Board of County Commissioners awarded the above
project to_Butler Construction Company (see attached agenda item and
minutes). The notice to proceed was issued on June 26, 1991. The
contract is well past 50% completed and has proceeded on schedule.
Per the contract documents and at the engineer's recommendation, we
are now in a position to reduce retainage to 5% of the total
contract amount.
ANALYSIS
As stated above, the contract documents allow for a retainage
reduction to 5% under certain conditions (see attached applicable
page of the contract documents) The engineer of record, Camp
Dresser & McKee, has recommended a reduction in retainage (see
attached letter dated February 4, 1992). The staff of the
Department of Utility Services is satisfied that the project is on
schedule and.that the quality of workmanship is satisfactory. We
are, therefore, requesting that the.Board of County Commissioners
authorize the retainage reduction to 5% on this contract.
RECOrIIKENDATION
The staff of the Department of Utility Services recommends the Board
of County Commissioners approve the retainage reduction on Butler
Construction Company's North Beach R.O. Plant Expansion contract to
5%.
Chairman Eggert asked why the retainage was dropped from 10%
to 5% when it is only 67% completed.
Bill McCain advised that currently the project is 69%
complete. He explained that traditionally contract documents do
provide for a reduction of retainage once the job reaches 50%
completion as an incentive and because the contractor has performed
well.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously approved
retainage reduction from 10% to 5% on the contract
with Butler Construction Co. for the North Beach
Reverse Osmosis Expansion, as recommended by staff.
64
NORTH COUNTY WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT EXPANSION AND EFFLUENT
DISPOSAL. PHASE II
The Board reviewed memo from Utility Services Director Terry
Pinto dated February 18, 1992:
DATE: FEBRUARY 18, 1992
TO: JAMES E. CHANDLER
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
FROM: TERRANCE G. PINT
DIRECTOR OF UTI SERVICES
PREPARED WILLIAM F. MCCAINfi4SVtICES' AND STAFFED CAPITAL PROJECTS E
BY: DEPARTMENT OF UTILITY
SUBJECT: NORTH COUNTY WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT (WWTP)
EXPANSION AND EFFLUENT DISPOSAL, PHASE II
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY PROJECT NO. IIS -90 -26 -DC
BACKGROUND
On February 27, 1991, the Board of County Commissioners approved the
selection of Masteller and Moler for the design of the 1 MGD
expansion of the North County WWTP (see attached agenda item and
minutes). On April 25, 1991, the Board of County Commissioners
approved the contract for the plant design as well as the plant's
effluent disposal system design (see attached agenda item and
minutes). As can be seen from the attached meeting minutes, we were
instructed to hold off on the plant design portion of this project
until permitted capacity reached a sufficient level to justify
construction.
ANALYSIS
Attached you will find a current tabulation of permitted and
reserved flows at the North County WWTP. As can be seen from these
figures, our average daily flow (ADF) at this facility is 150,000
gallons per day (GPD). We have currently permitted with DER 3,049
ERUs (76% of capacity) against the total capacity of 4000 ERUs. The
Indian River County Comprehensive Plan requires design to begin at
55% of capacity. The total reserved and permitted capacity for this
facility is currently 5,349 ERUs. To avoid possible dry -line
permitting scenarios in the North County service area, staff is
requesting authorization to begin design of this facility.
RE C IMMENDATION
The staff of the Department of Utility Services recommends that the
Board of County Commissioners authorize the Department of Utility
Services to have the selected firm of Masteller and Moler proceed
with the design of this facility.
65
MAR 10 1992
NORTH COUNTY WASTEWATER FLOW DATA
1 �..b �' 0`�9
BOOK FADE je 11 )
Name Flow MGD ERU/250 ERC/350
River Run
0.0330
132
94
Pelican Pointe
0.0600
240
171
Park Place MHP
0.1000
400
286
Aspen Whispering Palms I & II MHP
0.0486
194
139
Sandlake MHP
0.0264
106
75
Breezy Village MHP
0.0165
66
47
New Horizons MHP
0.0342
137
98
Fisher Industrial Park
0.0058
23
17
North County Gravity Sewer No. 1
0.0063
25
18
North County Gravity Sewer No. 2
0.0063
25
18
Vickers Grove Industrial Park
0.0200
80
57
Copeland's Landing
0.0290
116
83
Morchesky Industrial S/D
0.0088
35
25
Flatt Industrial S/D
0.0100
40
29
Oyster Point Condominiums
0.0300
120
86
KOA Campgrounds
0.0126
50
36
Davis House Motel
0.0017
7
5
French's Sebastian Oaks
0.0018
7
5
River Boat Club S/D
0.0098
39
28
Chesser's Gap (Commercial)
0.0505
202
144
Shady Rest MHP
0.0300
120
86
SuperAmerica Convenience Store
0.0020
8
6
Collier Creek Commercial Park
0.0151
60
43
Pelican Shoppes
0.0095
38
27
Sebastian Square
0.0110
44
31
Karl Hedin Fast Lube/Storage
0.0005
2
1
Earl's Hideaway
0.0008
3
2
Mel Fisher Center
0.0006
2
2
Roseland Plaza Sewer
0.0060
24
17
Sebastian Elementary Sewer
0.0063
25
18
Humana Hospital Sewer
0.0440
176
126
Jerry's Sub and Pub
0.0010
4
3
El Capitan Subregional L.S.
0.0413
165
118
Sebastian Resort Hotel
0.0214
85
61
Palmer Trust
0.0074
29
21
Sebastian Car Wash
0.0005
2
1
Wabasso Special School L.S.
0.0025'
10
7
Sebastian Police Station
0.0010
4
3
Reflections on the River
0.0505
202
144
Total Flow as of February 27, 1992
0.7623*
Total ERUs
3049
Total ERCs Permitted 2178 x 350 =
762,300
gallons per day
(GPD)
S
Sold and/or
Permitted
Total ERC Served 1435
Permit No. D031-155597
ERUs Current Billing - 5,349, which includes reserved capacity, as
well as permitted
(Current reserved and permitted capacity = 1,337,250 GPD)
Please Note: Plant is currently rated @ 1,000,000 GPD
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously.
authorized the selected firm of Masteller and Moler
to proceed with design of the North County
Wastewater Treatment Plant Expansion and Effluent
Disposal, Phase II, as recommended by staff.
66
SILVER OAKS/51ST COURT WATER MAIN EXTENSION FINAL PAY REQUEST
The Board reviewed memo from Utility Services Director Terry
Pinto dated February Z6, 1992:
DATE: FEBRUARY 26, 1992
TO: JAMES E. CHANDLER
COUNTY ADMINISTRATO
FROM: TERRANCE G. ML�
DIRECT OF T S 2VICES
PREPARED H. D. ,
AND STAFFED ENVIRONMEATTAL ENGINEER
BY: DEPARTMENT OF UTILITY SERVICES
SUBJECT: SILVER OARS/51ST COURT WATER MAIN EXTENSION
FINAL PAY REQUEST
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY PROJECT NO. UW -90 -16 -DS
BACKGROUND
The subject project for construction of a water main to service
residents of Silver Oaks Subdivision has been completed. The
installation has been accepted by the Department of Utility
Services, and proper certification has been provided to the
Department of Environmental Regulation.
ANALYSIS
On May 7, 1991, the Board of County Commissions approved funding of
$23,989.00 for this project, and the contractor is now requesting
final payment. The contractor's final cost totaled $16,726.00.
However, material costing $494.00 was furnished to the contractor by
the County. This amount and the previous payment of $10,368.00
leaves an unpaid balance of $5,864.00. The $494.00 deduction for
materials was telephone coordinated with Carbec Construction (Arthur
Cohen) on February 14, 1992. Construction cost, plus engineering,
inspection, and administrative costs totaled $19,531.50, or
approximately $0.0520 per square foot.
RECONDGMATION
The staff of the Department of Utility Services recommends approval
of the final pay request in the amount of $5,864.00 as payment in
full for services rendered.
Commissioner Scurlock reported he had received a number of
calls from residents regarding this project and asked if all
complaints had been satisfied.
Capital Projects Engineer Bill McCain responded that those few
minor items have been addressed and rectified.
67
BOOK �� fA;;E I J4
MAR 1 1
C 1 `
BOOK FACE 6jJ:'��
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously approved
the final pay request for $5,864.00 to Carbec
Construction, Inc., as payment in full for services
rendered, as set out in staff recommendation.
FINAL PAYMENT REQUEST
IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF CLERK TO THE BOARD
SILVER OAKS/51ST COURT WATER LINE ASSESSMENT PROJECT FINAL
ASSESSMENT ROLL AND RESOLUTION
The Board reviewed memo from Utility Services Director Terry
Pinto dated February 27, 1992:
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
PREPARED
AND STAFFED
BY:
SUBJECT:
BACKGROUND
FEBRUARY 27, 1992
t _AMES E. CHANDLER
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
TERRANCE G. PINTO
DIRECTOR OF UTILIT SERVICES
JAMES D. CHASTATR
MANAGER OF ASSE NT PROJECTS
DEPARTMENT OF UTILITY SERVICES
SILVER OARS/51ST COURT WATER LINE ASSESSMENT PROJECT
FINAL ASSESSMENT ROLL AND RESOLUTION NO. 4
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY PROJECT NO. UW -90 -16 -DS
On May 28, 1991, the Board of County Commissioners approved -
Resolution No. 3 (91-64) for the preliminary assessment roll on the
above -referenced project (see attached Minutes and Resolution No.
3). The Department of Utility Services has completed the
construction of the project. We are now ready .to begin customer
connections and request the Board of County Commissioners, approval
of the final assessment roll.
ANALYSIS
The preliminary assessment was for a total estimated project cost of
$23,989.00, which equated to ± $0.0639 per square foot of property
owned. The final assessment (see attached Resolution No. 4 and the
accompanying assessment roll) is in the amount of $19,531.50, less
$3,930.90 for two nonassessable properties already on County water,
which equates to a cost of $0.052026 per square foot of property.
RECOMMENDATION
The staff of the Department of Utility Services recommends that the
Board of County Commissioners approve the adoption of Resolution No.
4.
68
7 —
1 J
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously adopted
Resolution 92-47 certifying "As -Built" costs for
installation of a waterline extension in silver Oaks
Estates (51st Court) and other such construction
necessitated by such project, as recommended by
staff.
RESOLUTION 92-47, WITH ASSESSMENT ROLL ATTACHED,
IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF CLERK TO THE BOARD
RESOLUTION NO. 92- 47
A RESOLUTION OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY,
FLORIDA, CERTIFYING "AS -BUILT" COSTS FOR
INSTALLATION OF A WATERLINE EXTENSION IN
SILVER OAK ESTATES (51st COURT), AND OTHER
SUCH CONSTRUCTION NECESSITATED BY SUCH
PROJECT; PROVIDING FOR FORMAL COMPLETION
DATE, AND DATE FOR PAYMENT WITHOUT
PENALTY AND INTEREST.
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River
County determined that the improvements for the property located
within the boundaries described in this title were necessary to promote
the public welfare of the county; and
WHEREAS, on Tuesday, May 28, 1991, the Board held a public
hearing at which time and place the owners of property to be assessed
appeared before the Board to be heard as to the propriety and
advisability of making such improvements; and
WHEREAS, after such public hearing was held the County
Commission adopted Resolution No. 91-64, which confirmed the special
assessment cost of the project to the property specially benefited by
the project in the amounts listed in the attachment to that resolution;
and
WHEREAS, the Director of Utility Services has certified the actual
"as -built" cost now that the project has been completed is less than in
confirming Resolution No. 91-64,
69
BOOK 3 PA'E I �
MAR � 1992
1�
vik i c 199
BOOK
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, as follows:
1. Resolution No. 91-64 is modified as follows: The completion date
for the referenced project and the last day that payment may be
made avoiding interest and penalty charges ' is ninety days after
passage of this resolution.
2. Payments bearing interest at the rate of 9-3/4% per annum may be
made in ten annual installments, the first to be made twelve
months from the due date. The due date is ninety days after the
passage of this resolution.
3. The final assessment roll for the project listed in Resolution No.
91-64 shall be as shown on the attached Exhibit "A."
4. The assessments, as shown on the attached Exhibit "A," shall
stand confirmed and remain legal, valid, and binding first liens
against the property against which such assessments are made
until paid.
5. The assessments shown on Exhibit "A," attached to Resolution No.
91-64, were recorded by the County on the public records of Indian
River County, and the lien shall remain prima facie evidence of its
validity. '
The resolution was moved for adoption by Commissioner
Scurlock , and the motion was seconded by Commissioner Bird
and, upon being put to a vote, the vote was as follows:
Chairman Carolyn K. Eggert Aye
Vice Chairman Margaret C. Bowman Aye
Commissioner Don C. Scurlock, Jr. Aye
Commissioner Richard N. Bird Aye
Commissioner Gary C. Wheeler Aye
The Chairman thereupon declared the resolution duly passed and
adopted this 10 day of March , 1992.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
By L�//
/C .4�,
CarolA K. Eg
Vd
70 Chaiffnan
CLAIMS OF WILLIAM TAYLOR FOR UNCLAIMED TAX FUNDS
The Board reviewed memo from County Attorney Charles Vitunac
dated February 26, 1992:
TO: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
FROM: Charles P. Vitunac, County Attorney
DATE: February 26, 1992
RE: CLAIM OF WILLIAM TAYLOR FOR UNCLAIMED TAX FUNDS
The County was contacted by someone who purported to be an heir
locator and submitted a claim for one William Taylor for unclaimed tax
funds in the amount of $53,401.20. A check for this amount was sent to
the locator service, as requested. Unfortunately, several months later,
another claim, this time by a person who appears to be the real William
Taylor, was made for the same unclaimed tax funds, and upon being
contacted by the County this Mr. Taylor expressed no knowledge
whatsoever of the locator service. Lea Keller, CLA, then notified
Florida Department of Law Enforcement (FDLE) for possible criminal
charges against the heir locator, and the matter is still under
investigation.
In the meantime, the real William Taylor wants to be paid and does not
feel that the County's paying an improper claimant has anything to do
with his claim. Our insurance department, pursuant to the attached
memorandums, believes that the County was not negligent and should
not pay the claim of Mr. Taylor. However, the fact remains that the
County paid the wrong party and that the real William Taylor is
completely blameless in the matter. In a true insurance situation this
would be a valid claim against the insurance company under loss by
fraud type provision. Since Indian River County is self-insured, all
loss payments come from the County funds.
This matter is brought to the Board for recommendation from the Board
on whether to pay the legitimate claim of William Taylor and hope for
restitution from the false locator service after criminal action by the
FDLE.
Commissioner,Bird asked how someone is able to find out that
money is due to another person and go through the appropriate
procedure to collect the funds.
Attorney Vitunac explained the availability of information
through the Clerk's office in every county of money that is due to
people who may have left town or died. A locator will obtain that
information, find them, send them a proper notary document and
charge a fee for recovering the money. In this particular case the
locator is a criminal claiming money for people but forging
71
i 1(,-, f)
8
BOOK PAGE luo
r -
BOOK ) PA"E
signatures with a notary stamp and the Florida Department of Law
Enforcement is investigating this matter. Since we are self-
insured and it is our responsibility to protect the escrowed money
in our control and since Mr. Taylor is innocent, Attorney Vitunac
recommended we pay William Taylor $5,401.20 and try to recoup the
damages later.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously authorized
payment of $5,401.20 to William Taylor and directed
the County Attorney to attempt to recoup the funds,
as recommended by staff.
REVIEW OF POLICY ON MAKEUP OF INTERVIEWING/SELECTION COMMITTEES
Chairman Eggert recounted discussions on the subject of the
makeup of interview and selection committees. She felt individual
commissioners should not be included in this activity.
Commissioner Wheeler recalled conversations with County
Administrator Chandler regarding the advantages and disadvantages
of commissioners being included on interview and selection
committees.
MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Wheeler, SECONDED by
Commissioner Scurlock, to exclude commissioners from
sitting on review and selection committees.
Under discussion, Commissioner Bowman suggested that
commissioners might sit on the committees but not vote, and
Commissioner Scurlock pointed out that commissioners are not
restricted from attending the presentations since they are public
meetings.
Commissioner Bowman felt it was helpful to hear the
presentations, and Commissioner Bird suggested that when there is
an item of major expenditure the presentations could be made to the
entire Board along with the selection committee.
THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION.
It was voted on and carried unanimously.
72
_I
REQUEST THE STATE ATTORNEY"S OFFICE TO CONVENE A GRAND JURY TO
INVESTIGATE THE COMMISSION AND STAFF OF ANY IMPROPRIETIES,
UNETHICAL OR CRIMINAL VIOLATIONS
MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Wheeler, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bird, to request the State Attorney's
office to convene immediately a grand jury to
investigate the County Commission members and to
make their findings available to the community and
to take whatever action would be appropriate to
bring this matter to a just and final and
expeditious conclusion so we can get on with
business.
Under discussion, Commissioner Wheeler explained that the
recent articles in the newspaper regarding the possible conflict of
interest place the integrity of the entire County Commission at
stake. The investigation by the FBI may or may not reach a
conclusion, and the lawsuit brought by Prince Contracting against
the Commission and Commissioner Scurlock individually will be an
extended proceeding, and it is essential for the county government
to operate effectively. We need an impartial panel to investigate
the entire situation and bring it to a conclusion without delay.
Chairman Eggert agreed the citizens have questions and she has
wondered what her obligation is as Chairman, but she did not want
to politicize this situation.
Commissioner Wheeler agreed. He felt this situation is of
public interest, and that is one criterion for convening a grand
jury.
Commissioner Scurlock stated that he.is the one involved, and
Chairman Eggert interjected that all members of the Board are
involved.
Commissioner Scurlock emphasized that the situation is very
political. He stated that the litigation is proceeding, he is
represented individually by counsel, depositions and statements are
being taken, and. he has not had the opportunity to answer the
accusations. He described what has been published in the newspaper
as allegations, rumor and innuendo. Commissioner Scurlock asked
why the County Attorney and the Board sat.mute on February 18 when
the vote was being taken for the golf course construction contract
if they ' had questions about a conflict of interest. He further
stated that this is an election year and he is not guilty of
anything and he will answer the charges when he has an opportunity
to speak.
I'VET 10 19-612
L-
73
6UUK� FA.�tJU
r
V iAR 10 1992
BOOK 6b PAIUE 601
County Attorney Vitunac responded to the question of why the
County Attorney sat mute. He stated that he had no proof of any
conflict of interest and presumed that Commissioner Scurlock would
declare a conflict of interest if there were a conflict of
interest. Attorney Vitunac drew the conclusion that since
Commissioner Scurlock did not declare a conflict of interest, any
previous statements by Commissioner Scurlock of an association with
the contractor were untrustworthy.
Commissioner Wheeler stated that he is not Commissioner
Scurlock's conscience and could not sit in judgment of another
commissioner because of rumors. He believed a grand jury
investigation would clear the air, get everything out on the table
and stop rumor, innuendo and allegations.
Commissioner Scurlock asked, and Commissioner Wheeler
clarified that the intent of the motion is to have a grand jury
investigate all members of the Board of County Commissioners.
Frank Zorc asked for and was granted permission to speak in
favor of the suggestion and felt that an immediate grand jury
investigation would help clear the air.
Discussion ensued about procedure for convening a grand jury
and the scope of the investigation. It was agreed that once an
investigation is begun it takes on a life of its own and it will
include officials, staff, and anybody else they consider necessary
to the investigation.
Commissioner Scurlock asked for the motion to be repeated.
THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION.
It was voted on and carried unanimously.
SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL DISTRICT
Chairman Eggert 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 11:25 o'clock A. M.
ATTEST:
J. rton, Clerk Carolyn JY1. Eggert,
74