HomeMy WebLinkAbout4/28/1992BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
AGENDA
REGULAR MEETING
TUESDAY, APRIL 28, 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
9:00 A. M. I. CALL TO ORDER
2. INVOCATION - None
3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE -
James E. Chandler, County Administrator
Charles
P.
Vitunac,
County
Attorney
Jeffrey
K.
Barton,
Clerk to
the Board
Comm. Don C. Scurlock, Jr.
4. ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA/EMERGENCY ITEMS
1. Comm'r. Scurlock requested the addn of Item 13.D -
a discussion on the deep well at Hercules, Inc.
S. PROCLAMATION AND PRESENTATIONS
None
6. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
None
7. CONSENT AGENDA
A. Request for Letter of Support from BCC Chairman
Re: Election of Vince McCann, Jr. as Senior Vice -
President of CVSOA
( letter dated April 16, 1992 )
B. Final Plat Approval for the Seaside S/D
(memorandum dated April 21, 1992)
C. 1993 Collection Development Grant Contracts
(memorandum dated April 13, 1992)
D. Add'I. R -O -W Purchase / Poklar / 33rd Street
( between 58th Ave. and 66th Ave.)
( memorandum dated April 19, 1992 )
E. Add'I. R -O -W Purchase / 26th St (between Village
Green and 66th Ave.)
( memorandum dated April 15, 1992 )
J
APR 2 8 1992
9:05 a. m.
7. CONSENT AGENDA (cont'd. ):
F. Transportation Disadvantaged Planning Grant Progress
Reports 6 Reimbursement Invoices - 1st Year Planning
Grant Invoice #4, 2nd Year Planning Grant Invoice #1
(memorandum dated April 10, 1992)
G. Release of Street Light Assessment Lien
( memorandum dated April 21, 1992 )
8. CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS AND
GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES
None
9. PUBLIC ITEMS
A. PUBLIC DISCUSSION ITEMS
Citizen's Request to Speak at BCC Meeting Re: 20th
Ave. SW and 14th St. S.W. - 4 Way Stop
(memorandum, dated April 21, 1992)
B. PUBLIC HEARINGS
1 • AN ORDINANCE OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY,
FLORIDA, AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE
AND THE ACCOMPANYING ZONING MAP FROM
RS -3 TO A-1, FOR THE PROPERTY GENERAL-
LY LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF 57TH
STREET, WEST OF 58TH AVENUE, AND
DESCRIBED HEREIN, AND PROVIDING FOR
EFFECTIVE DATE
( memorandum dated April 16, 1992 )
2. AN ORDINANCE OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY,
FLORIDA, AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE
AND THE ACCOMPANYING ZONING MAP FROM
RS -6 TO RM -8, FOR THE PROPERTY GENERAL-
LY LOCATED ON THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF
45TH STREET AND 43RD AVENUE, AND
DESCRIBED HEREIN, AND PROVIDING FOR
EFFECTIVE DATE
(memorandum dated April 2, 1992)
3. AN ORDINANCE OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY,
FLORIDA, PROVIDING FOR THE REPEAL OF
CHAPTER 20, SHERIFF AND LAW ENFORCE-
MENT, OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES OF
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY AND DECLARING SAME
TO BE NULL AND VOID AND OF NO EFFECT
( memorandum dated April 22, 1992 )
4. AN ORDINANCE 'OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY,
FLORIDA, PROHIBITING THE BLOCKING OF
STREETS BY RAILROAD TRAINS AND CARS
( memorandum dated April 22, 1'992)
5. AN ORDINANCE OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY,
FLORIDA, FOR THE REPEAL OF CHAPTER
10-1/2, HOUSING, OF THE CODE OF
ORDINANCES OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
AND DECLARING SAME TO BE NULL AND
VOID OF NO EFFECT
(memorandum dated April 22, 1992
9. PUBLIC ITEMS (cont'd. ): ..
B. PUBLIC HEARINGS cont'd. ):
6. AN ORDINANCE OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY,
FLORIDA, PROVIDING FOR THE REPEAL OF
CHAPTER 16, MOBILE HOMES, MODULAR
HOMES AND HOUSE TRAILERS, OF THE CODE
OF ORDINANCES OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
AND DECLARING SAME TO BE NULL AND
VOID AND OF NO EFFECT
( memorandum dated April 22, 1992) .
10. COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S MATTERS
None
11. DEPARTMENTAL MATTERS
A. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
1. Staff Appeal of P 6 Z Commission Action on
Jackson/ Loudermilk E Barkett Appeal of a Staff
Decision
( memorandum dated April 20, 1992 )
2. Public Nuisance Violation - Property Owner:
Brenda Bright - Subj. Property: 8600 64th
Ave., Wabasso
( memorandum dated April 6, 1992 )
B. EMERGENCY SERVICES
Approval of Changes to Rules and Regulations of
the Department of Emergency Services
( memorandum dated April ..16, 1992 )
C. GENERAL SERVICES
None
D. LEISURE SERVICES
None
E. OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
None
F. PERSONNEL
None
G. PUBLIC WORKS
1. Merrill Barber Bridge Replacement - DOT R -O -W
Agreements - Parcels 101, 802, and 801
(memorandum dated April 20, 1992)
2. Sandridge Golf Club New 18 - Amendment No. 3
( memorandum dated April 20, 1992 )
3. I.R. Blvd., Phase III, Change Order No. 8
( memorandum dated April 20, 1992 )
H. UTILITIES
I. Regional Sludge Facility EPA No. C 120 502 070
( memorandum dated April 16, 1992 )
APR 2 8 199 -,nl
mor,�,
APR Z 19
BOCK I'FivE
11. DEPARTMENTAL MATTERS (cont'd. ):
H. UTILITIES cont'd. :
2. Additional Engineering Services Relative to
the North County Wastewater Treatment Plant
Expansion Sandridge Golf Course Effluent
Disposal
(memorandum dated March 26, 1992)
3. , The Meadows SID - 41st Crt Water Service Project
Resolutions I and II
(memorandum dated April 14, 1992)
12. COUNTY ATTORNEY
None
13. COMMISSIONERS ITEMS
A. CHAIRMAN CAROLYN K. EGGERT
B. VICE CHAIRMAN MARGARET C. BOWMAN
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
None
1S. 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.
low, J00
Mn- i�ft--
� s �
Tuesday, April 28, 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, April 28, 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.
Don C. Scurlock, Jr., led the Pledge of Allegiance to the
Flag.
ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA/EMERGENCY ITEMS
Commissioner Scurlock requested the addition of Item 13.D., a
discussion on the deep well at Hercules, Inc.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bowman, SECONDED by
Commissioner Scurlock, the Board unanimously added
the above item to theAgenda.
I
CONSENT AGENDA
A. Reauest for Letter of Sunbort Re Election of Vince McCann Jr
as Senior Vice President of County Veterans Service Officers
Association
The Board reviewed letter from Lewis E. Schulz II dated April
16, 1992:
APR 28 19go
APR 28 N
,•'��� 1B 19202,.,
Y�
P M�rs�O'v6Rc ='ti'
l9S�£Zti �ti�L
April 16, 1992
BOOK 6�_) f'r,.E i 5
SERVICE OFFICERS ASSOCIATION
OF FLORIDA
The Honorable Carolyn R. Eggert
Chairman, Board of County Commissioners
Indian River County
1840 26th Street
Vero Beach, Florida 32960
Dear Chairman Eggert:
N1 f RIBUTION LIS
Co,�,�riss;xcers v
Adm4n'.s:rator
Att2y.
Pem-nnal
Public Works
Commun,:y ,;3v.
Utilities —
Finance L.' 7775E_ —
Other /- / ''E_
This is to inform you Mr. C. Vincent McCann, Jr., Veteran
Service Officer, Indian River County, has been nominated to
serve as Senior -Vice President State of Florida, County
Veterans Service Officers Association. Mr. McCann's term of
office will commence on May 6, 1992 at our mandated state
training conference.
During previous years Mr. McCann has served as the
Central/East Vice President. His dedicated efforts have
greatly enhanced the professional image of our association.
Of particular note is his involvement at both the state and
national level which has greatly enhanced the Veterans
Administration health care delivery system in the State of
Florida.
The commissioners and citizens of Indian River County should
be proud of the outstanding accomplishments of Mr. McCann.
On behalf of the members of the CVSOA, I would like to extend
our thanks and appreciation to you and the members of the
Board of County Commissioners for allowing Mr. McCann to
serve our association.
In order. for Mr. McCann to be elected as Senior Vice -
President of the CVSOA, a letter of support from the
Chairman, Board of County Commissioners is required. This is
to insure that -an individual nominated to serve has the
approval of their respective county. I sincerely hope that
you will be willing to provide such a letter for Mr. McCann.
The letter of support should be mailed to: Mr. Jim D. Deck,
Chairman, CVSOA Nomination Committee, Veterans Service
Officer, 111 S.E. 25th Avenue, Ocala, Florida 32671-2690.
If I may be of any further assistance to you, please feel
free to contact me at any time.
Sincerel
Schulz II
President
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously
authorized the Chairman to send a letter supporting
the election of Mr. C. Vincent McCann, Jr., to the
office of Senior Vice President of the County
Veterans Service Officers Association.
2
B. Final Plat Approval for Seaside Subdivision
The Board reviewed memo from Current Development Planner
Christopher Rison dated April 21, 1992:
TO: James E. Chandler
County Administrator
DIIY.1849N HEAD CONCURRENCE:
11,64.
o ert M. Reat ng AICP
Community Develo entactor
THROUGH: Stan Boling, AICP
Planning Director
FROM: Christopher D. Rison dl
Staff Planner, Current Development
DATE: April 21, 1992
SUBJECT: FINAL PLAT APPROVAL
SD -92-01-002
#91100112-009
FOR THE SEASIDE SUBDIVISION
It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal
consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at its regular
meeting of April 28, 1992.
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS:
The Seaside Subdivision is a proposed 15 lot oceanfront residential
subdivision of a 6.27 acre parcel of land located immediately north
of the existing St. Christopher Beach Subdivision on the east side
of S.R. A.1.A. The subject property is zoned RS -31 Single -Family
Residential (up to 3 units per acre) and has an L-1 Low Density
Residential 1 (up to 3 units per acre) land use designation. The
proposed density for the subdivision is 2.4 units per acre.
On December 12, 1991, the Planning and Zoning Commission granted
preliminary plat approval for the Seaside Subdivision. The
developer, Legend Builders and Drywall, Inc., has obtained a Land
Development Permit for the subdivision and is now requesting final
plat approval for the subdivision. The applicant has submitted the
following:
1. A plat in conformance with the originally approved preliminary
plat;
2. An Engineer's Certified Estimate to Complete Construction of
the Required Subdivision Improvements;
3. A Contract for Construction of Required Subdivision
Improvements; and
4.
APR 28 `M2
A security agreement, acceptable to the County Attorney's
Office, to guarantee the submitted Contract for Construction.
3
-I r
ANALYSIS:
BOOK t � r,�6L I j d
The required subdivision improvements have not been completed by
the developer; however, the developer has obtained a Land
Development Permit for construction of the subdivision. The
developer wishes to proceed with recording the subdivision plat and
proposes to "bond -out" for construction of the subdivision pursuant
to the provisions of LDR Section 913.10. The developer has
submitted a Contract for Construction of Required Subdivision
Improvements and posted suitable security, approved by the County
Attorney's Office, to guarantee the- Contract. With these
documents, the developer has complied with the appropriate
requirements to obtain final plat approval.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners grant final
plat approval for the Seaside Subdivision, authorize the Chairman
to execute the Contract for Construction, and accept the posted
security to guarantee the Contract for Construction.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously granted
final plat approval for Seaside Subdivision,
authorized the Chairman to execute the Contract for
Construction, and accepted the posted security to
guarantee the Contract for Construction, as
recommended by staff.
SAID CONTRACT FOR CONSTRUCTION, WITH EXHIBIT "A" ATTACHED,
IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
C. 1993 Collection Development Grant Contracts
The Board reviewed memo from Library Director Mary Powell
dated April 13, 1992:
4
DATE: 4-13-92
TO: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
THRU: JAMES E. CHANDLER, COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
THRU: H.T. "SONNY" DEAN, DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT
GENERAL SERVICES
SUBJECT: 1993 COLLECTION DEVELOPMENT GRANT CONTRACTS
FROM: MARY D. POWELL, DIRECTOR, MAIN LIBRAf
BACKGROUND:
STAFF APPLIED TO THE DIVISION OF LIBRARY AND INFORMATIOti
SERVICES FOR .A COLLECTION DEVELOPMENT GRANT FOR FY 1993.
THE MAXIMUM FUNDING FOR THE GRANT IS 525,000.00. IN THE
PAST, THE CONTRACT AGREEMENTS WERE MAILED AFTER THE GRANT
WAS AWARDED. THIS YEAR, THE STATE HAS REQUESTED THE
CONTRACTS BE SIGNED BEFORE ANY GRANTS ARE AWARDED.
ANALYSIS:
THE CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS'
SIGNATURE IS REQUIRED ON BOTH ORIGINAL CONTRACTS
(ATTACHED).
RECOMMENDATIONS:
STAFF RESPECTFULLY REQUESTS THAT THE BOARD AUTHORIZE ITS
CHAIRMAN TO SIGN THE GRANT CONTRACTS AND RETURN TO THE
MAIN LIBRARY DIRECTOR TO BE FORWARDED TO THE APPROPRIATE
STATE LIBRARY STAFF.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously
authorized the Chairman to execute the Grant
Agreement for 1993 U.S. Genealogy Collection
Development, as recommended by staff.
PARTIALLY EXECUTED GRANT AGREEMENT
IS ON -FILE IN THE OFFICE OF CLERK TO THE BOARD
D. Additional Right -of -Way Purchase - Poklarf33rd Street
The Board reviewed memo from County Right -of -Way Agent Donald
Finney dated April 19, 1992:
5
APR 2 8 M2
L_
FF -
I eS'
APR 2 8 1992 BOOK 6 6 Ft,�uE..� !
TO:
THROUGH:
FROM:
James Chandler
County Administrator
James W. Davis, P.E.
Public Works Director
and
Roger D. Cain, P.E.//
County Engineer !�
Donald G. Finney, SRA
County Right of Way Agent
SUBJECT: Additional Right -of -Way Purchase / Poklar / 33rd Street
(between 58th Avenue & 66th Avenue)
DATE: April 19, 1992 CONSENTyAGENDA
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
Indian River County is needing an additional 25 feet of right-of-
way for the petition paving project on 33rd Street. The Board of
County Commissioners previously approved the purchase of the right-
of-way along this corridor on January 21, 1992.
The property owner has signed a sale/purchase contract at the
land's appraised value of $1,372.00 ($.45 per square foot).
RECOMMENDATION
Staff requests the Board accept the contract and authorize the
Chairman's signature thereon.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously approved
and authorized the Chairman to execute the Contract
for Sale and Purchase with Henry F. Poklar, Jr., and
Dorothy M. Poklar, his wife, in the amount of
$1,372.00, as recommended by staff.
SAID CONTRACT
IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF CLERK TO THE BOARD
E. Additional Right -of -Way Purchase - 26th Street between Village
Green and 66th Avenue
The Board reviewed memo from County Right -of -Way Agent Donald
Finney dated April 15, 1992:
2
TO:
.THROUGH:
FROM:
James Chandler
County Administrator
James W. Davis, P.E.(
Public Works Director
and i
Roger D. Cain, P.E.�'�
County Engineer
Donald G. Finney, SRA -✓
County Right of Way Agent
SUBJECT: Additional Right -of -Way Purchase / 26th Street (between
Village Green & 66th Avenue)
DATE: April 15, 1992 'CONSENT AGENDA
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
Indian River County is needing an additional 30 feet of right-of-
way for the petition paving project on 26th Street. The Board of
County Commissioners previously approved the purchase of the right-
of-way along this corridor on January 21, 1992.
The property owners, Mr. William Caldwell and E. Peter Prezzano,
have signed a sale/purchase contract at the land's appraised value
of $7,013.00 ($.35 per square foot) for the .46 acre right-of-way.
Staff requests the Board accept the contract and authorize the
Chairman's signature thereon.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously approved
and authorized the Chairman to execute the Contract
for Sale and Purchase with William W. Caldwell and
E. Peter Prezzano in the amount of $7,013.00, as
recommended by staff.
SAID CONTRACT
IS ON -FILE IN THE OFFICE OF CLERK TO THE BOARD
F. Transportation Disadvantaged Planning Grant Progress Reports
and Reimbursement Invoice
The Board reviewed memo from Long -Range Planning Chief Sasan
Rohani dated April 10, 1992:
7
APP 2 8 1992
APR 2 s 19,92
TO: James E. Chandler
County Administrator
DEPARTMENT HEAD CONCURRENCE
Robert M. eat g, CP
Community Deve opm nt Director
FROM: Sasan Rohani S • (Z. .
Chief, Long -Range Planning
DATE: April 10, 1992
ponK 86 PAU' dS .
RE: TRANSPORTATION DISADVANTAGED PLANNING GRANT PROGRESS
REPORTS A REIMBURSEMENT INVOICES
FIRST YEAR PLANNING GRANT INVOICE #4
SECOND YEAR PLANNING GRANT INVOICE #1
It is -requested that the data herein presented be given formal
consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their regular
meeting of April 28, 1992.
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
On May 8, 1990, the Board of County Commissioners (BCC) approved
the transmittal of the county's application to the state to become
the local Designated Official Planning Agency (DOPA) for the
provision of transportation disadvantaged planning activities in
the area. In its capacity as the DOPA, the Board of County
Commissioners is responsible for coordinating transportation
disadvantaged resources in the county.
On August 28, 1990, the BCC/DOPA approved the transmittal of a
first year Transportation Disadvantaged Planning Grant application
to the state. The first year planning grant was subsequently
executed by the state and the BCC/DOPA on November 27, 1990. The
second year planning grant was approved on November 20, 1991.
As part of the Transportation Disadvantaged Planning .Grant contract
between the DOPA and the State of Florida Transportation
Disadvantaged Commission (TDC), quarterly progress reports and
reimbursement invoices must be submitted to the TDC for their
review. To comply with the TDC's requirement of submitting
quarterly progress reports and invoices, staff has prepared
progress reports and invoices for the January 1, 1992 to March 31,
1992 period.
While the first year planning grant has been extended until March
31, 1992, the second year planning grant began January 1, 1992.
Consequently, the grants have been running concurrently for the
past three months. For that reason the staff has prepared two
invoices and progress reports. The timeframe for both invoices and
progress reports is January 1, 1992 to March 31, 1992. For the
first planning grant, the invoice and progress report represents
the 4th and final submittal. For the second planning grant, the
invoice and progress report represents the initial submittal.
On April 16, 1992, the Transportation Disadvantaged Local
Coordinating Board (TDLCB) reviewed and approved the attached
Progress reports and invoices. At that time, the TDLCB recommended
that the Board of County Commissioners, in its capacity as the
transportation disadvantaged program DOPA, approve the attached
Progress reports and invoices and forward these to the TDC.
8
ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS
Attached is a copy of the progress reports and invoices for the
January 1, 1992 to March 31, 1992 period.
Finished products such as -the Coordinated Transportation
Disadvantaged. Development Plan, TDLCB meeting minutes, by-laws, and
reports are required to accompany all reimbursement invoices.
These materials will be submitted to the state along with the
reimbursement invoices and the progress reports.
The BCC/DOPA's alternatives are either to approve the transmittal
of the Progress Reports and reimbursement invoices as submitted, to
approve transmittal of the Progress Reports and invoices with
revisions, or to deny the transmittal of the Progress Reports and
reimbursement invoices to the state.
RECOMMENDATION
The TDLCB and the staff recommend that the Board of County
Commissioners/DOPA approve the Progress Reports and reimbursement
invoices, and direct staff to transmit the reports and the invoices
to the State of Florida Transportation Disadvantaged Commission.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously approved
the Progress Reports and reimbursement invoices and
directed staff to transmit the reports and invoices
to the State of Florida Transportation Disadvantaged
Commission.
G. Release of Street Light Assessment Lien
The Board reviewed memo from Deputy County Attorney Will
Collins dated April 21, 1992:
TO: The Board of County Commissioners
FROM: jA:i C William G. Collins II - Deputy County Attorney
DATE: April 21, 1992
SUBJECT: Release of Street Light Assessment Lien
By Resolution No..
91-78 the Board
of County
Commissioners approved an
assessment roll for
the establishment
of a street
lighting district in Glendale
Lakes Subdivision
on July 23, 1991.
Individual
assessments for the street
lighting improvements are assessed
against the
benefiting property owners
for the first year
of the assessment. Subsequent assessments appear on
their tax bills.
One of _the benefiting property owners, Barbara Kay Staples f/k/a Barbara
Kay D'Albora, has re -financed the benefited lot and as a requirement of the
title insurance commitment, must obtain a release of the lien for the street
lighting assessment.
9
1�` BOOS( 8� ;
-I
AP'R 2 8 199`x.
HOK
RECOMMENDATION:
r,e
Authorize the Chairman to execute the attached Release of Lien for the
street lighting assessment on Lot 10, Block 6, Glendale Lakes Subdivision as
recorded in Plat Book 6, Page 26, Public Records of Indian River County, as
the assessment has been paid.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously
authorized the Chairman to execute the Release of
Assessment Lien to Barbara Kay Staples f/k/a Barbara
Kay D'Albora, as recommended by staff.
SAID RELEASE OF ASSESSMENT LIEN
IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY ATTORNEY
PUBLIC DISCUSSION
CITIZENS REQUEST TO SPEAK REGARDING 4 -WAY STOP AT 20TH AVENUE S.W.
AND 14TH STREET S.W.
The Board reviewed memo from County Traffic EngineerMichael
Dudeck, Jr., dated April 21, 1992:
TO: James E. Chandler,
County Administrator
THROUGH: James W. Davis, P.E., CP
Public Works Director
FROM: Michael S. Dudeck, Jr.
County Traffic Engine=
Y
SUBJECT: Citizen's Request to Speak at
Board of County Commissioners Meeting
20th Avenue SW and 14th Street SW
DATE: April 21, 1992
DESCRIPTION_ AND CCNDITICNS
Until the recent commencement of 20th Avenue SW
construction, traffic at the above referenced intersection
was controlled by two STOP SIGNS regulating 20th Avenue SW
traffic.
once construction of 20th Avenue SW commenced traffic
control at this intersection was converted to a temporary
"FOUR-WAY STOP CONDITION" in anticipation of 20th Avenue SW
becoming the Higher Functional Classed Roadway once
construction was completed. In keeping with what I
understand to be a long time County policy, two additional
STOP SIGNS were placed at the intersection requiring 14th
Street SW traffic to stop prior to proceeding through the
intersection.
10
� � i
NO
Since the construction of 20th "Avenue SW includes the
construction of a sidewalk on the westside of the roadway
and the J.A. Thompson Elementary School would be the
destination of school children from the Oslo Park area, Mrs.
Kathleen Geyer, School Board Transportation Coordinator, is
arranging a meeting at which she, the principal of the
school, and members of the Traffic Engineering Staff will
meet to determine the proper school route for children in
the area. Based upon this meeting the appropriate location,
signing and markings for the school route will be
established and installed once the roadway project has been
completed.
Some citizens in the Oslo Park area have requested that the
temporary FOUR-WAY STOP established at the above referenced
intersection be kept permanently and that staff agree to
this at the present time.
Since 20th Avenue SW is an established roadway on the County
Thoroughfare Plan and has the Higher Functional
Classification, it is anticipated that 14th Street SW will
become the subordinate street with STOP SIGN control once
20th Avenue SW is opento traffic. Since traffic conditions
are "ever changing" Traffic Engineering Staff was preparing
to complete a Traffic Study relative: to intersectional
controls once 20th Avenue SW was open to traffic. Controls
would then be established based upon actual traffic
conditions. In accordance with the Manual on Uniform
Traffic Control Devices for Streets and Highways, adopted
throughout the State of Florida, STOP-SIGNs are intended for
use on the less important roadway at an intersection and not
for speed control. "MULTI -WAY" or "FOUR-WAY STOPS" should
only be utilized where the volume of traffic on the
intersecting roads is approximately equal. This method of
control is also appropriate when Traffic Signals are
warranted and interim control is required before the signal
can be install.
Minor Street Traffic Volumes for establishing MULTI -WAY STOP
control dictate that at least 500 vehicles per hour for any
8 hours of an average day must pass through the
intersection. A combination vehicular and pedestrian volume
from the minor street must average at least 200 units per
hour for the same 8 hour period and the average minor street
vehicular traffic delay is at least 30 seconds per vehicle
during the maximum hour. When the 85 percentile approach
speed of the major street exceeds 40 MPH the above minor
Vehicular Volume Warrants are reduced to 70% of the above
requirements.
It is staff's position that it
guarantee what the proper
intersection. The temporary
be maintained until after the
complete and is operational.
Study will be accomplished to
for the subject intersection.
is impossible at this time to
control will be at this
FOUR-WAY STOP condition would
20th Avenue SW construction is
Once this occurs a detailed
determined the proper control
11
BOOK fait
I
APR 28 1992 8 r-�
BOOK FNUte�
ALTERAND ANALYSIS
Alternative No. 1
Board of County Commissioners could adopt the above
procedure set by staff to determine the proper traffic
control regulations for the intersection under
discussion. This procedure would utilize the standard
guidelines contain in the Manual on Uniform Traffic
Control Devices for Streets and Highways and utilize
the Study results to establish proper traffic control.
Alternative No. 2
Board of County Commissioners could adopt a policy
which follows the request of Mr. Randell K. Grimes and
establish a permanent FOUR-WAY STOP Regulation at the
intersection under discussion."
Due to the fact that the required studies which may or may
not document the need for FOUR-WAY STOP Regulation can not
be accomplished at the present time, Staff recommends
Alternative No. 1 setforth above. It would be premature to
decide upon the control prior to the completion of a Traffic
Operational Study.
Once the Study is completed total cost for establishing the
FOUR-WAY STOP permanently would be insignificant since four
STOP SIGNs are presently at this location and covered by the
normal Traffic Engineering Operations Budget.
Randell K. Grimes, 1416 20th Avenue Southwest, came before the
Board to speak in favor of retaining the 4 -way stop at the
intersection of 20th Avenue S.W. and 14th Street S.W. Mr. Grimes
described 20th Avenue from Oslo Road to 14th Street S.W. as a
freeway. He worries because there are 28 children living in that
stretch of 20th Avenue and he thought the 4 -way stop deters some of
the speeding. Mr. Grimes contended that even though a stop sign
cannot be used to control traffic speed, the 4 -way stop would help
control traffic flow. He was concerned that while 27th Avenue will
be closed for construction in the near future, 20th Avenue will be
used as an alternate route and that will cause more problems. He
cited stop signs at various intersections in the county, including
20th Avenue at 20th, 21st, and 22nd Streets.
Chairman Eggert reported receiving many phone calls on this
subject from people voicing real concern about the children in the
neighborhood. She asked Public Works Director Jim Davis whether
this 4 -way stop sign at 20th Avenue and 14th Street Southwest will
be removed.
Director Davis explained that it is premature for staff to
recommend the appropriate traffic control at 14th Street S.W. and
20th Avenue until the roadway is open to traffic. Once the
12
M
_I
M
M
M
construction is complete there will be extensive monitoring to
count the traffic in both the north -south and east -west directions
at that intersection. The 4 -way stop sign will remain installed
for some period of time during this monitoring of traffic and once
the traffic counting is complete, staff will go through some
formulas to decide whether the 4 -way control is appropriate.
Chairman Eggert asked, and Director Davis confirmed that a
pedestrian volume count is included.
Director Davis stated that 20th Avenue should be paved within
30 days and the study will probably begin in September when school
reopens to take into account Thompson Elementary School traffic in
that area. The pedestrian count will be done in the morning and
the afternoon.
Commissioner Scurlock and Chairman Eggert asked, and Director
Davis confirmed that in the meantime the 4 -way stop sign will
remain in place.
Commissioner Scurlock agreed that a decision on this item
would be premature because after the traffic count is completed,
the recommendation may be to retain the 4 -way stop sign.
Mr. Grimes felt the traffic count will not be accurate because
of the planned construction on 27th Avenue, which will generate
more traffic on 20th Avenue on the way to Vero Highlands.
Discussion ensued, and Director Davis explained that the 27th
Avenue project includes widening 27th Avenue and probably replacing
the bridge across the South Relief Canal. That will happen about
two years from now so he felt that would not affect our traffic
count.
Mr. Grimes continued his argument that 4 -way stop signs are
used in several intersections for traffic control.
Commissioner Bird felt staff's recommendation is a reasonable
approach. After the traffic analysis we will readdress the subject
and if the recommendation is to remove the 4 -way stop, Mr. Grimes
can come back and state his opinions.
Mr. Grimes then referred to the swales and asked why they seem
to be deeper than normal, and Director Davis explained that they
are not completed. When the project is completed, the swales will
be adequately sloped and the homeowners will be able to maintain
them with their lawnmowers.
13
1992
APS, 28 X59
moK
PUBLIC HEARINGS
ELTON E. HASKELL REQUEST TO REZONE APPROXIMATELY 35.6 ACRES FROM
RS -3 TO A-1
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
Beeaach in Indian River County, Florida: that the attached copy of advertisement, bQing
a 1 /�it./4t
In the matter
in the
/ Court, was pub-
lished in said newspaper In the issues of ' (�
ft
Vero Beach, in avid Ind anhRivereCounty, Florida, nd that said Vero Beach thensaid newspaper has elreo ore
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 met his day o A D 19 4Z
(SEAL)
Hghay 17111nPc, Slum u, .
Agpr Omnkoon Expires Jane 29, 1993
I Subject'
T
u Property
9
Re -3
NOTICE—PUSUC HEARING
Notice of hearing to consider the adoption off�acounty ordinance .
Facey Residential �s to A i Agriicut RS-3,
01s-
trict. The subject property is presently owned by
Stan Hasken. The submit property b boated on
the south side of 57th S re�tt i west of 58th Avenue
(Kings Highway), and contains approximately 35.8
acres. The subject property lies in the Southeast ver
section of Section 17, Township 32S, Range 39E,
lying and being in Ulan River County, Florida.
d .pub hagh t op�r�which dty parties I Interest arid
�
be held by the Board of County Commissioners of
Indian River County, Florida, in the County Comrrds-
stun Chambers of the Canty Administration Build-
ing, located at 1840 25th Street, Vero Beach, Flor-
Ida an Tuesday, April 28,1992, at 9:05 am.
another
T� Board of Commissioners the
adopt
r provided it Is within the same general use
category.
Anyone who may wish to appeal any decision
which may be made at this meeting will reed to en-
sure that a verbatim record of the proceedings Is
made. which Includes testimony and evidence upon
which the appeal Is based.
Wan River County
Bogard of Camry Commissioners
April 8, 1 W Carolyn K. Eggert, Chairmen 891358
Community Development Director Bob Keating commented from the
following memo dated April 16, 1992:
14
sir
TO: James E. Chandler
County Administrator
DEPARTMENT HEAD CONCURRENCE
aIto - /211/
Obert M. Ke t , A
Community Devel pmen irector
THRU: Sasan
Chief,
FROM: Cheryl
Senior
DATE: April
Rohani S A .
Long -Range Planning
A. Twor
Planne n Range Planning
16, 1992
RE: ELTON E. HASKELL REQUEST TO REZONE APPROXIMATELY 35.6
ACRES FROM RS -3 TO A-1 (RZON-92-01-0099)
It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal
consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their regular
meeting of April 28, 1992.
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
This is a request to rezone approximately 35.6 acres from RS -3,
Single -Family Residential District (up to 3 units/acre) to A-11
Agricultural 1 District (up to 1 unit/5 acres). The property is
located on the south side of 57th Street, west of 58th Avenue
(Kings Highway). The subject property is owned by Elton E.
Haskell.
On March 12, 1992, the Planning and Zoning Commission voted 5 to 0
to recommend approval of this request to rezone the subject
property to A-1.
Existina Land Use Pattern
Except for one single-family residence on the site, the subject
property is presently undeveloped land. This property and all
adjacent properties are zoned RS -3. While the properties to the
west of the subject site are currently zoned RS -3, these properties
are designated AG -1 on the future land use map. Because of the AG -
1 designation and the requirement that a parcel's zoning be
consistent with its land use plan designation, the zoning for the
properties to the west of the subject site will be changed to A-1
later this year.
To the northeast of the subject property lies the partially
developed Kings Music Land Subdivision. To the north and northwest
are large tracts of undeveloped land. A single family residence on
a large tract lies to the west of the subject property, while the
southern boundary of the subject property abuts the North Relief
Canal.
Future Land Use Pattern
The subject property is currently designated L-1, Low -Density
Residential - 1 (up to 3 units/acre) on the future land use map.
Properties to the south and east share this L-1 designation. To
the north, properties are designated. L-2 on the future land use
plan map.
15
APR 19 ori
APR 28 1992
moo. a
The land to the west, northwest, and southwest of the subject
property was affected by recent changes to the county's future land
use plan map. In conformance with a stipulated settlement
agreement between the county and the State Department of Community
Affairs to bring the county's plan into compliance with state
regulations, the county amended its plan to change its urban
service area boundary and reduce densities. As a result of the
amendment, the urban service area boundary in this area became the
west property line of the subject site. With the change in the
urban service area boundary, those lands to the west of the subject
property were excluded from the urban service area and redesignated
AG -1.
Environment
The subject property has several important environmental
characteristics. One such characteristic is its flood designation.
While most of the property lies within Flood Zone X, which is
defined as an area outside of the 100 year flood zone, a small
portion of the property lies in Flood Zone AE. Such an AE zone
characterizes areas subject to 100 year flood events.
According to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, National Wetlands
Inventory maps, wetlands exist on the subject property. Aerial
photography and field verification have confirmed that temporarily
flooded- freshwater wetlands are present. The following is a rough
estimate of wetland acreage on site. A wetland boundary survey is
required for a more accurate delineation of wetland areas.
Freshwater Emergent Temporarily 0.69 acres
Flooded Wetlands
Freshwater Scrub - Shrub 2.50 acres
Seasonally Flooded Wetland
Open Water Pond 0.21 acres
Man-made
The remainder of the subject property is native uplands, primarily
southern flatwoods with pinetree canopy and palmetto underbrush.
While portions of the uplands have been disturbed for residential
use, the disturbed areas contain herbaceous ground cover instead of
palmetto underbrush and retain functional values as native upland
habitat.
Utilities and Services
The site is located within the Urban Service Area (USA). County
water is available to the property with water lines from the South
County Water Plant within J mile of the site. The subject property
is located within the Central County Wastewater Service area;
however, wastewater lines do not currently extend to the site.
Transportation
The property has access to 58th Avenue (Kings Highway) via 57th
Street. Kings Highway is classified as an urban principal arterial
road on the future roadway thoroughfare plan map. This segment of
Kings Highway is a two lane paved road with approximately sixty
(60 ) feet of public road right-of-way. Fifty-seventh ( 57th) Street
is classified as a collector road; this segment of 57th Street is
a two lane unpaved road with approximately thirty (30) feet of
Public road right-of-way.
16
ANALYSIS
In this section,
application will
description of:
an analysis of the reasonableness of the
be presented. The analysis will include a
C concurrency of public facilities
C compatibility with the surrounding area
C consistency with the comprehensive plan
C potential impact on environmental quality
This section will also cons ider.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 standards for
these services and facilities are maintained. For rezoning
requests, this review is undertaken as part of the conditional
concurrency application process.
A 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 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:
1.
Size of
Property: ±35.6 acres
2•
Size of
Area to be Rezoned: ±35.6
acres
3.
Existing
Zoning Classification:
RS -3, Single -Family
Residential District (up
to 3 units/acre)
4.
Existing
Land Use Designation:
L- 1, Low -Density
Residential - 1 (up to 3
units/acre)
5.
Proposed
Zoning Classification:
A -1 Agricultural
District (up to 1 unit/5
acres)
6• Maximum Number pf Units with Proposed Zoning: ±7 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 rezoning request is exempt from concurrency
review because the requested agricultural zoning would decrease the
total number of potential units that the site could accommodate
from 106 units to 7 units.
17
�'
APS 2 1992 �;�
APR 28 1992
It is important to note that there will be no effect on service
levels for any public facility as a result of the rezoning. The
overall density would decrease substantially under the proposed
agricultural zoning, and the potential impact on the county's
services and facilities would be less than what it could be under
the present RS -3 zoning.
In this case, as in all cases, a detailed concurrency analysis will
need to be done at the time of site development or redevelopment.
That concurrency analysis will address facility service levels and
project demand.
Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan
Rezoning requests are reviewed for consistency with all policies of
the comprehensive plan. Rezonings must also be consistent 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 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 Policies 1.12 and 6.3.
- Future Land Use Policy 1.12
r
Future -Land Use Policy 1.12 states that the Low -Density Residential
land use designations are intended for residential uses (not to
exceed 3 units/acre for L-1), recreational uses, public facilities,
institutional uses and agricultural uses as permitted'in Future
Land Use Policy 6.3. In order to determine whether this request is
consistent with Policy 1. 12, it is necessary to first determine the
request's consistency with Future Land Use Policy 6.3.
- Future Land Use Policy 6.3
Future Land Use Policy 6.3 states that Indian River County shall
permit the continuation of agricultural uses east of I-95 where
they serve to enhance open space --and green belt areas of the
county. By rezoning the subject property to A-1, the site will
serve as a continuation of the green belt areas to the north,
northwest and west of the subject property. Therefore, the
agricultural zoning of the property would be consistent with the
intent of Future Land Use Policy 6.3.
Based upon the determination that this request is consistent with
Policy 6.3, it is staff's opinion that the requested A-1 zoning
would also meet the intent of Future Land Use Policy 1.12.
In addition to policies 1.12 and 6.3, all other policies in the
comprehensive plan were considered. Based upon this analysis,
staff determined that the proposed rezoning is consistent with the
comprehensive plan.
18
Potential Impact on Environmental Quality
As stated previously in the Description and Conditions section,
there are temporarily flooded freshwater wetlands located on the
subject property. While agricultural development as permitted in
the requested A-1 zoning district generally impacts such wetland
areas, any wetland alteration will require permits from the county,
St. Johns River Water Management District, and the U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers.
It is important to note that the native habitats present on the
subject- property will not be protected as thoroughly under the A-1
zoning as they are presently protected under the RS -3 zoning. If
an agricultural operation is established in an agricultural zoning
district, the operation is exempt from the county land clearing and
tree removal criteria and the native habitat preservation
requirements.
Since the subject property contains a unique mixture of wetland and
native upland habitats, environmental planning staff are concerned
that rezoning the parcel to A-1 would result in agricultural
development of the site, with the consequent loss of the property's
native habitat. Under the present RS -3 zoning, improvements to the
subject property would require the preservation of approximately
three acres of native uplands and three acres of wetland habitat.
If an agricultural operation is established under the proposed
agricultural zoning, the county may lose the opportunity to
preserve the native uplands which would have been protected under
the present zoning and applicable environmental regulations.
Although the A-1 zoning, if approved, will probably result in the
loss of the site's native upland habitat, this is partially
balanced by the other characteristics of agricultural land usage.
These include the open space benefits of agricultural uses, the
greenbelt functions of agricultural uses, and others. So while
there will be a loss of uplands with the A-1 zoning and subsequent
agricultural development, the other potential benefits of the
proposed rezoning more than compensate for the loss.
Compatibility with the Surrounding Area
In reviewing this request, staff has examined the existing land use
pattern and the future land use pattern set forth in the
Comprehensive Plan. It is staff's position that the future land
use pattern in the area will complement the proposed A-1 zoning for
the site. Because the property to the west of the subject site has
recently been designated AG -1 and will soon be rezoned to A-1, this
will ensure compatibility between that area and the subject
property. In essence then, the subject site will be an extension
of the A-1 to the west. Similarly, the undeveloped area to the
north of the site and the north relief canal to the south of the
site serve to mitigate any potential compatibility problems.
Conclusion
The rezoning is generally compatible with the surrounding area, is
consistent with the goals, objectives and policies of the
comprehensive plan, and is exempt from concurrency review. The
subject property is _located in an area deemed suitable for low
density residential uses and has met all applicable criteria.
Staff support the subject request.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners approve
this request to rezone the subject property from RS -3 to A-1.
19
APR 2-8
BOOK f'r9d17 Lill
Commissioner Scurlock noted that requests such as the subject
request actually would downzone the parcels, and he asked if that
would have an impact on our ratio of land uses.
Community Development Director Bob Keating affirmed it would
be a positive influence if we were changing the comprehensive plan,
but in this case the underlying comprehensive plan designation is
unchanged, so there would be no impact on the ratio.
The Chairman opened the public hearing and asked if anyone
wished to be heard in this matter.
Elton Haskell, 6105 57th Street, owner of the subject
property, described his home as being "in the heart of the garden
of Eden." He has been a resident there for 22 years and would like
to remain there for the rest of his life. Mr. Haskell played a
tape recording of what he called the music of his garden, (singing
birds) , and he urged the Board to approve his request to change his
zoning from RS -3 to A-1 so more people can enjoy the music of
birds.
The Chairman determined that no one else wished to be heard
and thereupon closed the public hearing.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by
Commissioner Wheeler, the Board unanimously adopted
Ordinance 92-12 amending the Zoning Ordinance and
the accompanying zoning map from RS -3 to A-1, for
the property generally located on the south side of
57th Street, west of 58th Avenue, as recommended by
staff.
ORDINANCE NO. 92-12
AN ORDINANCE OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, AMENDING THE
ZONING ORDINANCE AND THE ACCOMPANYING ZONING MAP FROM RS -3 TO
A-1, FOR THE PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED ON,THE SOUTH SIDE OF
57TH STREET, WEST OF 58TH 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
20
F�
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners has -determined that
this rezoning is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan of
Indian River County; and
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners has held a public
hearing pursuant to this rezoning request, at which parties in
interest and citizens were heard;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED, by the Board of County
Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, that the Zoning of
the following described property situated in Indian River County,
Florida, to -wit:
Tract 10, Section 17, Township 32 South, Range 39 East,
According to the last general plat of lands of the Indian
River Farms Company, filed in the Office of the Clerk of the
Circuit Court of St. Lucie County, Florida, in Plat Book 2,
Page 25, said lands now lying and being in Indian River
County, Florida, less the North 30 feet thereof, and less the
South 125 feet for canal right-of-way.
Be changed from RS -3 to A-1.
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 28 day of April , 1992.
This ordinance was advertised in the Vero Beach Press -Journal
on the 6 day of April , 1992 for a public hearing to be
held on the 28 day of April , 1992 at which time it was
moved for adoption by Commissioner Scurlock , seconded by
Commissioner Wheel er , and adopted by the following
vote:
Chairman Carolyn K. Eggert Aye
Vice Chairman Margaret C. Bowman Aye
Commissioner Richard N. Bird Aye
Commissioner Gary Wheeler Aye
Commissioner Don C. Scurlock, Jr. Aye
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
BY: L Z Lt�
Carol r
K. Egge&V Chairman
21 �.
C/ura C) FF ut 'j Lt
1
APR 28 1992
BOOK 86
GIFFORD ELDERLY HOUSING LTD. REQUEST TO REZONE APPROXIMATELY 4.8
ACRES FROM RS -6 -TO RM -10
Commissioner Bird announced that his company represents Brian
and Ann Carter so he will not take part in the discussion and will
file the necessary Conflict of Interest form with the Clerk to the
Board. Commissioner Bird left the chamber.
SAID CONFLICT OF INTEREST FORM
IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF CLERK TO THE BOARD
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
�1
In the matter of
In the Court, was pub-
lished in said newspaper in the issues of L//,
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 oi A.D. 19-
` (Business Manager)
(SEAL)
Notmry 4nd,lta, gnto of Mrkh
AV Cantmisslon Expires June 29, 1993
r
NOTICE—PUBLIC HEARING .
Notice of hearing to consider the adoption of a
county ordinance rezoning land from: RS -8, Single -
Family Residential District to RM -10, Multiple Family
Residential District. The subjectproperty is pre.
sently owned by Bryant and Arm Carter. .'s sub-
Z)actthpt roperty Is located on the northeast corner of
Street and 43rd Avenue, and contains ap-
the be in
Souttgw section of S8 acres. The utton 2ct W2, Towmship
32S. Range 39E, tying and being in Indian River
C A rypubticc hearing at which paries in Interest and
, Florida.
citizens sha0 have an opportunity to be heard, WO
be held by the Board of county Commissioners of
Indian Rim County, Florida, In the County Commis-
sion Chambers of the County Administration Build -
Ing. located at 1840 25th Street, Vero Beach, Flor-
ida on Tuesday, Axil 28, 1992, at 9:05 a.m.
The Board of County Co urdssioners may adopt
another zoning district, other than the district re
quested, provided it Is within the same general use
AnyoneceAnwho may wish to appeal any decision
which may be made at this meeting will need to en-
sure that a verbatim record of the proceedings Is
made, which Inciudes testimony and evidence upon
which the appeal Is based.
Indian River County
Board of County Cbmmissioners
April 6, By: - Carolyn K. Eggert, Chairman 891352
Community Development Director Bob Keating commented from the
following memo dated April 2, 1992:
22
807
I
TO: James Chandler
County Administrator
DEPARTMENT HEAD CONCURRENCE
Obert M. Reat g, P
Community Development Director
THRU : Sasan Rohani S • Q •
Chief, Long -Range Planning
FROM: Cheryl A. Tworek
Senior Planner, 4 -Range Planning
DATE: April 2, 1992
RE: GIFFORD ELDERLY HOUSING, LTD., REQUEST TO REZONE
APPROXIMATELY 4.8 ACRES FROM RS -6 TO RM -10 (RZON-92-02-
0093)
It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal
consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their regular
meeting of April 28, 1992.
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
Gifford Elderly Housing, Ltd. has submitted a request to rezone a
parcel of land from RS -6, Single -Family Residential District (up to
6 units/acre) to RM -10, Multiple -Family Residential District (up to
10 units/acre). The subject parcel --consists of approximately 4.8
acres at the northeast corner of the intersection of 43rd Avenue
and 45th Street (North Gifford Road). The property is currently
owned by Bryant and Ann Carter. The Gifford Elderly Housing, Ltd.
partnership is planning an affordable elderly housing project for
the subject property.
On March 12, 1992, the Planning and Zoning Commission voted 3-2 to
recommend that the Board of County Commissioners approve the
rezoning of the property to RM -8, Multiple -Family Residential
District (up to 8 units/acre), instead of the RM -10 as requested by
the applicant.
Background
Back in 1989, a similar application to rezone this same piece of
property to RM -10 was submitted. That request was heard by the
Planning and Zoning Commission at its regular meeting of October
26, 1989. At that time, the Planning and Zoning Commission voted
6 to 1 to deny the request. Although specific reasons for the
denial were not cited in the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting
minutes, the issue of compatibility between the then proposed RM -10
zoning and the adjacent RS -6 zoning was raised at the meeting.
Subsequent to the Planning and Zoning Commission's action, the
applicant appealed the denial to the Board of County Commissioners.
Prior to the Board's consideration of the appeal, however, the
applicant withdrew his application.
23
APR 2 81992 L) �
APR 28 J992
BOOK F'NEE
Existing Land Use Pattern
The subject parcel is undeveloped and presently zoned RS -6, Single -
Family Residential District (up to 6 units/acre). Immediately
north is the Treasure Coast Village Subdivision, a substantially
built -out residential subdivision also zoned RS -6. Immediately
east of Treasure Coast Village is Pineview Park, another
substantially developed residential subdivision zoned RS -6. To the
south across 45th Street, the property is zoned RM -10, Multiple -
Family Residential District (up to 10 units/acre). Part of this
RM -10 zoned property, the portion at the southeast corner of 43rd
Avenue and'45th Street, is vacant. Adjacent and to the east of the
vacant RM -10 tract is the Briarwood Apartment complex, a 45 -unit
low income housing complex constructed with Farmer's Home
Administration financial assistance.
All property west of 43rd Avenue
occupies the south side of 45th
partially developed residential
side.
Future Land Use Pattern
is zoned RS -6. A citrus grove
Street, while Crystal Sands, a
subdivision, occupies the north
The subject property and all surrounding properties are within the
M-2 land use designation. This land use designation permits a
variety of medium density residential uses up to 10 units/acre.
Transportation
The subject property has access on three roadways, including 43rd
Avenue, 45th Street and 40th Avenue. Forty-third (43rd) Avenue is
classified as an urban minor arterial roadway on the future roadway
thoroughfare plan map. This segment of 43rd Avenue is a two lane,
paved road with approximately sixty (60) feet of public road right-
of-way.
ight-
of-way.
Forty-fifth (45th) Street, or North Gifford Road, is classified as
a collector road on the future roadway thoroughfare plan map. This
segment of 45th Street is a two lane paved road with approximately
sixty (60) feet of public road right-of-way.
The third road, 40th Avenue, is not considered a thoroughfare
roadway and is therefore classified as a local road. This segment
of 40th Avenue is a two lane paved road with approximately sixty
(60) feet of public road right-of-way.
Environment
According to the Flood Insurance Rating Maps (FIRM), the subject
property is located outside the 100 year floodplain and is
designated as X on the FIRM.
Vegetation on the subject property is typical to pine flatwoods.
The dominant trees on site are slash pines (Pinus elliotii), and
most of these are concentrated on the eastern half of the ±4.8 acre
parcel. A cursory review by environmental planning staff indicates
that no wetlands exist on-site.
Utilities and Services
The site is located within the North County Water Service Area;
however, the site is currently serviced by the South County Water
Plant. Wastewater service extends to the site from the Gifford
(Central) Wastewater Plant.
24
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
o 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:
1. Size of Property: #4.8 acres
2. Size of Area to be Rezoned: t4.8 acres
3. Existing Zoning Classigication: RS -6, Single -Family
Residential District (up
to 6 units/acre)
4. Proposed Zoning Classification: RM -10, Multiple -Family
Residential District (up
to 10 units/acre)
5. Existing Land Use Designation: M-21, Medium -Density
Residential -2 (up to 10
units/acre)
6. Maximum Number of Units with Proposed Zoning: ±48 units
25
APR 28 1991'
BOOK
- Transportation
816 Ffku 15S,
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:
Condominium/Townhouse
2. 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%
3. Formula for Determining New Trips (peak hour/peak season/peak
direction): -
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)
4. a. P.M. Peak Hour/Peak Direction of Adjacent Roadway:
45th Street: West
43rd Avenue: North
b. Total Peak Hour/Peak Season/Peak Direction Trips: t26
5. Traffic Capacity on this segment of 45th Street at a Level of
Service "D":
630 Peak Hour/Peak Season/Peak Direction Trips
6. Traffic Capacity on this segment of 43rd Avenue at a Level of
Service "D":
630 Peak Hour/Peak Season/Peak Direction Trips
7. Existing Traffic Volume on this segment of 45th Street:
359 Peak Hour/Peak Season/Peak Direction Trips
8. Existing Traffic Volume on this segment of 43rd Avenue:
169 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, 45th Street and 43rd Avenue 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 45th Street and on
43rd Avenue, the peak direction -during the p.m. peak hour is west
for 45th Street and north for 43rd Avenue.
Given those conditions, the number of trips associated with these
parcels was determined by taking the total number of condominium/
townhouse units (48) 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. Using a modified gravity
model and a hand assignment, the trips for the subject property
were then assigned to roadways on the network.
26
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 45th Street, 43rd
Avenue,, 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 (5i) or more daily project traffic or fifty (50) or more
daily project trips, whichever is less. .
The table below identifies each of the impacted roadway segments
associated with this proposed amendment. As indicated in that
table, there is sufficient capacity in all of the segments to
accommodate the proposed project.
TRAFFIC CONCURRENCY DETERMINATION
Impacted Road Segments
(peak hour/peak season/peak direction)
Roadway
Segment
Road
From
To
At LOS "D�
4320
45th St.
66th Ave.
58th Ave.
630
4330
45th St.
58th Ave.
43rd Ave.
630
4340
45th St.
43rd Ave.
O. Dixie Hwy.
630
4350
45th St.
O. Dixie
Hwy.
I. River
630
1380
U.S. #1
65th St.
69th St.
2650
1375
U.S. #1
49th St.
65th St.
2650
1370
U.S. #1
45th St.
49th St.
2650
1365
U.S. #1
41st St.
45th St.
2650
1360
U.S. #1
O. Dixie
Hwy
41st St.
2300
1355
U.S. #1
No. V.B.
City Lmt.O. Dix. Hwy.
2300
1350
U.S. #1
Atlantic
Blvd.
No. V.B. City
Limits
2300
2950
43rd Ave.
45th St.
49th St.
630
2945
43rd Ave.
41st St.
45th St.
630
2940
43rd Ave.
26th St.
41st St.
630
2935
43rd Ave.
S.R. 60
26th St.
830
2930
43rd Ave.
16th St.
S.R. 60
830
3330
82nd Ave.
12th St.
S.R. 60
630
2330
O. Dix. Hwy.So. V.B.
City L.
16th St.
830
Existina
Demand
Total
Available
Positive
Roadway
Ex st ng
Vested
Segment
Segment
Project
Concurrency
Seament
Volume
Volume
Demand
Capacity
Demand
Determination
4320
130
4
134
492
1
Y
4330
130
3
133
494
2
Y
4340
256
3
359
368
8
Y
4350
256
1
257
372
1
Y
1380
747
19
766
1865
2
Y
1375
747
23
770
1857
1
Y
1370
1309
19
1328
1303
1
Y
1365
1309
18
1327
1305
4
Y
1360
1309
13
1322
965
3
Y
1355
1309
58
1367
875
2
Y
1350
1309
117
1426
757
1
Y
2950
166
3
169
458
3
Y
2945
166
2
168
460
4
Y
2940
283
8
291
331
3
Y
2935
373
5
378
447
2
Y
2930
373
6
379
445
1
Y
3330
162
18
180
432
0
Y
2330
441
2
443
385
0
Y
27
SPR 281992
a
-Water
The site is located within the North County Water Service Area.
Since the North County Water Plant has not been built yet, this
area is served by the South County Water Plant. A review of the
water capacity in that plant indicates a remaining capacity of
approximately 4 million gallons per day. With the most intense use
under the proposed land use designation, the subject property will
have a consumption rate of 48 Equivalent Residential Units (ERUs),
or 12,040 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 the 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 48 units on the subject property will be
approximately 48 Equivalent Residential Units (ERUs), or 12,040
gallons per day. This is based on the county's adopted level of
service standard of 250 gallons per ERU per day. County wastewater
service is available to the site from the Central Wastewater Plant
(Gifford). The Central Wastewater Plant has an available capacity
of 565,000 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 the expansion if capacity is not available at
the time of site development. With these conditions, the utility
concurrency test has been met for the subject request.
-Solid Waste
Solid waste service includes pickup by private operators and
disposal at the county landfill. Solid waste generation by
approximately 48 units of residential development on the subject
site will be approximately 76.80 waste generation units (WGUs), or
227.52 cubic yards of solid waste per year. This is based upon the
level of service standard of 2.37 cubic yards per capita per year.
A review of the solid waste capacity for the active segment 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, preservation of
floodplain storage and minimum finished floor elevations. In
addition, development proposals will have to meet the discharge
requirements of the county Stormwater Management Ordinance. The
subject property is located within the M-1 Drainage Basin. No
discharge rate has been set for this basin by the county. Since
the site is located within the Indian River Farms Water Control
District, 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.
28
r-�
L
M
The minimum floor elevation level of service standards do not
apply, since the property does not lie within a floodplain. On-
site retention and discharge level of service standards, however,
do 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 146,361 square feet, or 3.36 acres. The
maximum run-off volume, based upon that amount of impervious
surface and the 25 year/24 hour design storm, and given the Indian
River Farms 2 inch discharge requirement, will be ±34,850 cubic
feet. In order to maintain the county's adopted level of service,
the applicant will be required to retain 91,801 cubic feet of run-
off on-site.
Based upon staff's analysis, the drainage level of service
standards 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 91,801 cubic 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.
With the execution of the developer's agreements as referenced
above in the water and wastewater sections, the concurrency test
has been satisfied for the subject request.
Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan
Rezoning requests are reviewed for consistency with all policies of
the comprehensive plan. Rezoning requests must also be consistent
with the overall designation of land uses as depicted on the Future
Land Use Map; these uses include agricultural, residential,
recreation, conservation, and 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 Policies 1.13 and 1.14, Housing
Objectives 1 and 6, and Housing Policies 1.5, 6.1, and 6.2.
29
LOS
Project
(Acres per
Demand
Surplus
Park Type
1000 population)
Acres
Acreage
Urban District
5.0
.52
220.042
Community (north)
3.0
.31
27.931
Beach
1.5
.15
76.412
River
1.5
.15
37.409
With the execution of the developer's agreements as referenced
above in the water and wastewater sections, the concurrency test
has been satisfied for the subject request.
Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan
Rezoning requests are reviewed for consistency with all policies of
the comprehensive plan. Rezoning requests must also be consistent
with the overall designation of land uses as depicted on the Future
Land Use Map; these uses include agricultural, residential,
recreation, conservation, and 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 Policies 1.13 and 1.14, Housing
Objectives 1 and 6, and Housing Policies 1.5, 6.1, and 6.2.
29
APR 281992
BOOK 86 FACE
-Future Land Use Policy 1.13
Future Land Use Policy 1.13 states that the medium -density
residential land use designations are 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-2 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 states that Single -Family, Multiple -
Family and Mobile Home uses are permitted in the medium density
districts, not to.. exceed 10 units per acre for property located in
the M-2 land use designation. The subject property is centrally
located within the M-2 land use designation and is located in close
proximity to properties already zoned 10 units/acre. It is staff's
opinion that the subject request is consistent with the intent of
Future Land Use Policy 1.14.
-Housing Objective 1
Housing Objective 1 states that the county, by 1990, "shall secure
the means to reduce the cost of housing development and
construction to ensure that affordable housing is available to the
60% of county households in the very low, low, and moderate income
groups." Planning staff feel that affordable housing costs will be
reduced as a result of the proposed zoning. Adopting a multiple
family zoning district on the subject property will allow.a wider
range of residential development at a slightly higher density than
currently exists. This rezoning will also serve to increase the
county's affordable housing stock, consistent with Objective 2.
-Housing Policy 1.5
Housing Policy 1.5 states that the county shall identify federal,
state and other sources of funding earmarked for low and moderate
income housing and actively pursue these funds for local use. The
applicant, Gifford Elderly Housing, Ltd., has received a commitment
for financial assistance from the Farmers Home Administration
(FmHA) for affordable housing development on the subject property.
The proposed rezoning would allow the applicant to develop low and
moderate income elderly housing on the subject property, utilizing
federal funding. This is consistent with Housing Policy 1.5.
-Housing Objective 6
Housing Objective 6 states that the county will continue to ensure
that sites are available for group homes and care facilities in
residential areas to accommodate an additional 300 residents by
1995. The proposed zoning of the subject property will allow the
applicant to pursue the development of affordable elderly housing
pursuant to the site development requirements of the county's Land
Development Regulations (LDRs), thus ensuring the establishment of
elderly housing consistent with Housing Objective 6.
-Housing Policy 6.1
Housing policy 6.1 states that the county shall coordinate its
efforts in meeting the needs for special housing (such as housing
for elderly, handicapped, etc.) with efforts of the State
Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (HRS). The
proposed zoning is consistent with the land use densities of the
area and allows the county to coordinate its efforts with HRS to
provide the applicant the opportunity to develop affordable housing
for the elderly. 30
-Housing Policy 6.2
Housing policy 6.2 states that the county shall encourage private
and non-profit sponsors to initiate projects and assist in
obtaining financial assistance for those sponsors from all
available sources. The applicant has received FmHA funding
commitments in order to develop affordable elderly housing on the
subject property. The proposed zoning of the site will be
consistent with policy 6.2, since it allows the development of
special housing facilities.
Based upon its review of the County's comprehensive plan policies,
staff feels that the proposed rezoning is not only consistent with
the plan, but will serve to implement several specific plan
policies.
Potential Impact on Environmental Quality
Based upon an analysis of the environmental characteristics of the
subject property, staff feels that the site is suitable for medium
density residential development. As an upland area characterized
by pine flatwoods vegetation, the site has good development
potential. While the slash pines (4" diameter or larger) on the
Property are subject to protection under the county's land clearing
and tree protection ordinance, the county's native upland plant
community 10-15% set-aside requirements do not apply since the site
is less than five acres in size.
Compatibility with the Surrounding Area
It is staff's position that a multiple -family zoning district would
be appropriate for the subject property and would result in
development compatible with the surrounding area. While single-
family residential uses dominate the area immediately north of the
subject property, there has been an increase in multi -family
development in proximity to the site. In addition to the Briarwood
Apartments to the south, the Victory Park Housing project is
approximately } mile north on 40th Avenue. Both the Gifford
Community Center and Gifford Park are also located in close
proximity to the subject property.
Given the land use pattern in this area, the major impact of the
rezoning will be on the adjacent single-family lots in the Treasure
Coast Village Subdivision. Because the RM -10 District does not
require buffering between RM -10 developments and adjacent single
family uses, the rezoning could result in some incompatibility
between development on the site and the existing, platted single-
family lots to the north.
During its March 12, 1992 meeting, the Planning *and Zoning
Commission discussed the compatibility issue. At that time, a
concern was raised about buffering requirements between the
Proposed multiple family zoning and the existing single family
homes located immediately to the north. As a result of their
concerns, the Planning and Zoning Commission voted 3-2 to recommend
that the Board of County Commissioners rezone the property to RM -8,
a less intense multiple family zoning district.
The Planning and Zoning Commission recommended that the property be
rezoned RM -8 because the Commission felt that the RM -8 designation
would be more compatible with the adjacent RS -6 property than the
requested RM -10 zoning. In addition, the Commission considered
that the project proposed by the applicant could be accommodated
with a RM -8 designation.
), IF W
1i fff
L_
31
1 6 4"'a
moK. �j? j [,.,"E 9.�)
Although no specific bufferyard provisions apply to development on
RM -10 or RM -8 zoned sites which abut single-family areas, several
land development provisions would serve to mitigate impacts. Among
those provisions is a 25 foot rear yard setback in the RM -10
district. This requirement ensures physical separation and
constitutes a limited buffer. It is important to note that the RM -
8 zoning, recommended by the Planning and Zoning Commission, has
the same 25 foot rear yard setback as the RM -10 zoning. Another
provision is the requirement for multi -family projects to undergo
site plan review. Through this process, potential impacts will be
minimized with site design. For these reasons, the proposed
rezoning can be expected to have only minimal impacts on the
adjacent property.
Another issue applicable to this rezoning request relates to the
size and configuration of the subject property and its potential
for development as currently zoned. It is staff's position that a
standard RS -6 subdivision is unlikely to be built on this site.
Because of the relatively small size of the subject property, its
limited depth, and its frontage on two thoroughfare plan roadways,
single-family development may not be appropriate for the subject
property.
If the site were larger, the RS -6 zoning could be appropriate for
the property. With its existing size and.configuration,'`however,
platting the property would not allow for providing an internal
roadway system and establishing deeper and buffered perimeter lots.
ALTERNATIVES
The Board of County Commissioners has several alternatives to
consider regarding the subject property.
o The Board of County Commissioners could rezone the
subject property to RM -10, as requested by the applicant.
c The Board of County Commissioners could deny the request
to rezone the subject property to RM -10. This would
leave the property's current RS -6 zoning unchanged.
c The Board of County Commissioners could rezone the
property to a district less intensive than RM -10. Both
staff and the Planning and Zoning Commission recommend
the property be rezoned to RM -8.
Conclusion
The request to rezone the subject property to RM -10 is consistent
with the comprehensive plan, meets all applicable concurrency
requirements, and will not negatively impact environmental quality.
Not only is the site located in a developing area of Gifford at an
increasingly important intersection, but the subject property has
the necessary utilities and roadway access required by multi -family
projects. While adjacent land uses are primarily single-family
residences, recent development in the area has been mostly multi
family.
32
M
�J
There are, however, some compatibility concerns with the proposed
RM -10 zoning of the subject property. Of major concern with the
proposed rezoning is the potential impact of a multi -family
development on the abutting single-family lots. It is staff's
position, however, that these issues can.be adequately addressed by
setback and site plan requirements. It is also staff's position
that an RM -8 zoning for the subject property would be more
compatible with the surrounding area than the proposed RM -10
zoning. Staff feels that the increased density and multi -family
designation associated with an RM -8 zoning would be consistent with
the land use plan, provide an efficient use of both land and public
services, and provide for increased housing opportunities.
RECOMMENDATION
Based upon the analysis performed, staff recommends that the Board
of County Commissioners rezone the subject property to RM -8,
instead of RM -10 as requested by the applicant.
Community Development Director Bob Keating explained that the
public notice indicated a recommended change from RS -6 to RM -10
because that was the recommendation from the Planning & Zoning
(P&Z) Commission. Staff's recommendation is for a change to RM -8.
Two proposed ordinances were prepared, one for each density
depending on the Board's decision. He also commented that the two
opposing votes at the P & Z meeting were in opposition to any
change at all because of the single-family subdivision to the north
of this parcel.
Commissioner Scurlock noted that we do not have the ability to
do what is called contract zoning and the fact of the matter is if
we change the zoning, the property could change ownership and they
could build something other than what is presently proposed.
Director Keating agreed and commented that an alternative
would be a planned development type of zoning, which was not
requested in this case. A planned development allows an applicant
to come in and request a zoning district in which he can structure
the parameters as long as the density is consistent with the
overall cap provided by the comprehensive plan. The advantage of
planned development from the perspective of the Board is that we
actually get to see and approve a site plan.
Commissioner Scurlock asked why the developer has not applied
for a planned development, and Chairman Eggert responded that it
would add expense to the cost of this affordable housing project.
Director Keating agreed that it would have involved costs up
front for planning and engineering and if the request were denied
the money would be wasted.
In answer to a question by Chairman Eggert, Director Keating
stated that the built -out density of the single-family residential
subdivision north of this property is 8.6 dwelling units per acre.
33
COOK
r
APS 2 8 1�,
BOOK 8'6 FN.vE �j 7
Victory Park, which is not too far away, is zoned RM -10 and is
built out at 9.1 dwelling units per acre density.
Chairman Eggert asked about buffering requirements, and
Director Keating responded that both a planned development and this
project would require 25 -foot buffers, and even though there is the
25 -foot setback from the right-of-way in the RM -8 district, there
are some infrastructure improvements allowed in the setback that
cannot be put in the buffer. This property happens to be bordered
on three sides by roadway, so the setback would be comparable to a
planned development.
Commissioner Bowman asked for clarification of impervious area
and retention pond requirements. Director Keating explained that
there are a number of ways to accommodate drainage. It can be
incorporated with underground drainage or with swales. An
important factor is that it must be held on site, but those are
site plan factors which are not under consideration at this time.
Director Keating stated that staff's recommendation is RM -8.
The Chairman opened the public hearing and asked if .:anyone
wished to be heard in this matter.
Christopher Moench, president of Community Housing and
Development Corporation, came before the Board and explained that
Community Housing and Development Corporation is the managing
general partner of Gifford Elderly Housing, Ltd. Gifford Elderly
Housing, Ltd., will be the owner of the proposed apartment complex.
Mr. Moench, individually, is also a general partner in Gifford
Elderly Housing, Ltd., and he currently has the property under
contract and represents the land owner, Mr. Carter.
Mr. Moench requested a rezoning of the 4.8 acre parcel from
RS -6 to RM -10 to build a 42 -unit elderly apartment complex. The
apartment complex would be financed by Farmers Home Administration
through their Section 515 program but the rezoning must be obtained
first. Currently, the plan is to build 6 -unit buildings and Mr.
Moench explained that a zoning of RM -8 would limit the number of
apartments to 36. He explained that fewer units would have an
impact on the rental cost per unit because it would spread the
costs of the construction of the common areas and the overall land
costs over fewer units, so the elderly who are on a fixed income
will pay more rent with the lower density. He pointed out that the
RM -8 zoning just misses his need of 8.5 units per acre. With an
average of 1.5 persons per household in the apartment complex there
would be approximately 63 people living there whereas if it were a
single family development with an average of 3.5 persons per
34
s
household, there would be a total of 100 people living on the same
five acres.
Discussion ensued regarding the funding for this project and
Mr. Moench stated that the application has been sent to Farmers
Home but they would take no further action until the zoning is
decided.
Commissioner Scurlock led discussion regarding the neighboring
properties.
Director Keating indicated there is single-family residential
to the north and multi -family residential to the east.
Joe N. Idlette III, 4265 45th Lane, came before the Board to
oppose the change from RS -6 to RM -10. He lives right next to the
subject property and .enumerated the various residential
developments in the surrounding areas. He pointed out that this is
a busy corner with a lot of traffic which could be dangerous for
elderly people. He gave the example of his grandmother who tended
to stray away from home.
Janice Claire, 4043 46th, Treasure Coast Village, stated she
is against this request to rezone.
The Chairman determined that no one else wished to be heard
and thereupon closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Scurlock supported staff's recommendation of
RM -8, although he would have preferred a planned development
package.
Commissioner Wheeler thought that whether it is RM -8 or RM -10,
it is encroachment on the single-family neighborhood.
Commissioner Scurlock commented, and Director Keating
confirmed that the property is a very difficult piece of property
to develop because that intersection is quite busy. It is not
suitable for single-family residences because the depth is only 300
feet, and the other option would be commercial which is not
desirable.
MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED
by Commissioner Bowman, to change the zoning from
RS -6 to RM -8.
Under discussion, Commissioner Bowman did not oppose multi-
family on this property and felt there was no difference between 8
units and 10 units so far as buffering is concerned. She hoped
they do not destroy the trees because we need trees.
Chairman Eggert could not understand staff's recommendation
�R
APR 2 8 1992
L_
_I
APR 2 8 199 r "
BOOK 8
because the housing committee is trying to find ways to bring
affordable housing at the lowest possible cost. She would prefer
to see 42 units built on this property.
Commissioner Wheeler agreed with the Chairman but was not in
favor of multi -family because of the adjacent single-family
residential.
Commissioner Bowman wanted to protect the single-family
subdivision with buffering.
Commissioner Scurlock felt we still have the option of a
planned development, but Chairman Eggert disagreed because the
financing is not available to approach it that way. They must have
zoning and everything in place before the funds become available.
Commissioner Bowman was in favor of the project because it is
for the elderly rather than multi -family, which might include
children playing near a busy intersection.
Commissioner Scurlock saw a problem in that if this project
falls through, someone else can build any type of multi -family
development at RM -10 density.
THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION.
It was voted on and failed 1-3, (Commissioners
Wheeler and Bowman and Chairman Eggert voting in
opposition, and Commissioner Bird abstaining because
of a conflict of interest).
ON MOTION by Commissioner Wheeler, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bowman, the Board, by a 3-1 vote,
(Commissioner Scurlock voting in opposition and
Commissioner Bird abstaining because of a conflict
of interest), adopted Ordinance 92-13 amending the
zoning ordinance and the accompanying zoning map
from RS -6 to RM -10 for the property generally
located on the northeast corner of 45th Street and
43rd Avenue.
ORDINANCE NO. 92-13
AN ORDINANCE OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, AMENDING THE
ZONING ORDINANCE AND THE ACCOMPANYING ZONING MAP FROM RS -6 TO
RM -10, FOR THE PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE NORTHEAST
CORNER OF 45TH STREET AND 43RD 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 36
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:
From the Southwest corner of Section 22, Township 32 South,
Range 39 East, run South 89059130" East along said South
section line, a distance of 935.50 feet: Thence North
00043'35" West a distance of 300.00 feet: Thence North
89059125" West a distance of 932.72 feet: Thence South
00011145" East a distance of 300.00 feet to the Point of
Beginning. Less road right-of-way for North Gifford Road and
the West 35.00 feet for 43rd Avenue per O.R. Book 730, page
1487.
Be changed from RS -6 to RM -10.
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 28 day of A ri1 , 1992.
This ordinance was advertised in the Vero Beach Press -Journal
on the 6 day of April , 1992 for a public hearing to be
held on the 28 day of April , 1992 at which time it was
moved for adoption by Commissioner Wheeler , seconded by
Commissioner Bowman , and adopted by the following
vote:
Chairman Carolyn K. Eggert —Ave
Vice Chairman Margaret C. Bowman e
Commissioner Richard N. Bird Li 1 e C fl ict of Interest
Commissioner Gary Wheeler AVP
Commissioner Don C. Scurlock, Jr. Nab
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
BY:e�L�
Carol y . Egge Chairman
37
APR 2 8 1992 BOOK C uJ F, Ut
APR 2 8 1992
BOOK 21J,I
REPEAL OF CHAPTER 20 OF THE COUNTY CODE SHERIFF AND LAW
ENFORCEMENT
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 of
_ In the Court, was pub-
lished in said newspaper in the Issues of
Alflant 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 bqfore me hie 0,22
� day A.D. 19
f f R c 1
MCI -
(Business Manager)
(SEAL)
PUBLIC HFARfNO FOR
PROPOSED ORDINANCE
xi Board of County CCoCounty. Florets,pymmispsloonnerre of h4M .
Wc H schedul, Wr B.I a.m. onn uueesddaof y.
.1
28, 1992. to dtuss the ►oaowdng proposed
dbuarce eneded:
AN OnDINANCE OF INDIAN RIVER COUN-
to et the wish PWdta Hem�Ug mei Apko phiCh
2e
ad to waive met a ver�ft reearo of
Ma is made. r Noh heiude, testimony
The Board reviewed memo from Assistant County Attorney Terry
O'Brien dated April 22, 1992:
TO: Board of County Commissioners
FROM: Terrence P. O'Brien - Assistant County AttorneyCrI?G/
DATE: April 22, 1992
SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING - 4/28/92 - "Chapter 20 - Sheriff and
Law Enforcement"
"Chapter 20 - Sheriff and Law Enforcement" of the 1974 edition of the
Code is not longer necessary and should be repealed.
The first section of the Chapter is a Special Act which will become part
of the appendix to the new code. This appendix is a compilation of all
Special Acts affecting Indian River County. The second section
concerns liability insurance for sheriff's department vehicle which
should be handled as an administrative matter. The third and final
section is controlled by Florida Statutes.
REQUEST:
Staff recommends approval of the attached proposed ordinance and
authorization for the Chairman to sign.
38
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 Wheeler, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously (4-1,
Commissioner Bird being absent) adopted Ordinance
92-14 repealing Chapter 20, Sheriff and Law
Enforcement, and declaring same to be null and void
and of no effect.
ORDINANCE 92 -fig,
AN ORDINANCE OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY,
FLORIDA, PROVIDING FOR THE REPEAL OF
CHAPTER 209 SHERIFF AND LAW ENFORCEMENT,
OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES OF INDIAN
RIVER COUNTY AND DECLARING SAME TO BE "
NULL AND VOID AND OF NO EFFECT.
WHEREAS, the Legislature of the State of Florida has
enacted Legislation which sets forth the duties and obligations of the
Sheriff , and
WHEREAS, Chapter 20 of the Indian River County Code
contains certain County procedures concerning the sheriff which are
no longer necessary,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of County
Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida that:
SECTION I. REPEAL
"Chapter 20 - Sheriff and Law Enforcement" of the Code of
Ordinances of Indian River County is hereby repealed and declared
null and void and of no effect.
SECTION 2. 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 28 day of
April , 1992.
39
_I
APR 281997— POri$ E3
This ordinance was advertised in the Vero Beach Press -
Journal on the 9 day of April , 1992, for a public hearing to
be held on the 28 day of Apri 1 , 1992, at which time it was
moved for adoption by Commissioner Wheeler and the motion
was seconded by Commissioner Bowman , and, adopted by
the following vote:
Chairman Carolyn K. Eggert Aye
Vice Chairman Margaret C. Bowman Aye
Commissioner Don C. Scurlock, Jr. Aye
Commissioner Richard N. Bird Absent
Commissioner Gary C. Wheeler Aye
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
By
Carolyn Eggert
Chairman Cl 0
ORDINANCE PROHIBITING THE BLOCKING OF STREETS BY RAILROAD TRAINS
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
al Vero Beach In Indian River County. Florida; that the attached copy of advertisement, being
PUBLIC REARING FOR
PROPOSED ORDINANCE
a the Roard of County Cammlssloners of irxllan
ppaver County. Florida. hereby note of e
. / / Pubs scheduled for B a.m. on Tue3day
RprO 2a. 199 l , discuss the lo6wr4g {xoposeti
in the matter of '4� O ardma,�e maned
AN OROIJANCE OF INDIAN RNER CONN-
. (� l LOCK -
a OF STREETS BY RAILROAD PROHIBITING THETRAM
ilnyorre who may wish to appeal � A
In the - Ixt made et the PU h Ne
Court, was pub- t�t2, wa creed to enetae that a vmbattm recod of
Ilre Ixoeeedlrgs Is made, wtdah Includes teathnony
evidence
llshed In said newspaper In the issues of AandpI9,1992 uvea wtdclt the appeal la 23i'e
Alflanl further says that the said Vero Beach Press -Journal ib a newspaper published at
Vero Beach, In sold 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 Ilrsl 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 olZ� ''4-6-1/'A .D. 19
(Business Manager)
(SEAL) • �fI h /F�
A4 fu*r-- Jima 19, IPPI
40
The Board reviewed memo from Assistant County Attorney Terry
O'Brien dated April 22, 1992:
TO: Board of County Commissioners
FROM: Terrence P. O'Brien - Assistant County Attorney cl�
DATE: April 22, 1992
RE: PUBLIC HEARING - 4/28/92 - ORDINANCE PROHIBITING THE
BLOCKING OF STREETS BY RAILROAD TRAINS
The frequent blocking of street crossings by the FEC railway has given
rise to concern by the citizens of Indian River County. The proposed
ordinance would make such blockages unlawful and provide for a fine
for any violations. This proposal was prepared in response to
comments of Commissioners Bird and Wheeler.
REQUEST:
Staff recommends approval of the attached proposed ordinance and
authorization for the Chairman to sign.
The Chairman opened the public hearing and asked if anyone
wished to be heard in this matter.
Kenneth Charron, representing the Florida East Coast Railroad,
whose office is at One Malaga, St. Augustine, came before the Board
to address the proposed ordinance and to explain the railroad's
operations. He said the FEC has 20 trains each day, 10 running
north and 10 running south along the east coast of Florida. Of the
20 trains, there is one local train which runs up from Fort Pierce
and through Indian River County to Melbourne and back again which
serves 18 customers in Indian River County. On this single-track
system a passing track is used when a train heading north
approaches a train heading south. One of the trains moves onto the
passing track to allow the other train to pass. A dispatcher in
New Smyrna Beach is in constant contact with all FEC train
engineers and tells them the location and speed of all other
trains. Because the passing tracks are located at 20 -mile
intervals and each passing track is 3 miles long, and the longest
trains are 1 mile long, the dispatcher directs each train engineer
to speed up or slow down in order to be able to move onto the
passing track without stopping or causing the other train to stop.
E151
APR 2 8 199 1�00K C% � p fAuC. � �'P•
APR 2, 8 199-2
BOOK
It takes coordination for the two trains to reach this 3 -mile
stretch of passing track at exactly the same time. This operation
keeps trains moving so they do not block railroad crossings. Mr.
Charron indicated to the Board on an enlarged chart the location of
the passing track in Gifford. There is also one siding in the
Gifford area which services FEC customers twice a day and that
causes a delay of about 5 minutes to stop and back up into that
ramp area. Mr. Charron emphasized that the FEC makes its money on
timely delivery of goods and makes every effort to keep the trains
moving.
Mr. Charron pointed out that the FEC is sensitive to the
concerns of people in heavily populated areas. Every engineer
knows the length of his train and where the crossings are located
and they make every effort not to block crossings. Mr. Charron
advised that FEC has an emergency phone available to Indian River
County, 567-2906, which rings in the train master's office in Fort
Pierce. If a train is blocking a crossing, the train master can
contact the locomotive engineer to move the train or at least to
let an emergency vehicle through by splitting the train. He felt
that the particular situation which occurred in Gifford where all
crossings were blocked for an extended period of time was'a rare
situation and FEC will make every effort not to let it recur.
Commissioner Bird agreed that it may have been one long delay
where trains were not coordinated. He thought it is unfortunate
that in our county the passing track happens to fall in an area
where there are four crossings, so there is potential to block most
if not all of those crossings.
Mr. Charron indicated his purpose was to work with the Board
to find a solution. One viable solution is an overpass and as a
county grows, this seems to be an answer to the problem. In
response to a question from the Board, he stated that he was not
prepared to authorize any expenditure on behalf of the railroad for
an overpass, but he was aware that there are laws making the State
responsible for overpasses.
Mr. Charron advised the Board that there is a 25 mile -per -hour
speed limit for trains going through the city of Vero Beach. This
speed limit affects the situation, for example, when the dispatcher
tells a northbound train to speed up to make a better "meet" at a
passing track and the train cannot speed up because of the speed
limit. Through the years all other cities in Florida have raised
the speed limit on trains that go through town. In that way trains
pass the crossings in less time.
Commissioner Wheeler asked if the FEC has approached or
42
intends to approach the City of Vero Beach to raise that speed
limit.
Mr. Charron stated that about two years ago they approached
the City of Vero Beach on this issue. He recently had a discussion
with Assistant County Attorney O'Brien and they thought it would be
better for the County to make that suggestion to the City. He
estimated that raising the speed limit would substantially reduce
the general time it takes to pass a crossing from about 3.5 minutes
at 25 miles per hour to 1 minute at 40 miles per hour.
Commissioner Scurlock wondered if the 40 mile -per -hour speed
limit is less safe, and Chairman Eggert thought that when there
were no whistles8 it may have been less safe. Attorney O'Brien felt
the 25 mile -per -hour speed limit is just a long-standing policy
that the City has not changed.
Commissioner Wheeler pointed out, and Commissioner Bowman
agreed that every crossing in Indian River County now has lights,
bells and arms coming down.
Commissioner Scurlock thought we should send the suggestion to
the City, but if there is a safety factor/ he would be opposed to
raising the speed limit.
Commissioner Bird felt the other side of the safety issue is
emergency vehicles waiting for trains to clear the crossings and
the higher speed limit might save lives by shortening that waiting
time.
Mr. Charron agreed to appear before the Vero Beach City
Council to make his presentation if the Board would send a letter
suggesting that the speed limit be raised.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by
Commissioner Wheeler, the Board unanimously
authorized the Chairman to write a letter to the
City of Vero Beach suggesting the speed limit for
trains traveling through Vero Beach be increased
from 25 to 40 miles per hour, unless there is an
overriding safety consideration.
The Chairman determined that no one else wished to be heard
and thereupon closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Bird noted that the creation of the proposed
ordinance prohibiting the blocking of streets by railroad trains
and cars brought a reaction by the FEC. He suggested that we
table the ordinance, observe the railroad's operation for a while
and if it continues to be a problem, readdress that ordinance and
43
BOOK
APR 2 8 199
bring it back again,
that recommendation.
BOOK �i P U P.1 i�
and Assistant County Attorney O'Brien approved
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by
Commissioner Wheeler, the Board unanimously tabled
any action regarding the proposed ordinance
prohibiting the blocking of streets by -railroad
trains and cars.
ORDINANCE TO REPEAL CHAPTER 10-112 - HOUSING
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 of n
In the Court, was pub-
lished in said newspaper In the issues of
7
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.
7
Sworn to and subscribe �efose met day o / A.D. 19
4EIgsiness`Manager)
44
Board of County Commissioners of Indian
r County, Florida. hereby provides notice of a
� Heartr� sdmeduld for J•0b a.m, on Tuesday,
fI 28, 1992, to discuss the following proposed
AN ORDINANCE OF INDIAN RIVER COUN-
TY, FLORIDA. FOR THE REPEAL OF
CHAPTER 10-112, HOUSING. OF THE
CODE OF ORDINANCES OF INDIAN
RIVER COUNTY AND DECLARING SAME
TO BE NULL AND VOID OF NO EFFECT.
one who may wish to appeal any decision which
be made at the Public Hearing on Apra 28,
2, will road to ensure that a verbatim record of
stimony
evidenceuponappeal Is baIs rnade, which includessed.
19.1992 892389
_I
The Board reviewed memo from Assistant County Attorney Terry
O'Brien dated April 22, 1992:
TO: Board of County Commissioners
FROM: Terrence P. O'Brien - Assistant County Attorney pe.
DATE: April 22, 1992
SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING - 4/28/92 - REPEAL OF CHAPTER
10 1/ 2 - HOUSING
The subject chapter which is in the 1974 edition of the Code serves no
useful purpose at this time. Accordingly, a repeal of that Chapter has
been prepared for consideration.
REQUEST:
Staff recommends approval of the attached proposed ordinance and
authorization for the Chairman to sign.
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 Wheeler, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously adopted
Ordinance 92-15 for the repeal of Chapter 10-1/2,
Housing, as recommended by staff.
ORDINANCE 92- 15
AN ORDINANCE OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY,
FLORIDA, FOR THE REPEAL OF CHAPTER
10-1/29 HOUSING, OF THE CODE OF
ORDINANCES OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY AND
DECLARING SAME TO BE NULL AND VOID, AND "
OF NO EFFECT.
WHEREAS, Article I of Chapter 10-1/2 which is a special act
that relates to municipalities and, therefore, is not a necessary part
of the new Code except in the appendix for special acts; and
45
APR 2 8 1992
r -
X91
LOOK 86 F't, L cl
WHEREAS, Article II of Chapter 10-1/2 merely reflects
Florida Statutes (Sec. 159.601 et seg.) on this subject and is,
therefore, not a necessary part of the new Code,
NOW, THEREFORE, be it ordained by the Board of County
Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida that:
SECTION 1. REPEAL.
Chapter 10-1/2 - Housing of the Code of Ordinances of
Indian River County (1974 edition) is hereby repealed and declared
null and void and of no effect.
SECTION 2. 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 28 day of
April , 1992.
This ordinance was advertised in the Vero Beach Press -
Journal on the 9 day of Apri 1 1992, for a public hearing to
be held on the 28 day of Apri 1 , 1992, at which time it was
moved for adoption by Commissioner Wheeler 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 Don C. Scurlock, Jr. Aye
Commissioner Richard N. Bird Aye
Commissioner Gary C. Wheeler Aye
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
By ,�
Carolyn .Eggert
C
ORDINANCE TO REPEAL CHAPTER 16 - MOBILE HOMES MODULAR HOMES AND
HOUSE TRAILERS
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:
I I
46
7--7
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,
PUBLIC HEARING FOR
PROPOSED ORDINANCE
says that he is Business Manager of the Vero Beach Press -Journal, a dailynewspaper published
P P
BoardP commissioners of Indian
at Vero Beach in Indian River County, Florida; that the attached copy of advertisement, being
aids,coun
Flhrer County, Florida, trerebv provides notice of e
a
Public H scheduled for 9•ob a.m. on Tuesday,
AW 28, 1992, to discuss the following Ixoposed
ordinance entitled:
a j
I, AN ORDINANCE OF INDIAN RIVER COUN-
TY, FLORIDA, PROVIDING FOR THE RE- '
L PEAL OF CHAPTER 18, MOBILE HOMES,
! MODULAR HOMES AND HOUSE TRAIL
in the matter of �I /0/
-
y ERS, OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES OF
y INDIAN RIVER COUNTY AND DECLARING
! SAME TO BE NULL AND VOID AND OF
1 NO EFFECT.
Anyone who may wish to appeal any decision which
in the
may be made at the Public Hearing on April 28,
will need to that a verbatim record of
Court, was pub-
.1992, ermure
i
A
the proceedings Is made, which includes testtmony
and evidence upon which the appeal is ted.
Iished in said newspaper in the issues of
- _eA4, - , ,
April 9, 1992 892379
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.
i
Sworn to and subscribed before me this day o A.D. 19-%;2
(SEAL)
(Butiness Manager)
?l►tmry
ll4Y I.iprmr�. Stufe �� pi,,,.;arr
61Pb� y'1 2q d!'�;o
The Board reviewed memo from Assistant County Attorney Terry
O'Brien dated April 22, 1992:
TO: Board of County Commissioners
FROM: Terrence . P. O'Brien - Assistant County Attorneyft:->
DATE: April 22, 1992
SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING - 4/28/92 - REPEAL OF CHAPTER 16 -
MOBILE HOMES, MODULAR HOMES AND HOUSE TRAILER
The State of Florida has enacted several laws which regulate this
subject; therefore, Chapter 16 is no longer necessary.
REQUEST:
Staff recommends approval of the attached proposed ordinance and
authorization for the Chairman to sign.
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.
47
Nffli
Ark 2 8 1992
I
,
APR 2 8 1992
ON MOTION by Commissioner Wheeler, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously adopted
Ordinance 92-16 repealing Chapter 16, Mobile Homes,
Modular Homes and House Trailers, as recommended by
staff.
ORDINANCE 92-_16
AN ORDINANCE OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY,
FLORIDA, PROVIDING FOR THE REPEAL OF
CHAPTER 16, MOBILE HOMES, MODULAR HOMES
AND HOUSE TRAILERS, OF THE CODE OF
ORDINANCES OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY AND
DECLARING SAME TO BE NULL AND VOID AND
OF" NO EFFECT.
WHEREAS, the State of Florida Legislature has enacted
several laws which regulate these homes, and
WHEREAS, Chapter 16 which sets forth County regulations
is, therefore, no longer necessary,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Board, -of
County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida that:
SECTION 1. REPEAL
Chapter 16 - Mobile Homes, Modular Homes and House
Trailers of the Code of Ordinances of Indian River County is hereby
repealed and declared null and void and of no effect.
SECTION 2. 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
28 day of
April , 1992.
This ordinance was advertised in the Vero Beach
Press -
Journal on the 9 day of April , 1992, for a public hearing to
be held on the 28 day of Apri 1 , 1992,
at which
time it was
moved for adoption by Commissioner Wheeler
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 Don C. Scurlock, Jr.
Aye
Commissioner Richard N. Bird
Aye
Commissioner Gary C. Wheeler
Aye
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
By
Carolyn . Eggert
Chairma
48
1
�J
The Chairman recessed the meeting briefly at 10:35 A. M. and
the Board reconvened at 10:45 A. M. with all members present.
STAFF APPEAL OF PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION ACTION ON
JACKSON/LOUDERMILK AND BARKETT APPEAL OF A STAFF DECISION
Planning Director Stan Boling displayed graphics and made the
following presentation:
TO: James E. Chandler
County Administrator
DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE:
Robert M. ea g, Arp
Community Develoimiak Director
FROM: Stan Boling—,hAICP
Planning Director
DATE: April 20, 1992
SUBJECT: Staff Appeal of 'Planning and Zoning Commission Action on
Jackson/Loudermilk and Barkett Appeal of a Staff Decision
It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal
consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at its regular
meeting of April 28, 1992.
BACKGROUND AND CONDITIONS:
This is an appeal by planning staff of a recent decision by the
Planning and Zoning Commission to grant an applicant's appeal and
overturn a staff decision. The staff decision related to
redevelopment of a site which contains various non -conformities.
The subject property is a ±2.47 acre parcel located at the
southwest corner of 69th Street and 66th Avenue (see attachment
#2). The property is currently zoned RFD (Rural Fringe Development
up to 1 unit per 21 acres) and A-1 (Agriculture up to 1 unit per 5
acres). The property has a land use designation of AG -1
(Agriculture up to 1 unit per 5 acres). Due to the AG -1 land use
designation, the maximum density allowed on the parcel is 1 unit
per 5 acres. The portion of the subject property currently zoned
RFD is slated to be administratively rezoned to the A-1 zoning
district within the next few months. Due to zoning and land use
designation minimum lot size and maximum density constraints, the
subject parcel cannot be split into two separate legally buildable
parcels.
There are three nonconformities existing on the subject site.
Therefore, any site redevelopment or additional development on the
site must satisfy the regulations of Chapter 904, Nonconformities.
As proposed and "approved" by the recent Planning and Zoning
Commission decision, the applicant's redevelopment would involve
the replacement of a mobile home with a site -built residence and
would result in the location of two permanent site -built residences
on a single, 12.47 acre site. It is staff's position that such a
49
APR 2 8 1992
F,
BOOK61b F
result would "make permanent" certain nonconformities and would
increase the degree of nonconformity of the subject site. Based on
this determination, staff denied the applicant's concurrency
certificate application to allow the replacement of the mobile home
with a site -built residence. It should be noted that the
concurrency certificate application was denied due to non-
conformity issues, not due to any concurrency or level of service
constraints.
Attorney Bruce Barkett, on behalf of property owner Doris Jackson
and family member Mike Loudermilk, appealed staff's denial of the
proposal to replace a mobile home with a site -built. residence on
the subject parcel. The appeal was filed pursuant to the
provisions of LDR section 902.07. At its meeting of March 26,
1992, the Planning and Zoning Commission voted 4 to 2 to grant the
appeal and overturn staff's decision and determination. The reason
given for overturning staff's decision was because "...staff failed
to evaluate the application with respect to the comprehensive plan
and LDRs of Indian River County and because of common sense." [see
attachment #61. Pursuant to the provisions of section 902.07(5),
staff is now appealing the Planning and Zoning Commission's
decision to grant the applicant's appeal and overturn staff's
decision. There are essentially two reasons for staff's appeal:
1. the Planning and Zoning Commission made no -specific findings
that provide staff direction regarding non -conformity
interpretations for proposals similar to the subject case; and
2. the Planning and Zoning Commission's decision has significant
effect on past county policy and interpretations regarding
non -conforming mobile homes located outside of mobile home
parks.
It is staff's opinion that the Board of County Commissioners should
review the Planning and Zoning Commission decision since the
decision effectively reverses a long-standing .county policy
regarding the treatment of non -conforming mobile homes located
outside of mobile home parks.
ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS:
Site Analysis
Several nonconformities exist on the subject site. First, the
subject property is a single parcel, yet two independent dwelling
units are located on it as follows:
• A mobile home (trailer) which was placed on the parcel in
1971, and
• A site built residence constructed on the site in 1936.
The location of two separate dwelling units on a single parcel does
not conform to the county's requirement that single family
residences be located on separate, buildable parcels [reference
911.04(3)(b)6.]. Furthermore, neither the RFD nor the A-1 zoning
district allow the use of a mobile home as an on-going residence.
Lastly, the subject site exceeds the AG -1 one unit per five acre
maximum density. Thus, there are essentially three conformities
related to the site:
50
_I
two residences are located on a single parcel;
a mobile home is located on the site and used as an on-
going residence; and
• a density of one unit per + 1.24 acres occurs on the
site; this density exceeds both the RFD and A-1/AG-1
maximum allowable densities.
Nonconformities Regulations and the Proposal
The nonconformities chapter of the county's land development
regulations was established to permit the continuation of legal
nonconformities under certain circumstances. It is also the stated
intent of the chapter to "... promote the phasing out of
nonconforming structures, uses, and characteristics of uses and
combinations thereof... [904.02]." On properties where
nonconformities exist, such as the subject property, development
and redevelopment proposals are guided by section 904.05, a portion
of which states the following:
"... No nonconformity shall be enlarged, increased, or changed to
a different nonconformity, except upon a determination by the
director of community development that the change results in
lessening the degree of the nonconformity".
All parties seem to agree that Chapter 904 regulations apply to the
proposal and that, according to Section 904.05, the proposal must
result in a lessening of the degree of nonconformity in order to be
approved. The applicant asserts that the proposal would reduce the
number of nonconformities related to the site by eliminating the
mobile home nonconformity. Thus, the applicant asserts that, if
the mobile home use nonconformity is eliminated, the result is a
lessening in the degree of nonconformity (see attachment #1).
In staff's opinion, mobile homes, by definition, by experience, and
by their treatment in the LDRs, are "temporary" in comparison to
site -built homes. The curing of mobile home use nonconformities is
accomplished by removal of the mobile home from the site, as
described in LDR section 904.08(2) [see attachment #5].
Replacement of the mobile home with a site -built residence is
another matter which impacts the degree of nonconformity on site.
It is staff's position that the density and the two units on a
single parcel nonconformities would be made permanent by the
construction of a second site -built home on the subject parcel. In
staffIs-opinionI such an action would contradict the stated intent
of Chapter 904 to "phase out" nonconformities (see attachments # 3
a 4). Construction of a second site -built house on the parcel
would firmly establish the density and the two units on a single
parcel nonconformit-ies in a manner that would preclude the ability
to eventually lessen or phase-out those nonconformities.
Precedent and Policy
At the March 26, 1992 Planning and Zoning Commission meeting, staff
did not specifically stress the precedent -setting implications of
approving the applicant's appeal, although a Planning and Zoning
Commissioner did specifically state that such an approval would set
an undesirable precedent in terms of continuing non -conforming
densities.
Based upon experience, staff feels
will arise that must be treated in
Just one example of an existing lot
51
that many similar situations
the same manner as this case.
illustrates this point.
APSc�ooK �� c„,�c
2 8199
APR 2 8 1992
This "example" parcel is located in the A-1 zoning district
(Agriculture up to 1 unit/5 acres) and has 4 units on a single
parcel containing ±l acre. Two of the units are mobile homes
situated on a slab. For a case such as this, the Planning and
Zoning Commission's decision has clear implications. Applying the
precedent of the Planning and Zoning Commission's decision to this
case, 2 site -built units could replace 2 mobile homes and result in
4 site -built units on a single parcel containing ± 1 acre. The
resulting 4 units per acre "permanent" development -would exceed the
permitted density by a factor of 20.
Allowing such conversions is contrary to past county
interpretations of the non -conformities regulations. .Until now,
county policy toward mobile homes located outside of either mobile
parks or zoning districts allowing mobile homes has been to
eliminate all nonconformities created by such mobile homes when the
mobile home is removed from the property. In essence, county
policy has been to grandfather -in and' "vest" nonconformities
associated with a mobile home only for as long as that original
mobile home is in place and in use. The mobile home is treated as
"temporary" and does not permanently "vest" a site with a
comparable development potential.
Many of the county's nonconforming mobile homes are located on
single parcels of record and can be replaced by site -built homes.
However, in cases where a mobile home is one of at least two units
on a single parcel and itself contributes to a density
nonconformity, removal of the mobile home without replacement of
the unit has been the policy for reducing on-site density
nonconformities. Under such circumstances, the county's policy has
been that replacement of a mobile home with a site -built home would
not reduce the site's nonconformity and, therefore, would not be
TI -1 -owed.
This policy and nonconformities interpretation needs either to be
re -affirmed or changed by the Hoard. In essence, this becomes a
question of whether a non -conforming mobile home constitutes
grounds for permanently "vesting" a non -conforming density on a
given site. Past policy says no; the site non -conformity cannot
be reduced or.eliminated by the replacement of a non -conforming
mobile home. The appealed Planning and Zoning Commission decision
changes past policy and nonconformities interpretation, and would
give any property owner the ability to replace a non -conforming
mobile home with a site -built home. This, however, would have the
effect of making more permanent both a density non -conformity and
a too -many -units -on -a -single -parcel non -conformity.
Alternatives
Under the current land use designation (and even under the old RR
designation), there is no ability to split the subject property
into two legal, buildable parcels. Also, under the regulations of
section 904.08 (see attachment #5), the existing mobile home cannot
be replaced by a new mobile home. Thus, at this time there is no
legal ability either to create a separate parcel or to replace the
existing mobile home with a new mobile home.
At this time, the alternatives for the use of the site are as
follows:
(1) The applicant may continue the current use of the site under
the provisions of chapter 904. Eventually, the
nonconformities are to be lessened in degree or phased out.
52
- M
(2) Now or in the future the applicant may apply for a land use
plan amendment and rezoning that would allow a one time split
of the property into two separate, legal, buildable parcels.
(3) The Planning and Zoning Commission's approval of the subject
appeal may be .allowed to stand. If the appeal stands, the
applicant would be allowed to replace the mobile home with a
site -built residence.
Alternatives 1 and 2 are not affected by any action involving the
appeal. Neither of these alternatives would conflict with the
intent of the nonconformities section and the established standards
of the land use plan and LDRs, and neither would change previous
county policy or interpretation of nonconformities regulations.
The third alternative, however, would affect present county policy
and interpretations.
Consideration of the Appeal
Pursuant to section 902.07(4) of the LDRs, the Planning and Zoning
Commission had the authority to uphold, amend, or reverse wholly or
partly staff's determination and decision to deny the applicant's
proposal. The Planning and Zoning Commission evaluated staff's
decision and made findings in four areas. The four areas are as
follows:
1. Did the reviewing official fail to follow the appropriate
review procedures?
2. Did the reviewing official act in an arbitrary or capricious
manner?
3. Did the reviewing official fail to consider adequately the
effects of the proposed development upon surrounding
properties, traffic circulation or public health, safety and
welfare?
4. Did the reviewing official fail to evaluate the application
with respect to the comprehensive plan and land development
regulations of Indian River County?
Pursuant to the provisions of section 902.07(4), the Board is now
to evaluate staff's decision in regards to these four areas. In
staff's opinion, staff did not fail in any of these four areas.
1. Staff did not fail to follow appropriate review procedures.
Upon receipt of an initial inquiry by Mr. Barkett, staff
researched the relevant issues and responded in writing in a
timely manner (see attachment #4). Staff also recommended to
Mr. Barkett an appropriate course of action to appeal staff's
decision. To staff's knowledge, the applicant does not
contend that staff failed in relation to review procedures.
2. 'Staff did not act in an arbitrary or capricious manner.
Staff's determination is based upon logic and the stated
intent and the appropriate sections of the nonconformities
chapter of the LDRs. The applicant asserts that staff's
determination is simply erroneous in that the applicant's
proposal reduces the degree of nonconformity on the site by
reducing the number of types of nonconformities. The
applicant also asserts that staff's characterization of mobile
homes as "temporary" in comparison to site -built homes is
erroneous.
53
APR 2 81992 MOK
L
BOOK 8, 6, F'IIU O"f I
Staff's reasoning is sound. Staff's analysis recognizes that
determining the degree of nonconformity goes beyond simple,
quantitative analysis (two types of nonconformities are less
than three). Rather, staff's analysis and reasoning recognize
the qualitative differences between the existing
nonconforming situation and the nonconforming situation that
would result if the proposal is approved. Staff's decision is
based upon an analysis that compares the "before" and "after"
situations.
3. Staff did not fail to consider adequately the effects of the
proposed development upon surrounding properties, traffic
circulation or public health, safety and welfare. The
protection of surrounding properties from the permanent
continuation of excessive densities and corresponding impacts
is best served by staff's decision. Staff's decision denies
a proposal that would essentially preclude compliance with
adopted land use plan and zoning densities in the subject
area.
4. Staff did not fail to evaluate the application with respect to
the comprehensive plan and LDRs of the county. As previously
stated, staff's decision implements the stated purpose of the
nonconformities chapter which is to "phase-out"
nonconformities. Also, as previously stated, staff's decision
allows for the future possibility of the subject site coming
into compliance with the land use plan.
The applicant's appeal letter cites seven comprehensive plan
policies/objectives that are purported to support the appeal
(see attachment #1). Most of the cited polices/objectives
actually support staff's determination; the remainder are not
relevant. The three cited land use objectives/policies are
implemented via the land use plan. The land use plan
accommodates and properly locates residential areas and
appropriate densities. Upholding the land use plan, as
staff's decision does, is paramount in implementing the cited
policies/objectives and in protecting the property rights and
values of county residents. The cited housing and economic
development objective/policies support a decision (such as
staff's) which would allow the "more affordable" mobile home
to remain. Any housing code violations which could possibly
exist at the mobile home could be cured by repair or removal
of the mobile home.. The applicant's proposed replacement of
the mobile is not necessary to correct any possible housing
violations.
In general, the land use plan implements and embodies most, if
not all, of the comprehensive plan elements. As such, lack of
conformity with the land use plan constitutes a high degree of
nonconformity with the comprehensive plan. Such a land use
plan -related nonconformity should not be made permanent by the
construction of a second site -built structure on the subject
parcel.
54
The Planning and Zoning Commission found that staff failed to
evaluate the proposal with "common sense" with respect to the
comprehensive plan and the.LDRs. The central question raised
by the Planning and Zoning Commission's finding and now by
staff's appeal is an interpretation of how the LDRs treat the
subject proposal. Both sides have presented logical, "common
sense" reasoning to support their respective sides. The use
of "common sense" is not the issue. Rather, the issue is
whether the county should continue to deny the replacement of
non -conforming mobile homes with site -built homes when a
density non -conformity and other non -conformities would be
made more permanent by such action. Staff's decision is
logical and merely continues previous county policy and
interpretation of the non -conformities regulations.
SUMMARY
In staff's opinion, the applicant's proposal would not result in a
lessening of the degree of the nonconformities on site. Rather,
the proposal would increase the degree of nonconformity by making
permanent a land use plan density nonconformity and a two units on
a single parcel non -conformity. By way of the applicant's
reasoning (and by way of a precedent if the Planning and zoning
Commission's decision is allowed to stand), mobile homes in an
existing, excessively dense, nonconforming mobile home park could
be replaced by site -built units, resulting in a permanent multi-
family project having an excessive density. Such reasoning would
simply allow the permanent replacement of a "temporary" housing
type in a manner which would reinforce and make permanent a density
and other types of nonconformities. Such reasoning is not
consistent with the intent and reasonable interpretation of the
provision(s) of Chapter 904.
Because the applicant's proposal would not lessen the degree of
nonconformity, the proposal cannot be allowed under the provisions
of section 904.05. Therefore, the Planning and Zoning Commission's
decision should be overturned, and staff's decision should be
upheld.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners:
1. affirm that staff evaluated the subject appeal pursuant to the
four criteria cited in section 902.07(4) of the LDRs; and
2. find that staff did not fail to act. appropriately in relation
to -any of the four areas; and
3. overturn the Planning and Zoning Commission's decision and
deny the applicant's appeal of staff's decision; and
4. uphold staff Is- that the applicant's proposal
would result in an increase in the degree of nonconformity of
the subject property.
55
APP 2 8 1992 0 o K
� J
APR 2 8 1992 ROOK F,.
Commissioner Bird noted that this type of staff appeal is a
rare exception and hoped staff continues to use discretion. He
felt reluctant to overturn a P&Z decision because it is impossible
to duplicate the presentation of the same facts at a presentation
to the Board, and he relies on staff to use restraint.
Community Development Director Bob Keating assured the Board
that this matter would not have been appealed if*it did not have
policy implications as referenced by Mr. Boling.
Commissioner Bowman understood that the applicants would be
permitted to build a house around the existing house and thought
that could be a solution. Then later on, when the density
increases as development begins moving out, they could subdivide
the lot and have another building lot. -
Director Keating agreed. He mentioned that staff, along with
the Affordable Housing and the Professional Services Advisory
Committees have discussed proposing a provision in the LDRs to
allow a secondary unit smaller than the first one on a lot, but
that is not in effect at this time.
The Chairman opened the public hearing and asked if anyone
wished to be heard in this matter.
Attorney Bruce Barkett, representing applicants Doris Jackson
and Mike Loudermilk, asked the Board to deny staff's appeal of the
Planning and Zoning Commission's decision. He clarified, and
Director Keating confirmed, that when Commissioner Bowman said they
could build around the house, she was referring to the older house;
they could not build around the mobile home. Mr. Barkett
maintained that the applicants are just attempting to better
themselves and make a better life for their children. Using the
graphics, he demonstrated the relationship of the two homes on the
parcel along with a garage/storage shed and a grove. In answer to
Chairman Eggert's question, he responded that the property has
unity of title. Mr. Barkett argued that replacing this mobile home
with a site -built home is not a big policy -changing apparatus
because if this question ever comes up again, the Board will make
a decision on a case-by-case basis.
Commissioner Wheeler asked whether they could sell the house
after they build this new structure, and Mr. Barkett replied that
they could not because they could not split the lot.
Chairman Eggert pointed out that the lot could be split if
there is a change of zoning. Attorney Barkett agreed that zoning
is not a permanent situation, but the family is in a position
56
M M M
to improve their lot in life now, whereas they may not have that
ability 20 years from now.
Chairman Eggert argued that the nonconformity would not be
decreased because they will replace a temporary mobile home with a
permanent house.
Attorney Barkett responded that all the ordinance requires is
a reduction in the nonconformity, and Chairman Eggert felt that a
partial reduction in nonconformity is not what the ordinance
requires if the nonconformity can be completely eliminated.
Commissioner Wheeler asked whether the Board could support the
applicant's request if there was a finding that this request is a
lesser degree of nonconformity and not a policy change or precedent
setting decision.
County Attorney Charles Vitunac advised that in the future if
similar applications come before the Board, the Board must support
those applications also, because the argument could be made, for
example, that the Board allowed it on 17 cases and now must
continue to allow it on the 18th case. He pointed out that staff's
position is that the subject request is not a lessening of the
nonconformity because a permanent site -built house will replace a
temporary mobile home.
Chairman Eggert felt it would be hardening the nonconformity.
Commissioner Bird thought that if they removed the mobile home
that would eliminate a nonconformity, but they cannot be forced to
remove the mobile home because it was grandfathered in. He
rephrased Attorney Barkett's argument that it is better to build a
conventional home and eliminate the mobile home.
Attorney Barkett affirmed that, and maintained that any impact
on the community from this project would be positive because it
preserves the family structure, it allows the family to better
itself, it makes the community look better, it makes that
neighborhood look better, and it is permissible under the
ordinance. He urged the Board to uphold the Planning and Zoning
decision to grant this request.
Discussion ensued regarding the density allowances and the
number of structures on the subject parcel.
Director Keating explained that the density allows one house
on this lot but in this case the two structures were grandfathered
in and they can remain there forever.
Chairman Eggert supported staff's position and felt any other
decision needed a finding of uniqueness.
Commissioner Wheeler felt the Board should think of human
beings rather than technicalities. He stated that these structures
were placed there legally, and while the ordinance correctly
57
APR 2 8 1992MGK
APR28 1997- BOOK F'N.�u-'- 3�
applies 99 percent of the time, this situation is that 1 percent
where it is not correct.
County Attorney Vitunac gave the example that if either of
these structures were destroyed in a fire, it could not be rebuilt,
and Commissioner Scurlock felt that perhaps we should change the
ordinance to provide more flexibility.
Mary Ann Loudermilk, 6875 66th Avenue, explained that she
lives right behind the subject mobile home. She lives in the small
home on the property and her son and grandchildren live in the
mobile home, and this is an attempt for her son and his young
family to improve their situation with low interest rates. Mrs.
Loudermilk could not understand the County's reluctance to allow
this improvement to their property and described the hardships
involved in appearing before the Planning & Zoning Commission and
again appearing before the Board. She stated that her father was
a builder of bridges, and he built a 20 -foot wide concrete -based
addition to the mobile home.
Chairman Eggert led discussion regarding the other structures
on the parcel. Mrs. Loudermilk admitted that a home could be built
on the location where the garage now stands, but they felt it made
no sense because they have the spot where the mobile home is now
located. She also mentioned that the older home may be replaced in
10 or 20 years, but her son has this opportunity now and may not
have the same opportunity 10 or 20 years from now.
Commissioner Wheeler pointed out that the mobile home legally
has existed there for 21 years and is occupied by a family member.
Chairman Eggert contended that there is an alternative lot
just south on which a home could be built.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by
Commissioner Wheeler, the Board (4-1, Chairman
Eggert voting in opposition) denied staff's appeal
of Planning & Zoning Commission's action on the
Jackson/ Loudermilk and Barkett Appeal of a staff
decision.
PUBLIC NUISANCE VIOLATION - PROPERTY OWNER BRENDA BRIGHT• SUBJECT
PROPERTY, 8600 64TH AVENUE WABASSO
The Board reviewed memo from Code Enforcement Officer Betty
Davis dated April 6, 1992:
58
� � r
TO: James E. Chandler
County Administrator
DEPARTMENT HEAD CONCURRENCE:
i
c
ober . Keating AI
Community Develo men irector
THROUGH: Roland M. DeBloisCP
Chief, Environmental Planning
& Code Enforcement Section
FROM: Betty Davis
Code Enforcement Officer
DATE: April 61 1992
SUBJECT: Public Nuisance Violation
Property Owner: Brenda Bright
Subject Property: 8600 64th Avenue, Wabasso
It is requested that the data presented herein be given formal
consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their regular
meeting of April 28, 1992.
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS:
On December 10, 1991, code enforcement staff sent a Notice of
Public Nuisance to Brenda Bright, owner of the subject property,
concerning a hazardous public nuisance condition on the subject
property. The subject property has a legal description as follows:
Parcel No.: 29-31-39-00000-5000-00132.0
.5 Acre in SW corner of S 1/2 of NW 1/4 of SE 1/4 of SW
1/4 of Section 29, Township 31 S. Range 39 E as described
in Bk 61, Pg 181, less W 25 ft. for Rd r/w, O.R. Bk 736,
Page 3002.
The Respondent was cited for maintaining the property in violation
of Sections 973.01 and 973.03 of the County Land Development
Regulations, which prohibit conditions on property that are a
health and safety hazard to the general public, thereby being a
public nuisance. Specifically, the public nuisance was described
as follows:
Dead australian pine trees that were a health and safety
hazard to the surrounding single-family residences.
The subject property was also posted as set forth in Section 973.09
of the County Code, giving the Respondent thirty (30) days to abate
the nuisance.
The nuisance violation was not abated within the required thirty
(30) day time period. Therefore, in accordance with County Code
Section 973.04(2), County Personnel (i.e., the Road & Bridge
Division) cleared the nuisance violation.
59
APP 8199
BOOK ;;:.�L �i__
1
EPR28 2,,
��� v a fi� F ry
BOOK E
Section* 973.06(1) of the County Code requires that the cost of a
County nuisance abatement action shall be calculated and reported
to the Board of County Commissioners, who, by resolution, shall
assess such costs against the subject property. This matter is
presented herein to the Board for consideration to adopt said
resolution.
ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS:
Section 973.06(1), Public Nuisances, of the Indian River Land
Development Code specifically reads as follows:
"After abatement of'a nuisance by the County, the cost
thereof .to the County as to each lot, parcel or tract of
land shall be calculated and reported to the Board of
County Commissioners. Thereupon, the Board of County
Commissioners, by resolution, shall assess such costs
against such lots, parcel, or tract of land. Such
resolution shall describe the land and state the cost of
abatement, which shall include an administrative cost of
seventy-five dollars ($75.00) per lot. Such assessment
shall be legal, valid, and binding obligation upon the
property against which made until paid. The assessment
shall be due and payable thirty (30) days after the
mailing of a Notice of Assessment, after which interest
shall accrue at the rate of twelve (12) per cent per
annum on any unpaid portion thereof."
Cost for equipment use and labor, as indicated by the Road & Bridge
Division, plus the $75.00 administrative cost, calculates to be:
Labor, Hauling & Dump Fee $ 625.00
Administrative Fee: $ 75.00
Total: $ 700.00
RECONNENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners adopt the
proposed resolution assessing $700.00 in abatement cost, in
accordance with Section 973.06(1), of the Indian River County Land
Development Code.
Community Development Director Bob Keating further explained
that staff attempted to notify the owner by registered mail with
return receipt requested and have not gotten specific service by
that means, so they followed the alternate requirement in the
rules, which is to advertise in a public newspaper for 4
consecutive times at one-week intervals.
Commissioner Bird noted that if the-County,'s actual cost took
advantage of the waiver of dump fees, the assessed costs should
reflect that. County Administrator Jim Chandler advised the waiver
is no longer in effect.
Commissioner Bowman stated that she had looked at the site and
felt the cost was reasonable for the tremendous load of trees that
were removed.
Commissioner Scurlock asked for confirmation that no one
representing the owner was in the audience.
M
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously adopted
Resolution 92-64 assessing costs of county public
nuisance abatement on a parcel of land described in
said resolution, such assessment being a binding
obligation upon the property until paid, as
recommended by staff.
RESOLUTION NO. 92-64
A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, ASSESSING COSTS OF COUNTY
PUBLIC NUISANCE ABATEMENT ON A PARCEL -OF LAND DESCRIBED
AS FOLLOWS: .5 ACRE IN SW CORNER OF S 1/2 OF NW 1/4 OF SE
1/4 OF SW 1/4 OF SECTION 29, TOWNSHIP 31 S, RANGE 39 E AS
DESCRIBED IN BK 61, PG 181, LESS W 25 'FT. FOR RD R/W,
O.R. BK 736, PAGE 3002; SUCH ASSESSMENT BEING A BINDING
OBLIGATION UPON THE PROPERTY UNTIL PAID.
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River
County has determined that the regulation of the accumulation of
weeds, junk, trash, debris, and other noxious substances or
materials is in the public interest and necessary for the health,
safety, and welfare of the citizens of Indian River County; and
WHEREAS, Chapter 973, "Public Nuisance," of the County Land
Development Code defines as a public nuisance noxious substances or
materials which might tend to be a fire hazard. or other health
hazard, or which is considered to be obnoxious and a nuisance to
the general public; and
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River
County has determined that landowners are responsible for abating
public nuisances existing on their property; and
WHEREAS, Brenda Bright has been identified as the owner of the
subject property described herein; and
WHEREAS, a Notice of Public Nuisance calling for the abatement
of the described nuisance was sent to the owner by certified mail,
and notice was posted on the subject property for 30 days, in
accordance with Section 973.09 "Serving of Notice," of the County
Public Nuisdnce Ordinance, and Notice which was .published in the
Vero Beach Press Journal on December 13, December 20, December 27,
1991 and January 3, 1992; and
WHEREAS, the landowner of the subject property failed to abate
the described nuisance within 30 days of the posted, mailed and
published notice; and
WHEREAS, Section 973.04(2) of. the Public Nuisance Ordinance
authorizes County personnel to abate a public nuisance Uf.lthe
nuisance is not abated by the landowner within 30 days of notice;
and
WHEREAS, as of March 16, 1992, the County Road and Bridge
Division has abated the herein described public nuisance, in
accordance with Section 973.04(2), of the County Public Nuisance
Ordinance; and
WHEREAS, Section 973.06 of the County Public Nuisance
Ordinance provides that, after abatement of a nuisance by the
County, the cost thereof shall be calculated and reported to the
Board of County Commissioners; thereupon the Board, by resolution,
shall assess such costs against the subject property; such costs to
include an administrative fee of seventy-five dollars ($75.00) per
lot; and 61
AY �9
Ci�Of4 F,,,,c. ��
APR 2 8 1992
r ) -mVie- r
Bog F'-F�.'iE4`L"
WHEREAS, the total cost of equipment use, labor, and
administrative fee for County abatement of the herein described
nuisance is determined to be $700.00; and
WHEREAS, Section 973.06 of the County Public Nuisance
Ordinance provides that the assessment shall be due and payable
thirty (30) days after the mailing of a notice of assessment,
whereby if the owner fails to pay assessed cost within the thirty
(30) days, a certified copy of the assessment shall be recorded in
the official record books of the County, constituting a lien
against the property, subject to twelve (12) percent annum
interest;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF INDIAN RIVE COUNTY, FLORIDA, that:
1) The foregoing recitals are adopted and ratified in their
entirety.
2) The costs of county abatement of the herein described
nuisance, totaling an amount of $700.00, is hereby
assessed against the parcel of land described as follows:
.5 acre in SW corner of S 1/2 of NW 1/4 of SE
1/4 of SW 1/4 of Section 29, Township 31S,
Range 39E, as described in Bk 61, Pg 181, less
W 25 ft. for Rd r/w, O.R. Bk 736, Page.3002.
whose last known owner is Brenda Bright, 195 Stuben Street Apt
2B, Staten Island, NY 10304.
3) The $700.00 assessment shall be due and payable to the
Board of County Commissioners thirty (30) days after the
mailing of a Notice of Assessment to the landowner, after
which, if unpaid, and if no hearing is requested, a
certified copy of the assessment shall be recorded in the
official record books of the described property, subject
to twelve (12) percent per annum interest.
THIS RESOLUTION was moved for adoption by Commissioner Sc irlork
seconded by Commissioner Bird
28
, and adopted on the
day of April , 1992, by the following vote:
Commissioner Carolyn R. Eggert Ave
Commissioner Margaret Bowman Ave
Commissioner Richard N. Bird Ave
Commissioneg Don C. Scurlock, Jr. Ave
Commissioner Gary Wheeler Aye
The Chairman thereupon declared the resolution duly passed and
adopted this 28 day of. April , 1992.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
Carolyn . Eggert airman
C,
APPROVAL OF CHANGES TO RULES AND REGULATIONS OF DEPARTMENT OF
EMERGENCY SERVICES
The Board reviewed memo from Emergency Services Director Doug
Wright dated April 16, 1992:
TO: Board of County Commissioners
THROUGH: James Chandler
County ist --or
FROM: Doug Wright Director
Emergency Services
DATE: April 16, 1992 .
SUBJECT: Approval of Changes to Rules and Regulations
of the Department of Emergency Services
It is respectfully requested that the information contained herein be
given formal consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at
the nest regular scheduled meeting.
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
The Department of Emergency Services Personnel Rules and Regulations
were approved by the Board of County Commissioners on October 15,
1991, with an effective date of November 1, 1991. As a result of an
Attorney General Opinion and a transcription error, the changes as
noted need to be made to the Rules and Regulations. The changes
recommended are identified by strikeout for language to be deleted
and underlining for added language.
Section 3.04 (C) - Political Activity
The above section should be deleted per County Attorney Charles
Vitunac as a result of a Florida Attorney General Opinion relating to
Chapter 99.012, Florida Statutes
Section 9.06 (B) - Medical Leave Payments
All contract employees retiring in accordance with existing
retirement plans will receive as a bonus 100% of the base rate of pay
for medical leave days accumulated. This bonus will be paid in cash
upon the final payday as a reward for long and faithful service. Per
a maxima of 240 hours_ or one
The information in the above section relating to medical leave
payments is being corrected due to an apparent error in transcribing.
The correct language as written was provided by Personnel Director
Jack Price.
63
e T
APP 2 8 1992
APR 28199-2 BOOK N',UE ►®+t�
Section 9.08 (8) - Special Consideration for Prudent Use Of Medical
Leave
Medical leave accumulated in excess of one hundred (100) days for
peykag the middle of t
following the employee's
shall be
mouth.
that are compensated for through this plan will be deducted from
their total accumulation. Such employees shall not be entitled to
the other benefits of this Section. Use of medical leave incentive
is effective October 1, 1989.
The above change will formally provide the non -contract employees of
the Fire and -EMS Divisions of the Department of Emergency Services
the same benefit other county employees receive. The language which
existed prior only referred to accumulating one hundred (100) and
non -contract employees can only accumulate sixty (60) days of medical
leave.
If approved by the Board, the chapges will be posted for two (2)
weeks in each station before it becomes effective as provided in the
rules and regulations and the bargaining agreement with Local 2201,
I.A.F.F.
ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS
The recommended changes will provide for needed changes in the
Department of Emergency Services Personnel Rules and Regulations and
make the non -contract employees benefits commensurate with other
county employees in terms of medical leave. Absent approval by the
Board of County Commissioners, incorrect information will continue to
exist in the rules and regulations and confusion as to administration
of this' benefit.
RECOMMATION
Staff recommends approval of the above changes to the Department of
Emergency Services Personnel Rules and Regulations.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Wheeler, SECONDED by
Commissioner Scurlock, the Board unanimously
approved changes to the Department of Emergency
Services Personnel Rules and Regulations, as
recommended by staff.
MERRILL BARBER BRIDGE REPLACEMENT - DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
RIGHT-OF-WAY AGREEMENTS - PARCELS 101 802 AND 801
The Board reviewed memo from Public Works Director Jim Davis
dated April 20, 1992:
64
TO: James E. Chandler,
County Administrator
FROM: James W.,Davis, P.E.,
Public Works Director --�'
SUBJECT: Merrill Barber Bridge Replacement -
DOT Right-of-way Agreements -
- Parcels 101, 802, and 801
REF. LETTER: William Keating, DOT, to James Davis dated
April 1, 1992
DATE: April 20, 1992 FILE: barber.agn
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
To implement the Merrill Barber Bridge Relocation, the DOT
is proposing to acquire three (3) parcels of property from
Indian -River County along the west approach to the proposed
bridge. The parcels were acquired by Eminent Domain and are
as follows:
State Parcel No. 101 11.021 acres
State Parcel NO. 802 7.485 acres
(Permanent easement)
State Parcel No. 801 16.923 acres
(Permanent easement)
Total 35.429 acres
Total compensation to the County is $294,612 for Parcels 101
and 802 and $403,732 for parcel 801.. In addition, the State
will pay approximately 80% of future County costs paid to
original property owners due to pending determination by the
court of money due the property owner for land value (not to
exceed $600,000). Approximately 80% of property owner
attorney fees (not to exceed $300,000) will also be paid by
the State if so established by court order.
The attached two agreements have been prepared by the DOT
and County staff to effect this State acquisition.
ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS
The alternatives are as follows:
Alternative No. 1
Approve the two (2) agreements between the State DOT
and Indian River County for the acquisition of State
Parcels 101, 802, and 801 and authorize the Chairman's
signature. Revenue would be reimbursed to Fund "309,
Indian River.Boulevard North Extension.
Alternative No. 2
Do not approve the agreements. This action would delay
or cease progress on the Merrill Barber Bridge
relocation.
65
APR 28 1992 BOOK
I
MOK MIME j;4a �e
RECON14ENDATIONS AND FUNDING
Staff recommends Alternative No. 1 whereby the two
agreements are approved and the Chairman is authorized to
execute both agreements on behalf of the County.. Revenue
mould be credited to Fund 309, Indian River Boulevard
Right -of -Way Acquisition.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Wheeler, SECONDED by
Commissioner Scurlock, the Board unanimously adopted
Resolution 92-65 authorizing two (2) agreements
between the State DOT and Indian River County for
the acquisition of State Parcels 101, 802 and 801 as
set out in staff's recommendation.
SAID AGREEMENTS WILL BE PLACED ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF CLERK
TO THE BOARD WHEN FULLY EXECUTED AND RECEIVED
(FULLY EXECUTED AGREEMENTS HAVE BEEN RECEIVED AND ARE ON FILE
IN THE OFFICE OF CLERK TO THE BOARD)
RESOLUTION NO. 92- ti_t;
A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY,
FLORIDA, AUTHORIZING AGREEMENTS BETWEEN
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY AND THE FLORIDA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION RELATED TO
THE RELOCATION OF THE MERRILL BARBER
BRIDGE.
WHEREAS, Indian River County holds title to certain property
which the Florida Department of Transportation wishes to utilize for
right-of-way and associated easements for the relocation of the Merrill
Barber Bridge; and
WHEREAS, agreements have been prepared related to the
acquisition of permanent easements and rights-of-way for the Merrill
Barber Bridge (State Parcel No. 801, State Parcel No. 802, and State
Parcel No. 101) ,
NOW, THEREFORE, the Board having considered these
agreements and upon recommendation of its staff, it is hereby resolved
that the Chairman of the Board of County Commissioners of Indian
River County, Florida be authorized to execute the aforementioned
agreements between the Florida Department of Transportation and Indian
River County for the acquisition of permanent easements and
rights-of-way for the relocated Merrill Barber Bridge (State Parcel Nos.
801, 802 and 101).
66
Wheeler
The foregoing resolution was offered by Commissioner
and seconded by Commissioner Scurlock , and, being put
to a vote, the vote was as follows:
Chairman Carolyn K. Eggert Aye
Y
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 28 day of Apr i 1_, 1992.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
B y •
Caroly Egger airman
SANDRIDGE GOLF CLUB NEW 18 - AMENDMENT NO. 3
The Board reviewed memo from Public Works Director Jim Davis
dated April 20, 1992:
TO: James E. Chandler,
County Administrator
THROUGH: James W. Davis, P.E.,
Public Works Director
FROM: Terry B. Thompson, P.E.��
Capital Projects Manager
SUBJECT: Sandridge Golf Club New 18
Amendment No. 3
DATE: April 20, 1992 FILE: sandadm3.agn
DESCRIPTION AND -CONDITIONS
Kimley-Horn & Associates, Inc. is under con�ract with Indian
River County to provide professional surveying, civil and
structural engineering, and additional related services in
all phases of Sandridge Golf Club New 18.
In the.course of construction, changes have been made to the
clearing plan, lake perimeters, and various green and tee
locations and sizes. Any changes in the approved plans
could impact whether the completed golf course will conform
to the requirements of the St. Johns River Water Management
permits. 67
APR 1 BOOK
_I
VA 28 1992
BOOK 86
The attached Amendment No. 3 provides for Kimley-Horn to
investigate field changes, make plan revisions and re -stake
lake areas as required to provide final certification of the
completed project.
The compensation due the Consultant for Amendment No. 3 is
$1,450. This, added to the current contract amount of
$82,160 will result in a new contract amount of. $83,610.
RECOMMENDATIONS AND FUNDING
Staff recommends that the Board authorize the Chairman to
sign the attached Amendment No. 3. Funding is from Account
No. 418-000-169-018.00 - WIP Sandridge Phase II.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously approved
and authorized the Chairman to execute Amendment #3
to the Professional Engineering/Land Surveying
Services Agreement with Kimley-Horn Associates,
Inc., as recommended by staff.
AMENDMENT NO. 3
IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF CLERK TO THE BOARD
INDIAN RIVER BOULEVARD PHASE III CHANGE ORDER NO. 8
The Board reviewed memo from Public Works Director Jim Davis
dated April 20, 1992:
TO: James E. Chandler,
County Administrator
THROUGH: James W. Davis, P.E.,
Public Works Director
FROM: Terry B. Thompson, P.E -$:'�
Capital Projects Manager
SUBJECT: Indian River Boulevard, Phase III -
Change Order No. 8
DATE: April 20, 1992 FILE: irbco8.agn
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
The excavation of unsuitable soil and rock removal within
the roadway that was not shown on the original drawings has
been completed. In addition to the original contract amount
of 13,188 CY of subsoil excavation, 35,240 CY of unsuitable
soil has been excavated. This additional material was
mixed with 17,000 CY of embankment material and placed
outside the roadway on the side slopes and berms.
68
The attached Change Order No. 8 includes an increase in the
amount of $78,540 for 17,000 CY of additional embankment
material. Change Order No. 8 also includes a deduct in the
amount of $13,535.66 for 13,535.66 CY of stockpiled fill
provided by the County. This fill was loaded and hauled to
the Indian River Boulevard site by the contractor, Sheltra &
Son Construction Co., from a county borrow pit located at
4th Street and 74th Avenue. The. -net change in contract
price for change Order No. 8 is an increase in the amount of
$65,004.34.
Change Order No. 8 represents a final settlement on contract
quantities for subsoil excavation, rock removal, disposal of
unsuitable material and embankment material for all
construction within the original project limits.
It is anticipated that some additional work will be
performed outside the original limits of construction. This
work includes construction of an access road for the Indian
River Mosquito Control District to a proposed pump station
on the North Canal and excavation of .5 acres to create a
salt marsh from existing uplands as mitigation for impacts
associated with construction of Phase IV. Any subsoil
excavation, rock removal, disposal of unsuitable material
and embankment material associated with work outside the
original limits of construction is not included in the
settlement and will be subject to change order.
ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS
Alternative No. 1
Authorize Change Order No. 8, this would result in a
revised contract amount of $2,956,515.24.
Alternative No. 2
Deny authorization of Change Order No. 8 and
re -negotiate.
RECOMMENDATIONS AND FUNDING
Staff recommends Alternative No. 1. Funding is from Account
309-214-541-066.51 Indian River Boulevard Phase III,
Construction in Progress.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bowman, SECONDED by
Commissioner Wheeler, the Board unanimously approved
and authorized the Chairman to execute Change Order
No. 8 to the agreement with Sheltra & Son
Construction Co., resulting in a revised contract
amount of $2,956,535.24, as recommended by staff.
CHANGE ORDER NO. 8 TO AGREEMENT
IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF CLERK TO THE BOARD
69
BOOK 666 F L
FF -
APR 2 8 19,92
BOOK F;°,�,E ►.dc
REGIONAL SLUDGE FACILITY EPA NO. C 120 502 070
The Board reviewed memo from Utility Services Director Terry
Pinto dated April 16, 1992:
DATE: APRIL 16, 1992
TO: JAMES E. CHANDLER
COUNTY ADMINISTRATORR
FROM: TERRANCE G. PINTA// ��'/�
DIRECTOR UTILITY ERV
ICES
STAFFED AND
PREPARED BY: H. D. "DUKE OSTER, P.E.
ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEER
DEPARTMENT OF UTILITY SERVICES
SUBJECT: REGIONAL SLUDGE FACILITY
EPA NO. C 120 502 070
IRC PROJECT NO. US -88 -07 -SL
BACKGROUND:
Indian River County"s work authorization for engineering and
inspection services with Camp Dresser & McKee Inc. on the subject
facility was approved by the Board of County Commissioners on
February 11, 1992. The scope of services and the project budget
were also a part of the Board approval.
ANALYSIS:
The Florida Department of Environmental Regulation and the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency require that the enclosed
"Attachment E" to 40 CFR 33.1030 be a part of the existing contract
agreement with Camp Dresser & McKee Inc. The attachment applies to
subagreements for services and for construction, to price reductions
for defective cost data, to gratuities, to responsibility of the
contractor, and to final payment.
This attachment was inadvertently omitted from the work
authorization package of February 11, 1992.
RECOMMENDATION:
The staff of the Department of Utility Services recommends the Board
of County Commissioners approve the attached subagreement for
incorporation as Attachment "E" into the existing contract with Camp
Dresser & McKee Inc.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by
Commissioner Wheeler, the Board unanimously
incorporated the subagreement called Attachment "E"
into the existing contract with Camp Dresser &
McKee, Inc., as recommended by staff.
ADDENDUM 11 TO EXHIBIT "A" CONTRACT #2
IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF CLERK TO THE BOARD
70
_I
ADDITIONAL ENGINEERING SERVICES RELATIVE TO NORTH COUNTY WASTEWATER
TREATMENT PLANT EXPANSION SANDRIDGE GOLF COURSE EFFLUENT DISPOSAL
The Board reviewed memo from Utility Services Director Terry
Pinto dated March 26, 1992:
DATE: MARCH 26, 1992
TO: JAMES E. CHANDLER
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
FROM: TERRANCE G. PINTO
DIRECTOR OF UTILITY SERVICES
PREPARED WILLIAM F. MCCAIN
AND STAFFED CAPITAL PROJECTS ENGINEER
BY: DEPARTMENT OF UTILITY SERVICES
SUBJECT: ADDITIONAL ENGINEERING SERVICES RELATIVE TO THE
NORTH COUNTY WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT EXPANSION
SANDRIDGE GOLF COURSE DISPOSAL
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY PROJECT NO. IIS -90 -26 -DC
BACKGROUND
On May -'7, 1991, the Indian River County Board of County
Commissioners approved a work authorization with Masteller and Moler
for the design of Phase II, 1 MGD expansion of the North County
Wastewater Treatment Plant and associated effluent disposal' systems
(see attached agenda item and minutes). The effluent disposal work
on this project has been underway since that approval date; however,
the plant ,design was recently authorized by the Board of County
Commissioners on March 10, 1992 (see attached agenda item). Due to
the relatively low elevations on the new 18 -hole golf course at
Sandridge, we are unable to dispose of the entire 1 MGD of effluent
that will be generated by the Phase II expansion of the North County
Wastewater Treatment Plant: We are, therefore, proposing to install
additional disposal facilities on.. the existing 18 holes at
Sandridge.
ANALYSIS
Currently, we find that we can permit approximately 300,000 GPD on
the new proposed 18 holes at Sandridge. We must, therefore, look to
other areas to try to achieve a full 2 million GPD over both the new
and proposed 18 -hole golf course. To that end, we have negotiated a
contract with Masteller and Moler in the form of additional services
to their existing contract for this work, which will be for the
design of rapid infiltration basins on the existing 18 holes. For a
detailed explanation of these services and costs, please see
attached Addendum No. 1 to Exhibit A of Contract 2 (see atttached
copy of Contract 2) and the attached letter from Professional
Service Industries, who are the soil group Masteller and Moler are
utilizing. A cost breakdown for services is as follows:
71
r
A � 81992
I
BOOK 86, PA.6,E `.o %J
Lump sum fee for Addendum No. 1, Contract -2 $2,490.00
Resident Project Services
Fee for RIB design:services and preparation 5,760.00
- of construction plans
Fee for additional -surveying services as 2,500.00
described in Exhibit A, Paragraph 2.1.7.4
Fee for additional hydrogeologic services as 81800.00
described:in Exhibit A, Paragraph 2.1.7.5
Total lump sum fee for Addendum No. 1, Contract 2 $19,550.00
for all additional services
Funding for these additional services will be from the impact fee
fund.
RECOMME14DATION
The staff of the Department of Utility Services recommends that the
Board of County Commissioners approve the attached work
authorization modification with Masteller and Moler in the amount of
$19,550.00.
MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Bowman, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bird, to approve the work authorization
modification with Masteller and Moler in the amount
of 19,550.00, as recommended by staff.
Under discussion, Commissioner Scurlock asked, and Capital
Projects Engineer Bill McCain responded that this is part of the
engineering services for water and sewer exclusively and not the
Sandridge contract.
Commissioner Bird confirmed that there is cooperation at the
existing golf course facility to provide additional filtration
areas and hoped it would not disrupt the activities on the existing
18 holes. The 300,000 gallons per day is a very conservative
estimate and he was certain the new golf course will accommodate
more than that partly because the material being used in building
the new golf course will provide better percolation.
Engineer Bill McCain explained that the 300,000 gallon -per -day
figure is the amount that is currently permittable based on our
current needs and these additional areas will pick up additional
disposal as we need it. We will maximize what we currently have.
Commissioner Bowman reminded them that by planting trees they
will provide the "water pumps" to use more water.
THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION.
It was voted on and carried unanimously.
AMENDMENT NO. 3 TO THE SERVICES AGREEMENT
IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF CLERK TO THE BOARD
72
THE MEADOWS SUBDIVISION - 41ST COURT WATER SERVICE PROJECT
The Board reviewed memo from Utility Services Director Terry
Pinto dated April 14, 1992:
DATE: APRIL 14, 1992
TO: JAMES E. CHANDLER
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOORR
FROM: TERRANCE G. PINTtr /
DIRECTOR OF UTILITY ERVICES
PREPARED JAMES D. CHASTeAND STAFFED MANAGER OF ASSPROJECTS
BY: DEPARTMENT OFSERVICES
SUBJECT: THE MEADOWS SUBDIVISION - 41ST COURT
WATER SERVICE PROJECT - RESOLUTIONS I AND II
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY PROJECT NO. UW -91 -31 -DS
BACKGROUND
On October 15, 1991, the Indian River County Board of County
Commissioners approved the petition for water service in The Meadows
Subdivision, 41st Court, north of 1st Street, SW. Design service
has been completed by the Department of Utility Services staff. We
are now ready to begin the assessment process associated with this
project. (See attached agenda item and minutes.)
ANALYSIS
Attached are Resolutions I and II for the assessment project. The
cost per square foot is $0.08129059802 and the project will serve 15
platted lots bordering on 41st Court.
The subdivision contains 16 lots owned by 16 owners. One of the
lots abutting on 1st Street, SW,..is already on County water.
Therefore, 15 lots shall benefif from this project. The 10
property owners signing the petition represent 66.670 of the
properties to be served. All of the lots in this project are 1/2
acre in size. All of the lots in this project presently have septic
tanks and wells, with which the property owners have concerns
regarding potential health hazards.
According to Indian River County's Comprehensive Plan and the County
Public Health Unit, Division of Environmental Health, it is required
that new lots utilizing well and septic systems be a minimum of 1/2
acre. Lots not meeting these minimum standards are called
"undersized lots."
The attached map displays the area to benefit from the assessment
project. The total estimated cost to be assessed is $26,656.00.
This project is to be paid through the assessment of property owners
along the proposed water line route. In the interim, financing will
be through the use of impact fee funds.
RECOMMENDATION
The staff of the Department of
Board of County Commissioners
II and set the public hearing
Utility Services recommends that the
approve the attached Resolutions I and
date.
73
r
'A'p P z 81992
BOOK
ON MOTION by Commissioner Wheeler, SECONDED by
Commissioner Scurlock, the Board unanimously adopted
Resolution 92-66, Providing for Water Main Extension
in the Meadows Subdivision (41st Court); providing
the total estimated cost, method of payment of
assessments, number of annual installments and legal
description; and Resolution 92-67, setting a time
and place for the public hearing.
RESOLUTION NO. 92- 66
A RESOLUTION OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY,
_
FLORIDA, PROVIDING FOR A WATER MAIN
EXTENSION IN THE MEADOWS SUBDIVISION (41ST
COURT); PROVIDING THE TOTAL ESTIMATED
COST, METHOD OF PAYMENT OF ASSESSMENTS,
NUMBER OF ANNUAL INSTALLMENTS, AND LEGAL
DESCRIPTION OF THE AREA SPECIFICALLY
SERVED.
RESOLUTION 92-66, IN ITS ENTIRETY, WITH ESTIMATED ASSESSMENT ROLL
ATTACHED, IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF CLERK TO THE BOARD
RESOLUTION NO. 92- 67.
A RESOLUTION OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY,
FLORIDA, SETTING A TIME AND PLACE AT WHICH
THE OWNERS OF PROPERTIES LOCATED IN THE
MEADOWS SUBDIVISION (41ST COURT) MAY
APPEAR BEFORE THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS AND BE HEARD AS TO THE
PROPRIETY AND ADVISABILITY OF
CONSTRUCTING A WATER MAIN EXTENSION, AS
TO THE COST THEREOF, AS TO THE MANNER OF
PAYMENT THEREFOR, AND AS TO THE AMOUNT
THEREOF TO BE SPECIALLY ASSESSED AGAINST
EACH PROPERTY BENEFITED THEREBY.
RESOLUTION 92-67, IN ITS ENTIRETY,
IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF CLERK TO THE BOARD
74
DISCUSSION REGARDING DEEP WELL AT HERCULES, INC..
Commissioner Scurlock was sure the Board members were aware
that Hercules, Inc., would be phasing out their pectin plant in
Vero Beach. He was aware that they have a deep well and suggested
the Utilities Director look into acquiring that for the County.
Utility Services Director Terry Pinto reported that our
consultant was contacted and was directed to contact Hercules about
that deep well, as well as some property to the rear of their
plant.
There being no further business, on Motion duly made, seconded
and carried, the Board adjourned at 11:30 o'clock A. M.
ATTEST:
J. K. Barton, Clerk
75
A
Carolyn/o. Eggert{ dhairman
BOOP( 66
I