HomeMy WebLinkAbout7/19/1994r � �
MINUTES ATTACIIED
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
-INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
.AGENDA
REGULAR MEETING
TUESDAY, JULY 19, 1994
9:00 A.M. - COUNTY COMMISSION CHAMBER
COUNTY ADMINISTRATION BUILDING
1840 25TH STREET
VERO BEACH, FLORIDA
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
John W. Tippin, Chairman (Dist. 4)
Kenneth R. Macht, Vice Chairman (Dist. 3)
Fran B. Adams ( Dist. 1)
Richard N. Bird (Dist. 5)
Carolyn K. Eggert ( Dist. 2 )
James E. Chandler, 'County Administrator
Charles P. Vitunac, County Attorney
Jeffrey K. Barton, Clerk to the Board
9: 00 A. M. 1. CALL TO ORDER PAGE
2. INVOCATION - Ray Scent, Hospital Chaplain
3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - Charles P. Vitunac
4. ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA/ EMERGENCY ITEMS
Addition of discussion re recommendations for COLA
7C Deferred
S. PROCLAMATION AND PRESENTATIONS
None
6. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
None
7. CONSENT AGENDA
A. Received 8 Placed on File in Office of Clerk
to the Board: _
Report of Convictions, Month of June 1994
B. Occupational License Taxes Collected During
Month of June, 1994
(memorandum dated July 1, 1994)
C. Appointment of Dr. Wayne Sinclair to Environ-
mental Control Hearing Board
( letter dated June 27, 1994) -
D. Request for Floodplain Cut 8 Fill Balance Waiver
for Lot 13, Blk 17, Vero Lake Estates, Unit #3
( memorandum dated June 28, 1994 )
E. 8th Street ROW; St. Marks Angelican Church Site
Plan
(memorandum dated June 29, 1994) .
J U L J9 1994
7. CONSENT AGENDA (cont'!.):
F. Cancellation: of Outstanding Taxes
Properties Purchased for County Use
( memorandum . dated July 7, 1994 )
G. Release of Temporary Construction Easement
(memorandum dated July 7, 1994)
H. A Resolution to Accept Dedication of ROW and
to Cancel Taxes on Same
(memorandum dated July 12, 1994)
I. Release of Utility Liens and Consent to Con-
sumption of Lien
(memorandum dated July 5, 1994)
J. Request for Approval and Signature on Section 8
Annual Contributions Contract A3409V
(memorandum dated July 11, 1994)
K. Fla. Dept. of Corrections Annual Work Force
Agreement
(memorandum dated July 1, 1994)
L. Award Bid #4089 / Electronic Total Station
(memorandum dated July 19, 1994)
8. CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS AND
GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES
None
9:05 a. m. 9. PUBLIC ITEMS
A. PUBLIC DISCUSSION ITEMS
None
B. PUBLIC HEARINGS
1. Ty Tarby, Trustee, Request to Amend the
Comprehensive Plan and to Redesignate
Approx. 130.3 Acres from M-1 to C/I, and
to Rezone from RM -6 and A-1 to CG
(memorandum dated July 12, 1994)
2. Edward J. DeBartolo Corp.'s Request for
Approval of a Development Order for I.R.
Mall (DeBartolo) Development of Regional
Impact (DRI)
(memorandum dated July 13, 1994)
3. I.R. Country Club Ltd.'s Request for
Planned Development Special Exception
Approval to Add 48.88 Acres to the Indian
River Country Club Project
(memorandum dated July 12, 1994)
4. AN ORDINANCE OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY,
FLORIDA, LEVYING AN ADDITIONAL SUR-
CHARGE OF $12.50 FOR EACH MOVING
TRAFFIC VIOLATION TO BE USED TO FUND
.AN INTERGOVERNMENTAL RADIO COMMUNI-
CATION PROGRAM
(memorandum dated July 8. 1994)
5. AN ORDINANCE OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY,
FLORIDA, ESTABLISHING A CODE OF ETHICS
FOR COMMISSIONERS AND EMPLOYEES
10. COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S MATTERS
None -
11. DEPARTMENTAL MATTERS
A. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Approval of Hearing Dates for Two Evening
Board Hearings to Consider LDR Amendments
(memorandum dated July 13, 1994)
B. EMERGENCY SERVICES
None
C. -GENERAL SERVICES
I.R.C. Courthouse Project Schedule
( memorandum dated July 8, 1994 )
D. LEISURE SERVICES
None
E. OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
None
F. PERSONNEL
Health Care Plan
(memorandum dated July 8, 1994)
G. PUBLIC WORKS
1. Indian River Blvd. Ph. IV Reduction of
Retainage from 10% to 20
(memorandum dated July 6, 1994)
2. 58th Ave. ROW Acquisition; Parcels #106
and .#106A, David and Princess Feldman
(memorandum dated July 7, 1994)
H. UTILITIES
None
12. COUNTY ATTORNEY
Relocation of the Laura Riding Jackson Home to the
Environmental Learning Center Site _
(memorandum dated July 13, 1994)
13. COMMISSIONERS ITEMS
A. CHAIRMAN JOHN W. TIPPIN
JUL 19 1994
JUL 19 1994
13. COMMISSIONERS ITEMS (cont'd. ):
B. VICE CHAIRMAN KENNETH R. MACHT
Council of Public Officials Committee Report
( memorandum dated July 6, 1994 )
C. COMMISSIONER FRAN B. ADAMS
D. COMMISSIONER RICHARD N. BIRD
E. COMMISSIONER CAROLYN K. EGGERT
Zoning Code Review -
(memorandum dated July 13, 1994)
14. SPECIAL DISTRICTS
A. EMERGENCY SERVICES DISTRICT
None
B. SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL DISTRICT
1. Approval of Minutes - Meeting of 6/7/94
2. Approval of Minutes - Meeting of 6/14/94
3. IRC RFP #4090 / Concrete Recycling Storage
and Separation Slab
( memorandum dated June 30, 1994 )
15. ADJOURNMENT
ANYONE WHO MAY WISH TO APPEAL ANY DECISION WHICH MAY BE MADE
AT THIS MEETING WILL NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD OF
THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE WHICH INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY AND
EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL WILL BE BASED.
ANYONE WHO NEEDS A SPECIAL ACCOMMODATION FOR THIS MEETING MAY
CONTACT THE COUNTY'S AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT (ADA)
COORDINATOR AT 567-8000 X 408 AT LEAST 48 HOURS IN ADVANCE OF
MEETING.
Tuesday, July 19, 1994
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, July 19, 1994,
at 9:00 a.m.- Present were John W. Tippin, Chairman; Kenneth R.
Macht, Vice Chairman; Fran B. Adams; Richard N. Bird; and Carolyn
K. Eggert. Also present were James E. Chandler, County
Administrator; Charles P. Vitunac, County Attorney; and Patricia
Ridgely and Patricia Held, Deputy Clerks.
The Chairman called the meeting to order.
Hospital Chaplain Ray Scent delivered the invocation, and
Charles P. Vitunac, County Attorney, led the Pledge of Allegiance
to the Flag.
ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDAIEMERGENCY ITEMS
Administrator Chandler requested the following:
° Addition of follow-up information at conclusion of
meeting re Budget/COLA recommendations.
° Deferral for one week item 7.C., Appointment of Dr. Wayne
_Sinclair to Environmental Control Hearing Board.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously
approved the addition and deletion as
requested.
CONSENT AGENDA
Commissioner Eggert requested that Item K be removed for
discussion.
A. Reports
Received and placed on file in the office of Clerk to the
Board:
Report of Convictions for the Month of June 1994
1
July 19, 1994
6
BOOK 92 PACE 897
B. Occupational License Taxes Collected During Month of Tune. 1994
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by
Commissioner Eggert, the Board unanimously
accepted the report from Tax Collector Karl
Zimmermann summarizing Occupational License
Taxes collected during the month of June,
1994.
M MORMU K
TO: Board of County Commissioners
FROM: Karl Zimmermann, Tax Collector
SUBJECT: Occupational Licenses
DATE: July 1, 1994
Pursuant to Indian River County Ordinance No. 86-59, please be
informed that $1,431.50 was collected in occupational license taxes
during the month of June, representing the issuance of 130 licenses.
C. Appointment of Dr. Wayne Sinclair to the Environmental Control
Hearing Board
Deferred.
D. Request for Floodplain Cut and Fill Balance Waiver for
Lot 13, Block 17, Vero Lake Estates, Unit No. 3
The Board reviewed the following memo dated June 28, 1994.
2
July 19, 1994
TO: James Chandler ''1I11rn_
County Admimstrato W
THROUGH: James W. Davis, P.E.
Public Works Director
and
Roger D. Cain, P.E.
County Engineer
FROM: David B. Cox, P.E. 4C
Civil Engineer
SUBJECT: Request for Floodplain Cut and Fill Balance Waiver for Lot 13, Block 17,
Vero Lake Estates, Unit No. 3
Project No. 94060180
DATE: June 28, 1994
DESCRIP'T'ION AND CONDITIONS
CONSENT AGENDA
Gregory Perugini has submitted a building permit application for a single family residence
on the subject property. The site is located in an AE special flood hazard zone, base flood
elevation 22.4 ft. N.G.V.D. In the attached letter from the applicant's engineer dated June
21, 1994, a waiver of the cut and fill balance requirement is requested. The lot area is 1.07
acres. The volume of the 100 year floodplain displaced by the proposed grading plan is
estimated to be 960 cubic yards.
ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS
The waiver request has been reviewed by staff and appears to meet the criteria of Section
930.07(2)(d)4. of the Stormwater Management and Flood Protection Ordinance for lots
located in the Vero Lake Estates Municipal Services Taxing Unit.
Alternative No. 1 - Grant the cut and fill balance waiver based on the criteria of Section
930.07(2)(d)4.
Alternative No. 2 - Deny the cut and fill waiver. Require an on site retention area be
provided to compensate for the proposed floodplain displacement.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of Alternative No. 1.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by
Commissioner Eggert, the Board unanimously
granted the cut and fill balance waiver for
Lot 13, Block 17, Vero Lake Estates Unit No.
3, as recommended by staff.
3
ROOK 92 Fbr f, 9'8
July 19, 1994
BOOK 92 P,%E 899
E. Eighth Street Right-ofWay - St. Marks Anglican Church
The Board reviewed the following memo dated June 29, 1994.
TO: James E. Chandler
County Administrator
THROUGH: James W. Davis, P.E.
Public Works Director
FROM: Donald G. Finney, SRA �-4,
County Right -of -Way Agent CONSENT AGENDA
SUBJECT: 8th Street Right -of -Way; St. Marks Angelican Church Site
Plan
DATE: June 29, 1994
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
The church is dedicating 20' of right-of-way and Indian River
County is purchasing an additional 20' of right-of-way. St. Marks
A.C.A., Inc. has executed a deed to Indian River County and a
Partial Release of Mortgage has been executed by Indian River
National Bank for the additional 40' of right-of-way parcel.
Pursuant to the attached letter from Sasan Rohani to Todd Smith
dated February 24, 1994, the Public Works Department has agreed to
a purchase price of $2,578.98 based on the appraisal submitted by
the client.
The client has requested $2,140.00 of the purchase price credited
to the Traffic Impact fee for Phase I and the balance of $438.98
cash to the church at closing for a total of $2,578.98.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff request the Board of County Commissioners authorize the
purchase. There are no engineers, appraisers or attorneys fees to
be paid by Indian River County.
FUNDING
Funding to be from Account No. 111-214-541-066.12, Road & Bridge
Right -of -Way Fund. -
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by
Commissioner Eggert, the Board unanimously
authorized the purchase of a 20' right-of-way
from St..Mark's Anglican Church, Inc., in the
amount of $2,578.98, and accepted the
additional 20' right-of-way dedication, as set
out in staff's memorandum.
4
July 19, 1994
F. Resolutions Cancelling Taxes on Properties Purchased for County Use
The Board reviewed following memo dated July 7, 1994:
TO: }�BOO,A,R�D OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
(XA - P.
FROM: Lea R. Keller, CLA, County Attorney's Office
THRU: Charles P. Vitunac, County Attorney
DATE: July 7, 1994
RE: CANCELLATION OF OUTSTANDING TABES
PROPERTIES PURCHASED FOR COUNTY USE
The County recently acquired some rights-of-way, and, pursuant to
Section 196.28, Florida Statutes, the Board of County Commissioners is
allowed to cancel and discharge any taxes owed on the portion of the
property acquired for public purposes. Such cancellation must be done
by resolution of the Board with a certified copy being forwarded to the
Tax Collector.
REQUESTED ACTION: Board authorize the Chairman to sign the
attached resolutions cancelling taxes upon lands the County recently
acquired.
Attachments: 3 Resolutions -
(1) Parcel #11-33-39-00006-0120-00021.0
Lucinda W. Eddy
R/W - 27th Avenue & 8th Street
(2) Parcel #33-33-39-00001-0140-00005.0
John Morgenthien et ux
R/W - 28th Street
(3) Parcel #12-33-39-00000-5000-00051.2
St. Mark's A.C.A., Inc. _
R/W - 8th Street
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by
Commissioner Eggert, the Board unanimously
adopted Resolution 94-89, Resolution 94-90 and
Resolution 94-91, cancelling outstanding taxes
on properties purchased for County use.
5
July 19, 1994
BOOK 02 PAGE 900
0K 92 m2l901
Re: R/W - 26th street �/6/90(rba.a\taxaa)Vk-�%130
Parcel #33-32-39-00001-0140-00005.0
John & FAtriaia Morgenthien= .
RESOLUTION NO. 94-89
A RESOLUTION OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA,
CANCELLING CERTAIN DELINQUENT TAXES UPON
PUBLICLY -OWNED LANDS, PURSUANT TO SECTION 196.28,
FLORIDA STATUTES.
WHEREAS, section 196.28, Florida Statutes, allows the Board of County
Commissioners of each County to cancel and discharge any and all liens for
taxes, delingUent or current, held or owned by the county or the state,
upon lands heretofore or hereafter conveyed to or acquired by any agency,
governmental subdivision, or municipality of the state, or the United States,
for road purposes, defense purposes, recreation, reforestation, or other
public use; and
WHEREAS, such cancellation must be by resolution of the Board of
County Commissioners, duly adopted and entered upon its minutes properly
describing such lands and setting forth the public use to which the same are
or will be devoted; and
WHEREAS, upon receipt of a certified copy of such resolution, proper
officials of the county and of the state are authorized, empowered, and
directed to make proper entries upon the records to accomplish such
cancellation and to do all things necessary to carry out the provisions of
section 196.28, F.S.;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that any and all
liens for taxes, delinquent or current, against the property described in
O.R. Book 1025, Page 0242 which was recently acquired by Indian River County
for right of way purposes on 28th Street, are hereby cancelled, pursuant to
the authority of section 196.28, F.S.
The resolution was moved for adoption by Commissioner Rird
and the motion was seconded by Commissioner Eggert , and, upon being
put to a vote, the vote was as follows:
Chairman John W. Tippin Aye
Vice Chairman Kenneth R. Macht Aye
Commissioner Richard N. Bird Aye
Commissioner Carolyn K. Eggert Aye
Commissioner Fran B. Adams Aye
The Chairman thereupon declared the resolution duly passed and adopted
this 19 day of J U 1 y , 1994.
C_
July 199 1994
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
By
Chairman
Re: R/W - 27th Avenue & 8th St.
Parcel #11-33-39-00006-0120-00021.0
Lucinda W. Eddy
7/6/94(rwno\twxwn)V1._]i9
RESOLUTION NO. 94- 90
A RESOLUTION OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA,
CANCELLING CERTAIN DELINQUENT TAXES UPON
PUBLICLY -OWNED LANDS, PURSUANT TO SECTION 196.28,
FLORIDA STATUTES.
WHEREAS, section 196.28, Florida Statutes, allows the Board of County
Commissioners of each County to cancel and discharge any and all liens for
taxes, delinquent or current, held or owned by the county or the state,
upon lands heretofore or hereafter conveyed to or acquired by any agency,
governmental subdivision, or municipality of the state, or the United States,
for road purposes, defense purposes, recreation, reforestation, or other
public use; and
WHEREAS, such cancellation must be by resolution of the Board of
County Commissioners, duly adopted and entered upon its minutes properly
describing such lands and setting forth the public use to which the same are
or will be devoted; and
WHEREAS, upon receipt of a certified copy of such resolution, proper
officials of the county and of the state are authorized, empowered, and
directed to make proper entries upon the records to accomplish such
cancellation and to do all things necessary to carry out the provisions of
section 196.28, F.S.;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that any and all
liens for taxes, delinquent or current, against the property described in
O.R. Book 1025, Page 0226 which was recently acquired by Indian River County
for right of way purposes on 27th Avenue and 8th Street, are hereby
cancelled, pursuant to the authority of section 196.28, F.S.
The resolution was moved for adoption by Commissioner Bird
and the motion was seconded by Commissioner Fq9 prt , and, upon being
put to a vote, the vote was as follows:
Chairman John W. Tippin Aye
Vice Chairman Kenneth R. Macht Aye
Commissioner Richard N. Bird Aye
Commissioner Carolyn K. Eggert Aye
Commissioner Fran B. Adams Aye
The Chairman thereupon declared the resolution duly passed and adopted
this 19 day of Jul y , 1994.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
By 6161
Chairman
7
July 19, 1994 BOOK 92 PAGE 9%2
Re: R/W - Eighth Street 7�7�74 (rano\t..xan) Vse _4] �1
Parcel #12-33-39-00000-5000-00051.2
St. Mark's A.C.A., Inc.
RESOLUTION NO. 94- 91
A RESOLUTION OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA,
CANCELLING CERTAIN DELINQUENT TAXES UPON
PUBLICLY -OWNED LANDS, PURSUANT TO SECTION 196.28,
FLORIDA STATUTES.
92 PACE'903
WHEREAS, section 196.28, Florida Statutes, allows the Board of County
Commissioners of each County to cancel and discharge any and all liens for
taxes, delinquent or current, held or owned by the county or the state,
upon lands heretofore or hereafter conveyed to or acquired by any agency,
governmental subdivision, or municipality of the state, or the United States,
for road purposes, defense purposes, recreation, reforestation, or other
public use; and
WHEREAS, such cancellation must be by resolution of the Board of
County Commissioners, duly adopted and entered upon its minutes properly
describing such lands and setting forth the public use to which the same are
or will be devoted; and
WHEREAS, upon receipt of a certified copy of such resolution, proper
officials of the county and of the state are authorized, empowered, and
directed to make proper entries upon the records to accomplish such
cancellation and to do all things necessary to carry out the provisions of
section 196.28, F.S.;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that any and all
liens for taxes, delinquent or current, against the property described in
O.R. Book 1025, Page 1998 which was recently acquired by Indian River County
for right of way purposes on 8th Street, are hereby cancelled, pursuant to
the authority of section 196.28, F.S.
The resolution was moved for adoption by Commissioner Rim
and the motion was seconded by Commissioner E9 Qer t . and, upon being
put to a vote, the vote was as follows:
Chairman John W. Tippin Aye
Vice Chairman Kenneth R. Macht Aye
Commissioner Richard N. Bird Aye
Commissioner
yeCommissioner Carolyn K. Eggert Aye
Commissioner Fran B. Adams Aye
The Chairman thereupon declared the resolution duly passed and adopted
this 19 day of j u j , 1994.
8
July 19, 1994
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
By
Chairman
f
s
G. Release of Temporary Construction Easement
The Board reviewed memo dated July 7, 1994:
TO: The Board of County Commissioners
FROM: bv-(— William G. Collins II - Deputy County Attorney
DATE: July 7, 1994
SUBJECT: Release of Temporary Construction Easement
Christopher Marine, Esq. has requested the release of the Temporary
Construction Easement granted by Margaret Knight in conjunction with the
construction of Indian River Boulevard.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve the execution of the attached Release of Temporary Construction
Easement.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by
Commissioner Eggert, the Board unanimously
approved release of temporary construction
easement as listed above.
RELEASE IS RECORDED
IN THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
H. Resolution Accepting Dedication of Right -Of -Way from Scotty,s. Inc.
and to Cancel Taxes
The Board reviewed the following memo dated July 12, 1994:
TO: The Board of County Commissioners
FROM: CjU William G. Collins II - Deputy County Attorney
DATE: July 12, 1994
SUBJECT: A Resolution to Accept Dedication of Right -Of -Way and to
Cancel Taxes on Same
A resolution has been prepared for the purpose of accepting a right-of-way
dedication and cancelling any delinquent or current taxes which may exist on
the following property acquired by Indian River County for public purpose:
Right -of -Way acquired from Scotty's, Inc., a Florida corporation dated
April 22, 1994, which right-of-way is fully described in that Quit -Claim
Deed recorded in Official Record Book 1025, Pages 239-241, Public
Records of Indian River County, Florida.
RECOMMENDATION:
Authorize the Chairman of the Board of County Commissioners to execute the
Resolution accepting the dedication and cancelling certain taxes upon publicly
owned lands, and the Clerk to send a certified copy of same to the Tax
Collector so that any delinquent or current taxes can be cancelled.
9
July 19, 1994 Boa 92 PAGE 904
BOOK
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by
Commissioner Eggert, the Board unanimously
adopted Resolution 94-92 accepting right-of-
way dedication and cancelling certain taxes
upon publicly owned lands.
RESOLUTION NO. 94-.c 2
92 PACE 995
7 / 94 (RESO \ taxz�e.ao . 40) LEG3iA L (W C3 C /"1._)
A RESOLUTION OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY,
FLORIDA, ACCEPTING A RIGHT-OF-WAY
DEDICATION AND CANCELLING CERTAIN TAXES
UPON PUBLICLY OWNED LANDS, PURSUANT TO
SECTION 196.28, FLORIDA STATUTES.
WHEREAS, section 196.28, Florida Statutes, allows the Board of
County Commissioners of each County to cancel and discharge any and all
Hens for taxes, delinquent or current, held or owned by the county or the
state, upon lands heretofore or hereafter conveyed to or acquired by any
agency, governmental subdivision, or municipality of the state, or the United
States, for road purposes, defense purposes, recreation, reforestation, or
other public use; and
WHEREAS, such cancellation must be by resolution of the Board of
County Commissioners, duly adopted and entered upon its minutes properly
describing such .lands and setting forth the public use to which the same are
or will be devoted; and
WHEREAS, 'upon receipt of a certified copy of such resolution,
proper officials of the county and of the state are authorized, empowered,
and directed to make proper entries upon the records to accomplish such
cancellation and to do all things necessary to carry out the provisions of
section 196.28, F.S.;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that:
1. The dedication of right-of-way as described in O.R. Book
1025, Pages 239-241 is hereby accepted; and
2. Any and all liens for taxes delinquent or current against the
following described lands, which were acquired for right-of-way from
SCOTTY'S, INC., a Florida Corporation, are hereby cancelled pursuant to
the authority of section 196.28, F.S.
See attached Quit -Claim Deed describing lands,
recorded in O.R. Book 1025, Pages 239-241,
Public Records of Indian River County,
Florida.
10
July 19, 1994
e
The resolution was moved for adoption by Commissioner R i r j
and the motion was seconded by Commissioner F9 a P r t , and, upon being
put to a vote, the vote was as follows:
Chairman John W. Tippin Aye
Vice Chairman Kenneth R. Macht Aye
Commissioner Fran B. Adams Aye
Commissioner Richard N. Bird Aye
Commissioner Carolyn K. Eggert Aye
The Chairman thereupon declared the resolution duly passed and
adopted this 19 day of duly 1994.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
INDIAN RIVER ,COUNTY, FLORIDA
Attest:' By,, f 'l
Jo"- Tippih, Chai
Je rey.Barton, Clerk
asE n,oQ 'vw-w-A , z c. APPROVED AS TO FORM
AND LEGAL SUFFICIENCY
sy V11-11
WILLIAM G. COLLINS II
DEPUTY COUNTY ATTORNEY
EXHIBIT "A"
Legal Description
Scotty's Store /1101, Vero Beach, Florida
5' Wide Right -of -Way -Dedication along 61h Avenue
That part of the Northwest 1/4 of the Northeast 1/4 of Section 13, Township 33 South, Range
39 East, lying East of the East right-of-way of the Florida East Coast Railraod, Indian River
County, Florida, described as follows:
COMMENCE at the Northeast corner of the Northwest 1/4 of the Northeast 1/4 of said Section
13 and run S 00°29'39" W, 416.20 feet; thence N 89°2837" W, 25.00 feet to the POINT OF
BEGINNING, said point lies on the West right-of-way line of 6th Avenue (50' right-of-way);
thence S 00°29'39" W along said West right-of-way line, 419.79 feet; thence leaving said West
right-of-way line, S 85°42'39" W, 5.02 feet; thence N 00°29'39" E, 420.21 feet; thence S
89°28'37" E, 5.00 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING. Containing 2100 Square Feet.
11
July 19, 1994
BOOK 92 PACE 906
BOOR 92 FACE 90`
I. Release of Utility Liens and Consent to Assumption of Lien
The Board reviewed the following memo dated July 5, 1994:
TO: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
FROM: -Lda R. Keller, CLA County Attorney's 's Office
DATE: July 5, 1994
RE: — RELEASE OF UTILITY LIENS AND CONSENT TO ASSUMPTION OF LIEN
The attached lien releases are in proper form for *the Board of County
Commissioners to authorize the Chairman to sign so that they can be
recorded. The names and projects are:
1. Satisfactions of Impact Fee Extensions:
COMISH
GREER
WOOD
2. Rockridge Sewer Project:
BOURNE
KRAUSE
3. North County Sewer Project:
MAY
4. Indian River Blvd. Sewer Project:
CATALINA HOMES
Also, in connection with the special assessment in Royal Poinciana Park
for a waterline installation, there is an Assumption of Special
Assessment Lien form attached, executed by the purchasers of the
property, which the Utilities Services Department has approved, that the
Chairman of the Board needs to sign on behalf of the County. The lien
was originally on Gerald J. Cairns (Tr) and the persons assuming the
lien are Sharon G. Smith and Wayne M. Laughlin.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by
Commissioner Eggert, the Board unanimously
approved the Releases of Liens, as listed in
staff's recommendation.
RELEASES OF LIENS ARE RECORDED
IN THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
12
July 19, 1994
T. Approval of Section S Annual Contributions Contract A3409V
The Board reviewed the following memo dated July 11, 1994:
TO: The Honorarbie members of the DATE: 7/11/94 FILE:
Board of County Ccnudss*aoeis
THROUGH: .lames E. Chandler
County Administrator SUBJECT: Request for
approval and signature
on Section 8 Annual Contributions
Contract A3409V (Voucher Program)
FROM Tamla F.B. Gamble REFERENCES:
Executive Director
nXNA
It is neoamended that the data presented be given formal consideration
by the County Commission.
The Department of Housing and Urban Development has forwarded four (4)
copies of the Annual Contributions Contract (ACC) which has been amended
to reflect the replacement of Voucher Project 006 with a new project
number 010.
The documentation required by HUD for their final approval and execution
of the contracts is subni.tted for consideration and approval of the
Board of County Canu ssiocne.,rs.
(1) Fbur (4) Copies of ACC Part I, Number A3409V of the Annual
Contributions Contract for Housing Voucher Rmgrarm. Original
signatures are required on all copies of the Contract and no change
in its fort is permitted.
In addition, per HUD Notice PIH 94-3 dated 1/10/94, renewal, finding inacea is
for FY 94 require the submission of two forms that should be attached to
the ACC when it is signed and subai.tted to HUD for execution. These forms
are:
(1) Fbrm HUD -50071, Certification for Contracts, Grants, Loans and
Cooperative Agreements.
(2) Standard Fbam (SF) -LLL, Disclosure of Lobbying Activities.
We respectfully request the County Commission to authorize its Chairman
to execute these Contracts for transmittal to the Jacksonville Office of
HUD and complete and sign HUD -50071 and (SF) -LLL.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by
Commissioner Eggert, the Board unanimously
authorized the Chairman to execute the
documents in connection with the Annual
Contributions Contract A3409V, as recommended
by staff.
PARTIALLY EXECUTED COPIES OF DOCUMENTS
ARE ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD
13
July 19, 1994
BOCK 92 PACE 909
K. Florida Department of Corrections Annual Work Force Agreement
The Board reviewed the following memo dated July 1, 1994:
DATE: JULY 1, 1994
TO: HONORABLE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
TIMU: JAMES E. CHANDLER
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
PROM: H.T. "SONNY" DEAN, DIRECTO
DEPARTMENT OF GENERAL SER S
SUWZCT: FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
ANNUAL WORK FORCE AGREEMENT
BACRaROUM -,
Indian River Correctional Institution has an annual agreement to
provide a work force to Indian River County on a daily basis. The
current contract is set to expire on July 30, 1994. This is a form
contract and basically is the same as in the past. The only
changes are the dates. A copy is attached for your perusal.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends approval to renew the contract for another 'year
and requests authorization for their Chairman to execute the
agreement.
Commissioner Eggert inquired about County record-keeping
procedures related to the hours donated ,to the County by the
inmates. Administrator Chandler advised that Sheriff's personnel
keep the program records which are available to anyone wanting that
information.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously
approved the renewal of the agreement with the
Department of Corrections, as recommended by
staff.
CONTRACT IS ON FILE
IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD
14
July 19, 1994
L. Award Bid #4089 - Electronic Total Station
The Board reviewed memo dated July 19, 1994:
DATE: July 19, 1994
TO: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
THRU: James E. Chandler, County Administrator
H.T. "Sonny" Dean, Director
Department of General Servi
FROM: Fran Boynton Powell, Purchasing Manager
SUBJ: Award Bid #4089/Electronic Total Station
Engineering Department
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
Bid Opening Date:
Advertising Dates:
Specifications Mailed to:
Replies:
j.-
Lengemann of Florida
Altoona, FL
Florida Level & Transit Co
Ft Lauderdale, FL
Coastal Equipment & Supply
Melbourne, FL
Allen Precision Equipment
Atlanta, GA
June 22, 1994
June 8, 15, 1994
Six (6) Vendors
Four (4) Vendors
TABULATION SHEET
$11,000.00
$11,200.00
$12,250.00
$13,464.00
SOURCE OF FUNDS County Engineering Other Machinery and
Equipment Account
BUDGETED AMOUNT
RECOMMENDATION
$17,000.00
Staff recommends that the bid be awarded to Lengemann of
Florida, the low bidder meeting specifications as set
forth in the Invitation to Bid. -
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by
Commissioner Eggert, the Board unanimously
awarded Bid #4089 to Lengemann of Florida for
(1) Electronic Total Station, in the amount of
$11,000, as recommended by staff.
15
July 19, 1994
ma Z92' PxL'E!jjJj
Beak 92 RCE 911
PUBLIC HEA MG - REQUEST TO AMEND COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
BY ENLARGING SR -60 AND 58TH AVENUE COMMERCIAL
INDUSTRIAL NODE BY APPROX. 130.3 ACRES AND REZONE FROM
RM -6 AND A-1 TO CG
The hour of 9:05 a.m. having passed, the County Attorney
announced that this public hearing has been properly advertised as
follows:
P.O. Box 1268 Veto Beach, Rorida 32961 562-2315
COUNTY OF INDIAN
STATE OF FLORIDA RIVER . Woo 34 011timt .
Brtore the undernignrd ndtFmrttyy ►Nrsonnfly opptmrr4 JJ.
Schumann, Jr...
r. who on oath says that he Is Business Wringer or the
Vero Reach Press -Journal, a newspaper published at Vero Beach In
Indian River County, Florida; that
billed to tr �L
was published In said newspaper In the Wools)
Of oJ'(,/a ILw¢ ,ow4 )?
Sworn to and subscribed before me this
days !./91 nA1) /1
BAmAnAC arBAo1W.NnTAnBesine99 Manager
. t sir.wrlmw.ura+•..�...l.p.wwao.ra•
Nu 1.�7r'•72 f �j
T� OF FLOP . �+ ar"r�wamwr. em=arca
VERO BEACH PRESS -JOURNAL'
Published Dally
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 PressJoumal, a daily newspaper published
at Vero Beach in Indian River County, Florida: that the attached copy of advertisement, being
a —_
L
In the matter OI
for
In the Court, was pub.
llshed M said newspaper In the Issues of • J a� i99f�
Afflant further says that the said Vero Beech 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 allhant further says that he has neither paid nor promised any person, firm
or corporationany discount, rebate, commission or refund for the purpose of securing this
adveglameant,Jor publication In the said newspaper.
day of (21iA.D. 19
Aly Comm. Frpiles • _
Ig97t BARBARRY A C. SPRACUr. NOTApi nXiC,
• 81A1e Y lands, My,
No. CC300572 f .p A-29.
1
•�••o-i d1�M 'su„
BIPMd: V.Wy. BARBARA r• RPRA111 ._
16
July 19, 1994
i 7r
flubloet Prop. 1v
1• . i
i
)t
HOME OF CHANGE OF LAND USE
The Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County,
Florida, will consider o proposal to change the use of land
within the unincorporated portions of Indian River County. A
public hearing on the proposal will be held on Tuesday, July
19, -1994, at 9:05 a.m. in the, County Commission Chambers
of the County Administration Building, located of 1840 251h
Street, Vero Beach, Florida. At This pubBc hearing the Board of
County Commissioners will make o final decision to amend the
County's Comprehensive Plan. The proposed amendment Is in-
ducted in the proposed ordinance entitledr
t AN ORDINANCE OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA,
AMENDING THE FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT OF THE
1: 'COMPREHENSIVE PLAN BY ENLARGING THE S.R. 60 &
11 1581E AVENUE COMMERCIAL/INDUSIRIAL NODE FROM
1 +/-166 ACRES TO +/-296.3 ACRES; AND PROVIDING
' CODIFICATION, SEVERABILITY AND EFFECTIVE DATE.
Interested parties may appear and be heard at the public
hearing regarding the approval of this proposed Comprehen-
sive Plan Amendment.
The plan amendment application may be inspected by the
public at the Community Development Department located on
the second floor of the County Administration Building localed
.at 1840 251h Street, Vero Beach, Florida, between the hours
of 8t30 a.m. and 5100 p.m. on weekdays.
Atlyone who may wish to appeal any decision which may
be made at this meeting will need to ensure that o verbatim
record of the proceedings is made which includes The fesN-
many and evidence upon which the appeal will be based.
Anyone who needs o special accommodation for ;his meet -
In
gg must contact the county's Americans with Disabilities Act
IADAI'Coordinator at 567-8000 extension 408 at 18a31 48
h, hours In advance of meeting. ,
s. j,'.•i„' ,; •�;1 • • Indian River County
:•+ ; I Board of County Commissioners
”
if Byt -s- John W. Tippin, Chairman
J1
Subject Sit!7
n-.
0.
m
s
m
l,f I
ROAD Gol
' w1
NOTICE — PUBLIC NEARO'gl
Notice of haft to consider the adaption of a
�Famly Rea�ntial (Iia (upto 6 14f �1.
and A.I. Agdadhaal Detrkt (up to 1 uNVs-assail
to M (?Beast Cannsnorcel dapkL The suh)W
IT=.
b presently owned by Ty Tartry, T Lis .
The subleot papally is baled on the north aide of
State Rad 08 betwa�pepnlo5f88ttha�tA�ve Avenue and 89th Ave-
epb(ert��oacme. The
p�eAy bl the trortllwestt and rlar11>eee1
w Bei of Section 5. Tow ship 33S. Rani
39L"and bi ft In Indian River' Florida.
A pudhBc hearllg at which partes Interest and
idtlren8 81189 have an opportufft to be heard. wit
be hdid by the Board of Conde (loners of
WonRhrer Caalty. Flodda, In the Comfy Comnils-
slon Chambers of the County Adr&&fttlon Buld-
Itg, located at 1840 25th Street, Vero Beads, Flor-
Na on Ttaeday, Judy 19. 1994, at 8:05 am.
The Board of Canty Conpnitsibners may adopt
another zoning district. offer than Sae district re -
Y provided it Is within the sane general use
categorAnyone who may wish to detdsbn
which may be made at the me( wB need to a►
side teal a verbatim recon of the praoe OW e
made, WWW IIcArOea testimany and eyWBnlaa Won
which the appeal Is based.
Anyone who I, a special accommodation for
1119 meeting no contact to fbulty'a Americans
with Disabilities Ad (ADA) Coordinator at 567-M
extensbn 223 at least 48 110hss !n advai of
June 28,1994 1110447
_I
Community Development Director Bob Keating made the following
presentation:
TO: James E. Chandler
County Administrator
DEP TMENT HEAD CONCURRENCE
.. I ;V Ai��
Robert M. Keat ng, CP
THRU: Sasan Rohani, AICP ; ,2
Chief, Long -Range Planning
FROM: John Wachte�
Senior Planner, Long -Range Planning
DATE: July 12, 1994
RE: Ty Tarby, Trustee, Request to Amend the Comprehensive
Plan and to Redesignate Approximately 130.3 Acres from M-
1 to C/I, and to Rezone from RM -6 and A-1 to CG;
PLAN AMENDMENT NUMBER: LUDA 94-01-0087
It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal
consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their regular
meeting of July 19, 1994.
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
Ty Tarby, Trustee, has submitted a request to amend the
Comprehensive Plan and rezone approximately 130.3 acres located on
the north side of S.R. 60 between 58th Avenue and 66th Avenue.
The request involves changing the land use designation from M-1,
Medium -Density Residential -1 (up to 8 units/acre) to C/I,
Commercial/ Industrial Node, and rezoning the property from RM -6,
Multiple -Family Residential District (up to 6 units/acre) and A-1,
Agricultural District (dp to 1 unit/5 acres) to CG, General
Commercial District. This request is considered an expansion of
the S.R. 60 and 58th Avenue Commercial/ Industrial Node from 166
acres to 296 acres.
The purpose of this request is to secure the necessary land use
designation and zoning to develop the property for a regional
shopping center. The Edward J. DeBartolo Corporation -is proposing
to construct a 945,364 square foot regional mall, with a 404,979
square foot community shopping center and 166,831 square feet of
peripheral retail commercial space. The entire project is to be
reviewed as a Development of Regional Impact (DRI).
C Comprehensive Plan Amendment Review Procedures
The procedures for reviewing Comprehensive Plan amendments
associated with DRI's are the same as those applied to non -DRI
amendments. First, the Planning and Zoning Commission, as the
Local Planning Agency, conducts a public hearing to review the
request. The Commission has the option to recommend approval or
denial of the Comprehensive Plan amendment request to the Board of
County Commissioners. Also, the Planning and Zoning Commission may
approve or deny the rezoning portion ^f the request. If the
17
July 19, 1994
BOOK 92 FLEE 913
rezoning request is denied, only the land use amendment request is
forwarded to the Board, unless the denial to rezone is appealed.
Following Planning and Zoning Commission action, the Board of
County Commissioners conducts two public hearings. The first of
these hearings is for a preliminary decision on the land use
amendment request. At this hearing, the Board determines whether
or not the land use amendment warrants transmittal to the State
Department of Community Affairs (DCA) for further consideration.
If the land use amendment is transmitted, DCA conducts a 60 day
review which includes soliciting comments from the Treasure Coast
Regional Planning Council (TCRPC) and neighboring local
governments. A Board of County Commissioners decision not to
transmit the land use amendment to DCA constitutes denial of both
the land use amendment and rezoning requests. The second and final
Board of County Commissioners public hearing is conducted after the
receipt of comments from DCA. The Board takes final action to
approve or deny the land use amendment and rezoning requests at
that time.
O DRI Review Procedures
The DRI review is conducted by the TCRPC in conjunction with local
and state agencies. The focus of this review is on the
environmental, social, economic, and physical impact of the
proposed development on the local and regional area.
Following the TCRPC review, a Development Order is considered by
the Board of County Commissioners. The Development Order
constitutes an agreement between the county and the developer, and
identifies the necessary improvements and conditions which will
govern the development. These improvements and conditions 'can
include factors such as type of buildings, general retail mix,
buffers, parking, and off-site improvements.
In this case, the proposed Development Order has been considered by
the Planning and Zoning Commission which has forwarded a
recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners. The Board
will consider approving the proposed development order in a
separate hearing to be held subsequent to the hearing on the
Comprehensive Plan amendment. If the development order is approved
then the development will undergo the standard site plan approval
process.
C Past Actions
On November 16, 1989, the applicant submitted a similar Land Use
Designation Amendment and rezoning request which the applicant
withdrew at the November 13, 1990 Board of County Commissioners
final public hearing. In the current application, the size of the
area requested to be redesignated and rezoned has been reduced to
exclude approximately 26.5 acres of wetlands and an access
driveway. These areas are part of the DRI project area but will
remain residentially zoned.
On February 10, 1994, the Planning and Zoning Commission voted 6-1
to recommend that the Board of County Commissioners transmit the
proposed land use amendment to DCA for their review.
On March 1, 1994, The Board of County Commissioners voted 5 to 0 to
transmit the proposed land use amendment request to DCA for their
review.
18
July 19, 1994
o ORC Report
Consistent with state regulations, DCA reviewed the proposed
amendment and prepared an Objections, Recommendations and Comments
(ORC) Report, which planning staff received on May 231 1994. The
DCA ORC Report (attachment 7) contains two objections to this
proposed amendment. These objections relate to inconsistencies
between the proposed amendment and provisions in the County
Comprehensive Plan, state law (Rules 9J-5 and 9J-11, F.A.C., and
Chapter 163, F.S.), the State Comprehensive Plan, and the
Comprehensive Regional Policy Plan.
Specifically, -DCA cited the following objections:
• The proposed amendment is not supported by adequate and
relevant data and analysis which demonstrates that the
proposed commercial land use designation is necessary to
accommodate the needs of the projected population. Rules 9J-
5.005(2), 9J -5.006(2)(c), 9J-5.006(4) and 9J -11.006(1)(b)5.,
F.A.C.
• The proposed amendment is not supported by relevant and
appropriate data and. analysis which demonstrates that
endangered vegetation on the site will be protected consistent
with Conservation Element objectives 6 and 7 and their
supporting policies. Rule 9J -5.013(2)(b)3., (2)(c)3.,
(2)(c)5. and (2)(c)6., F.A.C.
The Board of County Commissioners is now to decide whether or not
to adopt the requested land use designation and zoning district.
Existing Land Use Pattern
The subject property contains several land uses. Largely devoted
to citrus, the property includes the vacated Whistlewood
subdivision, as well as several residences located along the S.R.
60 frontage. As depicted on attachment 4, the property has two
zoning designations. The western 1300 feet and the area between
the Whistlewood and Wallace Acres subdivisions to a depth of
approximately 500 feet from S.R. 60 are zoned A-1. The remainder
is zoned RM -6.
Near 66th Avenue, property to the north, across 26th Street is
planted in citrus and zoned A-1. Further east, land is zoned RS -3,
Single -Family Residential District (up to 3 units/acre), and
contains undeveloped land, single-family residences and the Pine
Metto Park subdivision.
Between the subject property and 26th Street, land is -zoned A-1 to
a distance of 1300 feet east of 66th Avenue and planted in citrus.
East of this area, property is zoned RM -6, but is largely
undeveloped. Much of this area consists of wetlands. A narrow
portion of land along 26th Street is zoned A-1. There are also
several residences in this area. Northeast of the subject property
to 58th Avenue, property is zoned RS -6, Single -Family Residential
District (up to 6 units/acre). This area contains a church and the
Rivera Estates subdivision. Rivera Estates contains approximately
72 lots and is substantially built out. The remainder of the area
to the east of the subject property is undeveloped and zoned RM -6
and CG. A bank is located at the corner of 58th Avenue and S.R.
60. The east side of 58th Avenue is occupied by the Ryanwood
Square Shopping Center. This 108,000 square foot shopping center
contains a grocery store, drug store and smaller specialty service
establishments similar to those found in neighborhood or small
community type shopping centers. This, center serves the daily
0V
July 19, 1994
BOOK • � FAA 1
needs of residents to the west and south of Vero Beach and is the
largest center not located in the U.S. #1 corridor.
Along the south side of S.R. 60, land uses are split between
agricultural and residential uses. The easternmost 40 acres are
zoned CG. Approximately one half of this land is undeveloped, with
the balance containing a citrus grove and a fruit and vegetable
stand. Immediately west is a 20 acre grove zoned A-1. West of the
grove is Sixty Oaks; this planned development is zoned RM -6 and
contains 60 residences. West of Sixty Oaks is an unplatted
residential area zoned RS -6. The three streets in this area
(Charlotte, Flora, and Hedden) contain approximately 54 lots,
ranging in size from 1/4 to 2 acres. Verona Estates, located west
of this area, is also zoned RS -6. The southern half of this
subdivision is devoted to agricultural uses. Immediately south of
these residential areas is the Vero Beach campus of the Indian
River Community College and an agricultural research center. The
remainder of the south side of S.R. 60 is zoned and used for
agriculture.
Along the north side of S.R. 60 and surrounded by the subject
property is a small area with commercial and residential zoning.
Four lots in Wallace Acres subdivision with S.R. 60 frontage are
zoned RM -6; the remaining 8 lots have RS -6 zoning. West of Wallace
Acres is a 2 acre parcel zoned CL, Limited Commercial District,
containing a small appliance store.
West of the subject property, across 66th Avenue is Vista
Plantation. This development is zoned RM -4, Multiple -Family
Residential District (up to 4 units/acre) and contains on-site
recreation facilities including a golf course along the project
perimeter. A small neighborhood commercial center is located at
the corner of S.R. 60 and 66th Avenue.
Other than the adjacent S.R. 60 and 58th Avenue node, which is the
node proposed for expansion, the closest commercial/ industrial node
to the subject parcel is the S.R. 60 and I-95 node, which begins
approximately 2 miles west of the subject parcel at 82nd Avenue.
Two small neighborhood commercial nodes are in proximity to the
subject parcel, one at S.R. 60 and 66th Avenue, the other at S.R.
60 and 74th Avenue.
Future•Land Use Pattern
The subject property and properties to the north, south, and west
are designated M-1, Medium -Density Residential -1, on the county
future land use map. The M-1 designation permits residential uses
with densities up to eight units/acre. East of the subject
property is the 166 acre S.R. 60 and 58th Avenue Commercial/
Industrial Node. This node encompasses the four corners of the
intersection and extends along the south side of S.R. 60 east to
the Vero Beach city limits at 43rd Avenue. A few properties along
the north side of S.R. 60, near 43rd Avenue, are also included in
the node.
Environment
The subject property does not contain "environmentally important"
uplands (coastal hammock or xeric scrub), as designated by the
Conservation Element of the Comprehensive Plan. Moreover, the
property does not fall within a 100 year flood zone.
There are, however, several examples of endangered or potentially
endangered vegetation on the subject .property, including the
recognized "champion tree" Simpson Stopper cluster, and a cabbage
July 19, 1994
20
palm hammock which supports an endangered "hand adder's tongue
fern" colony.
Soils on the subject property are generally of the Winder -Riviera -
Manatee type which are wet, poorly drained soils. The constraints
of building on these soils include the use of fill to change the
soil conditions and raise the elevation above the water table and
the use of engineering and building techniques to compensate for
the wet soils..
Specific identification and protection of isolated and individual
resources are addressed in the DRI and will be addressed in more
detail in the site plan approval process.
An approximately 26.5 acre wetland system exists along much of the
subject property's north border. While included in the DRI project
area, this wetland slough system is not part of the Plan amendment
and rezoning request and will remain residentially designated.
Utilities and Services
The site is within the Urban Service Area of the county. Water
lines extend to the site from the South County Reverse Osmosis
Plant. Wastewater lines extend to the site from the West County
Wastewater Treatment Plant.
Transportation System
S.R. 60 forms the southern boundary of the subject property. This
roadway is classified as a principal arterial on the future roadway
thoroughfare plan map. East of 58th Avenue, S.R. 60 is a six lane
road with approximately 100 feet of public road right-of-way. West
of 58th Avenue, S.R. 60 is a four lane road with approximately 136
feet of public road right-of-way. The portion of S.R. 60 extending
from 58th Avenue to 82nd Avenue is programmed for expansion to six
lanes and 200 feet of public road right-of-way by 2010.
The segment of 66th Avenue that forms the western boundary of the
property is classified as a minor arterial on the future roadway
thoroughfare plan map. This roadway becomes Schumann Drive and
connects with U.S. #1 in Sebastian. South of S.R. 60, 66th Avenue
is unpaved. The segment of 66th Avenue adjacent to the subject
property is a two lane road with approximately 50 feet of public
road right-of-way. This segment of 66th Avenue is programmed for
expansion to four lanes and 80 feet of public road right-of-way by
2010.
East of the subject property is 58th Avenue. From 9th Street S.W.
(Oslo Road) to C.R. 510 (Wabasso Road), south of Sebastian, 58th
Avenue is classified as an urban principal arterial on the future
roadway thoroughfare plan map. Presently a two lane road with
approximately 50 feet of public road right-of-way, this segment of
58th Avenue is programmed for expansion to four lanes and 100 feet
of public road right-of-way by 2010.
Located north of the subject property, 26th Street is a two lane
unpaved road with approximately 30 feet of public road right-of-way
and is classified as a collector road on the future roadway
thoroughfare plan map. This segment of 26th Street is programmed
for expansion to 60 feet of public road right-of-way by 1995.
21
July 19, 1994
Baa 92 pta 916
BOOK
ANALYSIS
PA-tE917
In this section, an analysis of the reasonableness of the
application will be presented. Specifically, this section will
include:
• a response to DCA's objections;
• an analysis of the need for node expansion;
• an analysis of the proposed amendment's impact on public
facilities;
• an analysis of the proposed amendment's compatibility with the
surrounding area;
• an analysis of the proposed amendment's potential impact on
environmental quality; and
• an analysis of the proposed amendment's consistency with the
comprehensive plan;
Response to DCA's Objections
In DCA's ORC report on the subject amendment, the first objection
relates to the county's existing oversupply of Commercial/
Industrial (C/I) designated land. Staff's position is that this
objection has been addressed in the section of this staff report
titled "The Need for Node Expansion". That section demonstrates
that special circumstances exist with respect to this request and
that, despite the existing overallocation of C/I designated land,
those special circumstances warrant node expansion.
Briefly summarized, the county presently has only one site suitable
for a regional mall. That is the site on which the Harbortown Mall
DRI has been -approved. To prevent any other site from,being
considered for a regional mall would grant Harbortown a virtual
monopoly. The existence of such a monopoly could encourage land
speculation and actually discourage development of a -regional mall
in the county. That the Harbortown DRI has been approved for five
years without construction having commenced raises the question of
whether that project will be built.
Among the special circumstances associated with the subject request
is the fact that the request is associated with a DRI. Through the
DRI Development Order, the county has more control of development
on the site than it does in other rezoning or plan amendment
requests. With the approval of the Development Order for the
Indian River Mall, both regional mall developments will have
similar conditions to ensure that, prior to the development of
peripheral "general commercial", construction will have begun on
the associated regional mall. The specific language pertaining to
this issue in the Development Order associated with the subject
request is as follows:
No site plan(s) shall be released and no building permit
shall be issued for the development of the commercial
outparcels or community shopping center (as referenced in
the ADA) until the developer completes (as determined by
the county building department) at least fifty percent
(50%) of the structural foundation elements (at, above,
and below grade) necessary for the construction of at
least three hundred twenty thousand (320,000) square feet
of regional mall, gross floor area.
Additionally, as noted in the section of this staff report
describing the request's consistency with the comprehensive plan,
Future Land Use Element Policy 1.24 provides that land which has
been redesignated from residential to commercial/industrial will
22
July 19, 1994
s
� ® s
revert to residential, if development has not progressed within
certain timeframes.
The county's position is that these provisions ensure that, unless
market conditions change, only one of the regional mall sites will
be commercially developed, while the other will revert to
residential uses.
DCA's concern that the DRI Development Order is not sufficient to
ensure that the site will develop only as a regional mall, as
opposed to "general commercial", is unfounded. Such a condition
was -incorporated in the Harbortown Mall DRI Development Order to
ensure that "general commercial" would not be built on the site if
the regional mall proposal were abandoned. Consequently, staff's
position is that DCA's recommendation that a separate site-specific
policy regulating the use of the subject property be- added to the
comprehensive plan is redundant and unnecessary.
DCA's second objection, involving the protection of endangered
vegetation on the site, is not valid. The support documents
transmitted to DCA along with the proposed amendment clearly
described county protections of endangered plant species. The
support documents also clearly noted that these protections would
be applied under both the existing and requested land use
designations. Despite these facts, staff has expanded the analysis
to demonstrate, at a greater level of detail, that the provisions
of the county's comprehensive plan and land development regulations
will protect the endangered vegetation on the subject property.
Additionally, specific of provisions of the DRI Development Order
preserve, protect, and enhance wetlands, native upland plant
communities, and endangered species on the site. A description of
those provisions has been added to the environmental analysis
section of this staff report.
The Need for Node Expansion
In analyzing this request for a land use change and rezoning, staff
has focused on several key issues. One issue is regional mall land
availability.
According to the Urban Land Institute, shopping centers require
about 10 acres of site area for each 100,000 square feet of
building area. Since regional malls are usually 750,000 square
feet or larger, a regional mall would therefore require a site of
at least 75 acres. Site requirements, of course, are also
influenced by local land development and site plan regulations that
determine the required parking, loading, circulation, open space
and drainage areas needed to support a shopping facility. Using
this standard, the subject parcel would be adequate for a regional
shopping facility.
Review of commercially designated lands within the unincorporated
portions of the county reveals that, other than the large
commercial/industrial nodes located along the interstate, only one
node (U.S. #1 from 57th Street to 49th Street, containing the site
for the proposed Harbortown Mall) contains an adequate supply of
vacant land (over 75 acres) which is also in a configuration
suitable for a regional mall facility. Since the nodes along the
interstate are not centrally located within the urbanized area of
the county, they are not suitable locations for a regional mall.
Therefore, accommodating a regional mall in the urbanized area of
the county would require redesignating property to a commercial
classification. Based upon the land use pattern of the area, the
23 bax 92 fou U
July 19, 1994
800K 92 PALE 919
S.R. 60 and 58th Avenue node's centralized location, and that
node's close proximity to the population center, expanding the S. R.
60 and 58th Avenue node boundary would provide for an efficient
land use pattern and for the maximum use of transportation and
public facilities, while at the same time decreasing strip
development, which would occur in other nodes if their areas were
increased to accommodate the acreage necessary for the subject
request.
Another issue involves the proposed Harbortown Mall. As adopted,
the Comprehensive Plan already includes an area for a regional
mall; that mall site is along U.S. #1 at 53rd Street. It is
generally accepted that, despite the rapid population growth in the
county, the population base is sufficient to support only one such
facility. -Despite the fact that one mall has already received
initial approval and that only one mall can survive to the county,
several reasons exist for the consideration of this request.
First, there are no guarantees that the Harbortown Mall will be
built. Prior to construction, certain public infrastructure
improvements must be completed or contracted; leases must be
obtained, and financing must be secured. Therefore, the advantage
enjoyed by the Harbortown Mall is the land use, zoning, and DRI
approval. Second, the prospect of competing regional mall sites
reduces the chance of speculation by holding commercially
designated land, and increases the likelihood of a regional mall
being constructed in the near future.
During the land use plan amendment review process for the
Harbortown Mall, staff recognized that there is probably no single
best site for such a facility and, therefore, provided
opportunities for competing proposals to be reviewed. Staff feels
that the subject property, like the Harbortown Mall property,
should not be used for "general commercial" development which does
not have the size requirements of a regional mall.
As previously noted, because this request is part of a DRI, the
county has certain control which is not available in a normal
rezoning or plan amendment. That control involves conditioning the
DRI Development Order. In this case, to ensure that the subject
property is not available for general commercial use (for which
there is sufficient land currently available), staff feels that the
Development Order should provide sufficient time for the county to
redesignate and rezone the property if a regional mall is not
constructed. The Harbortown Mall Development Order contains such
conditions, and the Development Order associated with this request
also contains such conditions. As a result, the Development Orders
remove the incentive for either developer to realize an economic
gain by obtaining a commercial land use designation and then
selling the property for general commercial use.
Concurrency of Public Facilities
This site is located within the county Urban Service Area, 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 and Land Development Regulations also
require that new development be reviewed to ensure that the minimum
acceptable 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
24
July 199 1994
concurrency management system component of the Capital Improvements
Element. For Comprehensive Plan amendment and rezoning requests,
conditional concurrency review is required.
Conditional concurrency review examines the available capacity of
each facility with respect to a proposed project. Since
Comprehensive Plan amendment and rezoning requests are not
projects, county regulations call for the concurrency review to be
based upon the most intense use of the subject property based upon
the requested zoning district or land use designation. For
commercial Comprehensive Plan amendment requests, the most intense
use (according to the county's Land Development Regulations) is
retail commercial with 10,000 square feet of gross floor area per
acre of land proposed for redesignation. However, since this
request is associated with a DRI application for a 11517,175 square
foot retail development, the concurrency analysis will consider
that amount of development. The site information used for the
concurrency analysis is as follows:
1. Size of Area to be
Redesignated and Rezoned: ±130.3 acres
2. Existing Land Use Designation: M-1, Medium -Density
Residential -1 (up to 8
units/acre)
3. Proposed Land Use Designation:
4. Most Intense Use of Subject
Property under existing
Land Use Designation:
C/I, Commercial -
Industrial Node
1,042 Dwelling Units (DU)
5. Most Intense Use of Subject Property under Proposed Land Use
Designation: 1,5171175 square feet of Retail Commercial
(Shopping Center in the 5th Edition ITE
Manual)
- Transportation
A review of the traffic impacts that would result from a 1,517,175
square foot retail development on the property indicates that the
existing level of service "D" or better on S.R. 60 and other
impacted roads would be lowered if no improvements were made. The
site information used for determining traffic impacts is as
follows:
Existina Land Use Designation
1. Residential -Use Identified in 5th Edition ITE Manual:
Single -Family
2. Average Weekday Trip Ends:
3. P.M. Peak Hour Trip ends:
a. Inbound: 65% or 684
b. Outbound: 35% or 368
1,042 DU X 9.55 trip ends/DU = 9,951
11042 DU X 1.01 trip ends/DU = 1,052
Proposed Land Use Desianation
1. Retail Commercial use Identified in 5th Edition ITE Manual:
Shopping Center
25
July 199 1994
moo 92 PALE
BOOK
2. For 11517,175 square feet:
a. Average Weekday Vehicle Trip Ends:
28.61/1000 gross square feet
b. 5-6 p.m. Peak Hour Vehicle Trip Ends:
2.61/1000 gross square feet
9.2 PALE 921
3. Formula for Determining Total New Trip Ends:
Total Square Footage X Vehicle Trip Rate
(trip distribution based on a Modified Gravity Model)
a. Total Average Weekday Trip Ends:
1,517,175 X 28.61/1000 = 43,406
b. Total P.M. Peak Hour/Peak Season Trip Ends.
1,517,175 X 2.61/1000 = 3,960
c. Percentage New Peak Hour/Peak Season Trip Ends: 80%
d. New Total Average Weekday Trip Ends:
0.8 X 43,406 = 34,725
e. New P.M. Peak Hour/Peak Season Trip Ends:
0.8 X 3,960 = 3,168
- Inbound: 50% or 1,584
- Outbound: 50% or 1,584
4. Peak Direction of S.R. 60, from 58th Avenue to 66th Avenue:
Westbound
5. Traffic Capacity on S.R. 60, from 58th Avenue to 66th Avenue at
a Level of Service "D": 1,760 peak hour/peak season/peak
direction trips
6. Existing Traffic volume on this segment of S.R. 60:
1,012 peak hour/peak season/peak direction trips
The number of Average Weekday Trip Ends associated with the most
intense use of the subject property under the present land use
designation is 91951. This was determined by multiplying the 1,042
DU's (most intense use) by ITE's factor of 9.55 Average Daily Trip
Ends/DU.
The number of peak hour/peak season/peak direction trip ends
associated with the most intense use of the subject property under
the present land use designation is 684. This was determined by
taking 65% (peak direction) of 1,042 DU's (most intense use)
multiplied by ITE's factor of 1.01 peak hour trip end/DU.
The number of Average Weekday Trip Ends associated -with the most
intense use of the subject property under the requested land use
designation is 43,406. This was determined by multiplying
1,517,175 square feet of Shopping Center Use by ITE's factor of
28.61 Average Weekday Trip Ends/1000 square feet.
The number of P.M. Peak Hour Trip Ends associated with the most
intense use of the subject property under the requested land use
designation is 3,960. This was determined by multiplying 1,517,175
square feet of Shopping Center Use by ITE's factor of 2.61 Peak
Hour Vehicle Trip Ends/1000 square feet.
The ITE has determined that 80% of the trip ends associated with
the most intense use of the subject property under the requested
land use designation will be new trip ends. Therefore, 80% of the
Kv-
July 19, 1994
43,406 Average Weekday Trip Ends, or 34,725, will be new.
Similarly, 80%, or 3,168, of the 31960 P.M. Peak Hour Trip Ends
associated with the most intense use of the subject property under
the requested land use designation will be new.
According to ITE, 50%, or 1,584, of the New P.M. Peak Hour Trip
Ends will be outbound, and 50%, or 1,584, will be inbound.
Therefore, the most intense use of the subject property under the
requested land use designation will generate 1,584 new p.m. peak
hour/peak season/peak direction trips. This is 936 more than the
648 generated by the most intense use of the subject property under
the present land use designation. Using a modified gravity model
and a hand assignment, the trips generated by the proposed land use
designation were then assigned to roadways on the network.
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
G methodology as set forth in the Florida Department of
Transportation Level of Service Manual. Available capacity is the
total capacity less existing and committed traffic volumes; this is
updated daily based upon vesting associated with project approvals.
The traffic capacity for the segment of S.R. 60 adjacent to this
site is 1,760 trips (peak hour/peak season/peak direction) at a
Level of Service (LOS) "D", while the combined existing and vested
peak hour/peak season/peak direction traffic volume on this segment
of S.R. 60 equals 1,218 trips. The additional 1,584 peak hour/peak
season/peak direction trips created by the proposed Comprehensive
Plan amendment will increase the total peak hour/peak season/peak
direction trips for this segment of S.R. 60 to approximately 2,802,
or 1,042 more than capacity at LOS "D".
The table below identifies each of the impacted roadway segments
associated with this proposed amendment. Impacted roads are
defined in the county's Land Development Regulations as roadway
segments which receive five percent (5%) or more daily project
traffic or fifty (50) or more daily project trips, whichever is
less. As indicated in the table, segments 1925, 2050, 3025, and
3030 do not currently have sufficient capacity at LOS "D" to
accommodate the projected traffic associated with the request.
Typically, when a proposed amendment or rezoning is anticipated to
generate traffic in excess of capacity, a Developer's Agreement is
required to ensure sufficient additional capacity is provided. For
land use amendments and rezonings associated with a DRI, however,
the Development Order performs the same functions as a Developer's
Agreement.
Therefore, the transportation concurrency requirements can be met
by requiring the associated DRI Development Order, to be adopted
prior to but at the same Board of County Commissioners meeting as
the proposed amendment, to state that necessary improvements will
be made to ensure that sufficient capacity is available to serve
the anticipated traffic generation of this project.
The Development Order associated with the subject request does
contain these provisions for segments 1925, 3025 and 3030. Segment
2050 is programmed for expansion to five lanes by the end of the
1998 fiscal year.. That expansion will provide sufficient capacity
to serve development under the proposed amendment.
Therefore, with th
the transportation
satisfied.
July 19, 1994
a adoption of the referenced Development Order,
concurrency requirement for this request will be
`xi
BOOK PA
,E
BOOK
TRAFFIC CONCURRENCY DETERMINATION
Impacted Road Segments
(peak hour/peak season/peak direction)
2 3 `a
fAE923
Segment
Roadway Capacity
Segment Road From To LOS "D"
1130
1140
1150
1330
1335
1340
1830
1910
1915
1920
1925
1930
1935
1940
1945
1950
1955
1960
1965
2020
2030
2040
2050
2220
2335
2460
2470
2480
2860
2920
2925
2930
3005
3010
3015
3020
3025
3030
3035
3040
3055
3120
3130
3140
3150
3160
3170
3330
3340
4230
4330
4430
4720
4730
4830
4930
I.R. Blvd
I.R. Blvd
I.R. Blvd
U. S. #1
O.S. #1
U. S. #1
C.R. 510
S.R. 60
S.R. 60
S -.-R. 60
S.R. 60
S.R. 60
S.R. 60
S.R. 60
S.R. 60
S.R. 60
S.R. 60
S.R. 60
S.R. 60
16th Street
16th Street
16th Street
16th Street
12th Street
Old Dixie Hwy.
27th Ave.
27th Ave.
27th Ave.
20th Ave.
43rd Ave.
43rd Ave.
43rd Ave.
58th Ave.
58th Ave.
58th Ave.
58th Ave.
58th Ave.
58th Ave.
58th Ave.
58th Ave.
58th Ave.
66th Ave.
66th Ave.
66th Ave.
66th Ave.
66th Ave.
66th Ave.
82nd Ave.
82nd Ave.
49th Street
45th Street
41st Street
26th Street
26th Street
Sth Street
4th Street
S. VB City Lmt.
17th Street
21st Street
S. VB City Lmt.
17th Street
S.R. 60
58th Ave.
C.R. 512
I-95
82nd Ave.
66th Ave.
58th Ave.
43rd Ave.
27th Ave.
20th Ave.
Old Dixie Hwy.
10th Ave.
U.S. #1
I.R. Blvd.
58th Ave.
43rd Ave.
27th Ave.
20th Ave.
58th Ave.
16th Street
S. VB City Lmt.
16th Street
S.R. 60
16th Street
8th street
12th Street
16th Street
Oslo Road
4th Street
8th Street
12th Street
16th Street
S.R. 60
41st Street
45th Street
69th Street
S.R. 60
26th Street
41st Street
45th Street
65th Street
69th Street
12th Street
S.R. 60
58th Ave.
58th Ave.
58th Ave.
66th Ave.
58th Ave.
58th Ave.
58th Ave.
17th Street
21st Street
S.R. 60
17th Street
S.R. 60
Royal Palm Pl.
O.S. #1
I-95
82nd Ave.
66th Ave. -
58th Ave.
43rd Ave.
27th Ave.
20th Ave.
Old Dixie Hwy.
10th Ave.
U.S. #1
I.R. Blvd.
ICWW
43rd Ave.
27th Ave.
20th Ave.
Old Dixie Hwy.
43rd Ave.
S.R. 60
16th Street
S.R.60
Atlantic Blvd.
S.R. 60
12th Street
16th Street
S.R. 60
4th Street
8th Street
12th Street
16th Street
S.R. 60
41st Street
45th Street
49th Street
C.R. 510
26th Street
41st Street
45th Street
65th Street
69th Street
C.R. 510
S.R. 60
65th Street
43rd Ave.
43rd Ave.
43rd Ave.
58th Ave.
43rd Ave.
43rd Ave.
43rd Ave.
1760
1760
1760
2270
2270
2300
630
540
1680
1760
1760
2650
2650
2600
1638
1638
1638
1638
1760
830
830
830
970
830
830
830
830
830
1760
630
830
830
630
630
630
630
830
830
630
630
630
630
630
630
630
630
630
630
630
630
630
630
630
630
630
630
Existina Demand Total Available Positive
Roadway Existing Vested Segment Segment Project Concurrency
Segment Volume Volume Demand Capacity Demand Determination
1130
1143
43
1186
574
23 Y
1140
987
67
•1054
708
31 Y
1150
987
79
1066
694
31 Y
1330
1341
116
1457
813
49 Y
1335
1341
116
1457
813
119 Y
1340
1143
98
1241
1059
43 Y
1830
422
32
454
176
29 Y
1910
367
77
444
96
6 Y
28
July 19, 1994
M M M
Existing Demand Total Available Positive
Roadway Ex st ng Vested Segment Segment Project Concurrency
Segment Volume Volume Demand Capacity Demand Determination
1915
906
248
1154
526
85
Y
1920
1012
168
1180
580
315
Y
1925
1012
206
1218
542
1584
N
1930
1040
513
1553
1097
599
Y
1935
612
306
918
1732
470
Y
1940
878
235
1113
1487
341
Y
1945
747
219
966
672
297
Y
1950
747
178
.925
713
252
Y
1955
747
746
1493
745
243
Y
1960
509
88
597
1041
93
Y
1965
846
122
968
792
43
Y
2020
144
108
252
578
116
Y
2030
443-
84
527
303
88
Y
2040
447
60
507
293
59
Y
2050
851
80
931
39
46 -
N
2220
96
26
122
708
25
Y
2335
228
77
305
525
15
Y
2460
369
22
391
439
66
Y
2470
369
30
399
431
97
Y
2480
369
15
384
446
15
Y
2860
200
20
220
1540
23
Y
2920
477
18
495
135
53
Y
2925
662
23
685
145
68
Y
2930
662
45
707
123
99
Y
3005
186
13
199
431
46
Y
3010
186
25
211
419
100
Y
3015
186
33
219
411
159
Y
3020
186
48
234
396
184
Y
3025
474
221
695
135
300
N
3030
523
117
640
190
195
N
3035
435
24
459
171
82
Y
3040
332
21
353
277
71
Y
3055
266
32
298
332
71
Y
3120
201
5
206
424
68
Y
3130
177
7
184
446
136
Y
3140
177
7
184
446
87-
Y
3150
168
5
173
457
67
Y
3160
168
2
170
460
57
Y
3170
201
14
215
415
49
Y
3330
227
31
258
372
29
Y
3340
65
12
77
553
28
Y
4230
134
11
145
485
23
Y
4330
263
15
278
352
59
Y
4430
152
42
194
436
54
Y
4720
147
6
153
477
136
Y
4730
-147
50
197
433
15
Y
4830
95
52
147
483
57
Y
4930
117
27
144
486
59
Y
Water
A retail commercial use of 1,517,175 square feet on the subject
property will -have a water consumption rate of 455 Equivalent
Residential Units (ERU), or 113,750 gallons/day. This is based
upon a level of service standard of 250 gallons/ERUTday. Water
lines extend to the site from the South County Reverse Osmosis
Plant which currently has a remaining capacity of approximately
21400,000 gallons/day and therefore can accommodate the potable
water demand associated with the proposed amendment.
- Wastewater
Based upon the proposed 1,517,175 square feet of retail commercial,
development of the property will have a wastewater generation rate
of approximately 4.55 Equivalent Residential Units (ERU), or 113,750
gallons/day. This is based upon the level of service standard of
250 gallons/ERU/day. The site is serviced by the West County
Wastewater Treatment Plant which currently has a remaining capacity
of more than 400,000 gallons/day and can accommodate the additional
wastewater generated by the proposed amendment.
29
July 19, 1994
e
BOOK
- Solid Waste
Z PALE 12 6
Solid waste service includes pick-up by private operators and
disposal at the county landfill. For a 1,517,175 square foot
commercial development on the subject site, solid waste generation
will be approximately 15,172 waste generation units (WGU) or 28,766
cubic yards of solid waste/year. A WGU is a waste generation unit
measurement equivalent to 1.896 cubic yards of waste/year.
While WGU's are units of measurement which can be applied to either
commercial or residential uses, WGU's must be considered in terms
of residential units in order to correspond to the county's solid
waste level of service standards. According to the county's solid
waste regulations, each residential unit generates 1.6 WGU/unit.
With the county's adopted level of service standard of 2.37 cubic
yards/person/year and the county's average of two -persons/unit,
each WGU is equivalent to 0.8 people (1.6/2 = 0.8) and 1.896 cubic
yards of solid waste/year (0.8 X 2.37). To calculate the total
cubic yards of solid waste for the most intense use allowed on the
subject property under the proposed land use amendment, staff
utilized the following formula: Total number of WGU's X 0.8 X 2.37
(15,172 X 0.8 X 2.37 = 28,766 cubic yards/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 2 year
capacity, and the landfill has expansion capacity beyond 2010.
Based on 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 must meet the discharge
requirements of the county Stormwater Management Ordinance. The
subject property is located within the M-1 Drainage Basin and the
Indian River Farms Water Control District (IRFWCD). Since the site
is located within the IRFWCD, development on the property will be
prohibited from discharging any runoff in excess of two inches in
a 24 hour period, which is the approved IRFWCD discharge rate.
In this case, the minimum floor elevation level of service
standards do not apply, since the subject property does not lie
within a floodplain. However, both the on-site retention and
discharge standards do apply to this request. Under the proposed
amendment, the maximum area of impervious surface will be
approximately -4,824,500 square feet, or 111 acres. The maximum
runoff volume, based on that amount of impervious surface and the
25 year/24 hour design storm, will be approximately 4.4 million
cubic feet. In order to maintain the county's adopted level of
service, the applicant will be required to retain approximately 3.4
million cubic feet of runoff on-site. With the soil
characteristics of the subject property, the pre -development runoff
rate is estimated to be 88.7 cubic feet/second.
Based upon staff's analysis, the drainage level of service
standards will be met by limiting off-site discharge to the
IRFWCD's maximum .discharge rate of two inches in 24 hours, and
requiring retention of 3.4 million cubic feet of runoff for the
most intense use of the property.
As with all development, a more detailed.review will be conducted
during the development approval process.
30
July 19, 1994
- Recreation
Recreation concurrency requirements apply only to residential
development. Therefore, this comprehensive plan amendment and
rezoning request is not required to satisfy recreation concurrency
requirements.
The concurrency requirements for drainage, solid waste, water,
wastewater, and parks have been met for the proposed amendment.
Incorporating the referenced road improvements into the associated
DRI Development Order will satisfy the concurrency test for the
subject request.
Compatibility with the Surroundind Area
The compatibility of the proposed amendment with surrounding
residential areas is an important issue. Since there are
residences in proximity to the subject property, potential impacts
associated with the proposed development must be considered. These
impacts may include increased traffic, noise, lights, and fumes.
Generally, traffic circulation is a major concern of residents
located near large commercial projects. With respect to the
subject request, several factors address this concern. First, the
county's comprehensive plan and land development regulations
require that prior to development, all impacted roadways have
sufficient -capacity to serve development. Beyond the existing
county requirements, provisions of the DRI Development Order serve
to mitigate impacts on the transportation system. These provisions
include required on and off site road improvements, monitoring of
levels of service, design for and promotion of potential transit
services, and establishment of an employee ridesharing program.
Other potential impacts can often be mitigated through separation
and planted buffers. Generally, county land development
regulations require development in the requested CG zoning district
to provide a type "B" buffer with a six foot opaque feature when
abutting single-family development and a type "C" buffer with a six
foot opaque feature when abutting multiple -family development.
Under the proposed land use designation and zoning district, all
development on the subject property., including development on
parcels where the subject property abuts the Wallace Acres single-
family subdivision will have to meet this requirement.
Several characteristics of the subject property and provisions of
the DRI Development Order ensure additional mitigation of potential
impacts on surrounding areas. Much of the land north of the area
proposed for redesignation, although part of the DRI Project Area,
will remain residentially designated. That area,_. consisting
largely of wetlands, is undeveloped. The DRI Development Order
ensures that that land will remain undeveloped, thus providing a
natural buffer which ranges from 200 feet to 600 feet in width.
West of the subject property is Vista Plantation. Residents of
this development are currently separated from the subject property
by the lateral "A" canal, 66th Avenue, and the Vista Plantation
Golf Course. The DRI Development Order ensures the following added
protection buffers along 66th Avenue:
1. an additional thirty foot wide access easement for canal
maintenance purposes; and
2. a type "D" buffer with a three foot opaque feature.
31 u •-�
July 199 1994 Boa
6-3
® .�9
B00,K Zic
South of the subject property, S.R. 60 provides approximately 136
feet of separation. Additional separation is provided by the
special 75 foot wide S.R. 60 setback. Development on the subject
property will be required to meet this setback, as noted in the DRI
Development Order. Most land abutting the south side of S.R. 60,
opposite the subject property, also must meet this requirement.
Finally, the DRI Development Order requires the proposed
development to provide a type "C" buffer with a three foot opaque
feature along all S.R. 60 frontage.
Since land to the east is 'currently within the commercial/
industrial node and is zoned CG, granting the subject request would
result in the continuation of an existing land use and zoning
pattern. Therefore, there would be no negative impacts on adjacent
land to the east associated with the subject request. For these
reasons, the proposed amendment is compatible with surrounding
areas.
Potential Impact on Environmental Quality
The policies of Conservation Element Objective 5 and provisions of
chapter 928 of the county's land development regulations (LDR's)
provide regulatory protection of wetlands, to ensure "no net loss"
of the natural function of wetlands. Any proposed alteration of
wetlands on site (as applicable) will require federal, state, and
county permitting, including appropriate mitigation.
Additionally, the DRI Development Order requires the preservation
of an 8.7 acre mixed hardwood wetland. Provisions of the DRI
Development Order will actually enhance the quality of this wetland
by requiring the following:
1. the enhancement of the hydroperiod as described in the Indian
River Mall Application for Development Approval;
2. the removal of all invasive exotic species and the maintenance
of the wetland in such a condition;
3. the plugging and abandoning of the Floridan aquifer well
located in this wetland; and
4. the establishment and maintenance of a buffer zone of native
upland edge vegetation around all preserved and created
wetlands.
Conservation Element Policy 6.12 and section 929.05 of the LDR's
call for the preservation of at least 15% (10% of one contiguous
"clump") of native upland plant community on site. Conservation
Element Policy 7.2 and LDR section 929.09 require a developer to
conduct an environmental survey for endangered and potentially
endangered fauna and flora, and to coordinate with the Florida Game
and Fresh Water Fish Commission and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service to protect any identified species to the extent feasible.
These Comprehensive Plan policies and LDR provisions provide upland
habitat regulatory protection, particularly relating to the
endangered hand fern documented on site.
The protection of native upland habitat and endangered species is
also addressed in the DRI Development Order. In addition to
satisfying "normal" federal, state, and county regulations, the
Developer will be required to:
1. preserve and maintain the 4.7 acre cabbage palm hammock
containing the endangered fern colony;
32
July 19, 1994
2. remove exotic vegetation from the hammock;
3. enhance the existing hydrology of the hammock;
4. prepare a habitat management plan for the hammock;
5. provide a dense landscaped buffer of 100 percent native
vegetation between the preserve area and any development on
adjacent parcels;
6. cease all activities and notify the County and the Treasure
Coast Regional Planning Council if any additional plant or
animal species of regional concern is determined to be living
on or significantly dependent on the subject property. In
such cases, appropriate protection shall be provided by the
developer before work resumes; -
7. preserve the Simpson's Stopper stand containing the "Champion
Tree"; and
8. remove all Melaleuca, Brazilian pepper, and Australian pine,
from any area of development on the site. There shall be no
planting of these species on the site.
The herein described Conservation Element Policies and LDR
provisions apply to the subject property under either the existing
or proposed future land use designations and zoning. An exception
is the portion of the subject property presently zoned A-1 (which
includes the cabbage palm hammock that supports the endangered
"hand adder's tongue fern" colony). Since agricultural operations
are largely exempt from county environmental regulations, these
areas would actually be subject to more county environmental
regulatory control if rezoned to a commercial designation.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT SUMMARY: Conservation Element Policies and
County Land Development Regulations provide sufficient protection
to ensure that the proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment and
rezoning would have no substantial adverse impact on environmental
quality. The rezoning of A-1 zoned property to commercial zoning
would provide more county environmental regulatory control. The
DRI Development order contains several provisions that enhance and
ensure the preservation of wetlands, native uplands, and endangered
species.
Consistency with Comprehensive Plan
Land use amendment requests are reviewed for consistency with all
policies of the Comprehensive Plan. As per section &00.07(1) of
the County Code, the "Comprehensive Plan may only be amended in
such a way as to preserve the internal consistency of the plan
pursuant to Section 163.3177(2)F.S." Amendments must also show
consistency with the overall designation of land uses as depicted
on the Future Land Use Map, which includes agricultural,
residential, recreational, conservation, and commercial and
industrial land uses and their densities.
The goals, objectives and policies are the most important parts of
the Comprehensive Plan. Policies are statements in the plan which
identify the action 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 --including plan amendment decisions.
While all Comprehensive Plan policies are important, some have more
applicability than others in reviewing plan amendment requests. Of
33
July 19, 1994
600X2 f,3�a ` _
particular applicability for this request are the following
policies and objectives.
- Future Land Use Element Policy 13.3
The most important policy to consider in evaluating a plan
amendment request for consistency with the county's Comprehensive
Plan is Future Land Use Element Policy 13.3. This policy requires
that one of three criteria be met in order to approve a
Comprehensive Plan land use designation amendment. These criteria
are:
• an oversight in the approved plan;
• a mistake in the approved plan; and
• a substantial change in circumstances affecting the subject
property.
Based on its analysis, staff believes that the proposed land use
amendment meets the first criterion.
As noted in the previous section, the future land use map currently
depicts only one area with a size and configuration suitable for a
regional mall facility, other than the large nodes along the
interstate (which are not suitable for a regional mall). Since
there is probably no one best site for such a facility, and to
reduce the chances of land speculation, at least one other node
should have contained vacant land with enough area and in a
configuration that meets the requirements of a regional mall
facility. Because the county's Comprehensive Plan established only
one node in the urbanized area of the county suitable to
accommodate a regional mall facility, there was an oversight in the
comprehensive plan. Therefore, the proposed amendment meets the
first criterion of Future Land Use Element Policy 13.3 and is
consistent with the policy.
- Future Land Use Element Policy 1.15
Future Land Use Element Policy 1.15 states that all commercial land
use designations must be located within the Urban Service Area.
Since the subject property is located within the Urban Service
Area, the subject request is consistent with Future Land Use
Element Policy 1.15.
- Future Land Use Element Policy 1.19
Future Land Use Element Policy 1.19 states that commercial land
uses shall be located at intersections and along roads with
functional classifications appropriate for the level of activity.
The subject property is located along two arterial roads and at
their intersection. Since arterial roads are designed to be
appropriate for commercial uses, the subject request is consistent
with Future Land Use Element Policy 1.19.
- Future Land Use Element Policy 1.20
Future Land Use Element Policy 1.20 requires that nodes be
designated at a size determined by their use, service area
population, existing land use pattern, availability of
infrastructure, and other demand characteristics. Based on the
area's land use pattern, centralized location, available
infrastructure, and proximity to the population center, expanding
the subject node to accommodate a regional mall is consistent with
Future Land Use Element Policy 1.20.
34
July 199 1994
M M
M
- Future Land Use Element Policy 1.21
Future Land Use Policy 1.21 also applies to this request. This
policy states that node boundaries are designed to eliminate
commercial strip development and urban sprawl, and to provide for
maximum use of transportation and public facilities. The subject
property, located on a corner, with access to two arterial roads
and one collector road, has ample depth as well as width. Through
the DRI Development Order, the county can ensure that the site will
be developed as a regional mall facility and in a nodal manner, as
opposed to a "Strip Center" type development. For these reasons,
the proposed amendment is consistent with Future Land Use Element
Policy 1.21. _
- Future Land Use Element Policy 1.22
Future Land Use Element Policy 1.22 prohibits node expansion closer
than 1} miles to an existing node. Under the proposed amendment,
the nearest node to the subject node would continue to be more than
11 miles from the subject node. Therefore, the proposed amendment
is consistent with Future Land Use Element Policy 1.22.
- Future Land Use Element Policy 1.23
Policy 1.23 of the Future Land Use Element states that no node
should be considered for expansion unless 70% of the land area
(less rights-of-way) is developed or approved for development with
non-agricultural and non-residential uses, or otherwise warranted
by the proposed development.
The intent of this policy is to establish specific criteria for
node expansion. Without such criteria, decisions are often
arbitrary and inconsistent. The 70% standard then is a measure of
whether a node needs to be expanded.
In compiling the county's Data Source for Commercial and Industrial
Development, staff undertook an analysis to determine the
percentage developed or approved for development of each node.
Staff proceeded with this analysis by compiling a list of all
parcels in each node, obtaining the acreage of each parcel from the
Property -Appraiser's tax maps, and aggregating these acreage
amounts. Using this method, staff determined that the total size
of the subject node is 166 acres.
Once the total node acreage was established, the next step was to
determine the percent developed with non-agricultural and non-
residential uses. Again, the staff used the Property Appraiser's
information to do this. Based upon tax and use codes, staff
determined which parcels were developed or approved for development
with non-agricultural and non-residential uses, and then calculated
the acreage of these parcels. Using this method, staff determined
that the total non -agriculturally and non -residentially developed
or approved to be developed acreage in the node was 77 acres.
Based upon this analysis, staff determined that the total non -
agriculturally and non -residentially developed land in the node
constitutes approximately 46% of the node acreage. This is less
than the 70% standard set by Future Land Use Element Policy 1.23.
This policy, however, states that a node that is less than 70%
developed may be.expanded if otherwise warranted. Policy 1.23
specifically states that otherwise warranted may include certain
conditions. One such condition is as follows:
Expansion of a node is necessary to accommodate a use
(such as a regional mall.) which has a substantial land
35
July 19, 1994
�� 6
BOOR u2 'PA.i � 931
area requirement and no alternative suitable sites are
available in existing nodes.
The purpose of the request is to accommodate .a regional mall.
Existing nodes, however, contain no alternative sites with a
sufficient amount of land in a suitable configuration for a
regional mall facility. Therefore, the proposed node meets the
above condition and is "otherwise warranted" as defined in Future
Land Use Element Policy 1.23. For this reason, the proposed
amendment is consistent with Future Land Use Element Policy 1.23.
- Future Land Use Element Policy 1.24
Future Land Use Policy 1.24 states that any property redesignated
commercial -through a land use plan amendment shall revert to its
former designation if construction on the site has -not commenced
within a two year period, unless such timeframe is modified by the
Hoard of County Commissioners as part of a development agreement.
This policy decreases land speculation, and helps ensure that
demand for additional C/I designated land is present before
requests to expand nodes are approved. It also allows for the
correction of nodes mistakenly expanded in the absence of demand
for more C/I designated land.
- Future Land Use Element Policy 2.5
Future Land Use Element Policy 2.5 states that the County shall
encourage and direct growth into the Urban Service Area. The
subject property is located within the Urban Service Area and is
undeveloped. To develop the property according the applicant's
plans, the subject property must have the requested commercial land
use designation and commercial zoning district. Therefore, the
proposed amendment will encourage development on the site and is
consistent with Future Land Use Element Policy 2.5._
- Conservation Element Objective 5
Conservation Element Objective 5 states that there will be no net
loss of the natural functions provided by wetlands or deepwater
habitats in Indian River County. Any proposed alteration of
wetlands on the subject property will require county permits,
including mitigation to ensure "no net loss" of the natural
functions of wetlands. For this reason, the proposed amendment is
consistent with Conservation Element Objective 5.
- Conservation Element Policies 6.8 and 6.12
Conservation Element Policy 6.8 requires, in conjunction with site
plan project construction, the removal of nuisance and invasive
exotic vegetation. Conservation Element Policy 6.12 requires non-
agricultural operations of five acres or more to preserve 10-15% of
on site native upland plant communities. Since these policies will
be implemented with development on the subject property under both
the proposed and the existing land use designations, the proposed
amendment is consistent with Conservation Element Policies 6.8 and
6.12.
- Conservation Element Policy 7.2
Conservation Element Policy 7.2 states that for developments on
property known to support endangered plant species, the developer
shall be required to notify state and federal agencies and to
protect the species. This policy would apply to the subject
property since the site supports an endangered hand fern colony.
The policy applies equally under both the proposed and the existing
July 199 1994
M M
land use designations. For this reason, the proposed amendment is
consistent with Conservation Element Policy 7.2.
- Economic Development Objective 1
Economic Development Objective 1 states that the county will reduce
its unemployment rate. The regional mall facility associated with
this request will provide approximately 3,074 new jobs for the
area. The developers expect the project to provide jobs for some
of those presently unemployed as well as providing opportunities
for secondary wage earners currently unable to find jobs. For
these reasons, the proposed amendment is consistent with Economic
Development Objective 1.
As part of the staff analysis
plan were considered. Based
that the proposed amendment is
plan.
CONCLUSION
all policies in
on this analysis,
consistent with
the comprehensive
staff determined
the comprehensive
Based on the analysis, staff has determined that the proposed
amendment is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, compatible
with surrounding areas, will not negatively impact environmental
quality, and meets all concurrency requirements. Impacts on the
transportation system are addressed by the DRI Development Order.
The analysis has demonstrated that regional malls are special land
uses which have minimum size requirements and highly developed
infrastructure needs. While there presently exists an oversupply
of commercially designated land in the county, the analysis has
demonstrated that inadequate sites exist for a regional mall.
Because of these factors, staff acknowledges the need to
redesignate land to accommodate a regional mall. The subject site
meets the criteria for designation of such a mall site. The
location is within an urban service area and is capable of being
served by three major roadways which, with improvements, will serve
the transportation needs of the facility. The location is also in
close proximity to the population centers of the county.
Finally, this staff report has been expanded to address the two
objections raised in DCA's ORC Report. Regarding -DCA 's first
objection, the analysis demonstrates that, as with similar requests
in the past, the county can use the DRI Development Order to ensure
that the site is developed with a regional mall rather than with
"general commercial" uses. With respect to DCA's second objection,
the analysis has been expanded to demonstrate that comprehensive
plan policies and land development regulations will protect
endangered plant species on the site under both the existing and
the proposed land use designations. Staff supports the request.
37
July 19, 1994
BOOK 92 FACE 932
'l
1
w
00
LAND USE DESIGNATION
�1 Lin 26th ST 32I L3 I
w
0
® Area of Proposed Amendment Portion of the DRI Project Area to remain
Residentially, Designated '
02
0
0
1
Director Keating explained that the public hearing to consider
the request to amend the Comprehensive Plan and redesignate and
rezone certain lands would be followed by a public hearing to
consider a request for approval of a Development Order for Indian
River Mall (DeBartolo) Development of Regional Impact (DRI). The
Comp Plan amendment depends upon the DRI development order and the
conditions contained therein, and the DRI development order
essentially cannot be approved until the Comp Plan amendment is
approved. Staff recommended that the Board hear and consider all
three issues at one time, and if the Board is so inclined, make one
motion to approve all three issues because the issues are dependent
upon each other.
Chairman Tippin asked whether the Board could receive public
input on both issues since they overlap, and Attorney Vitunac
advised that procedure would be acceptable.
Chairman Tippin asked if the applicant wanted to make any
comment.
Dick Greco, representing Edward J. DeBartolo Corporation,
preferred to reserve comment until the end of the discussion.
The Chairman opened the public hearing and asked if anyone
wished to be heard in this matter.
Mike Keifer, 1943 Charlotte Avenue, also known as 62nd Drive,
01 distributed a map showing the location of his home relative to the
proposed project. He opposed the changes in the Comp Plan and the
rezoning of the subject property. He realized the public concedes
that this project will happen, but he wished to mitigate and
minimize the impact to the surrounding neighborhood. He understood
that the developer has the right to develop his property but
adjacent neighborhoods must be protected. He doubted that a 6 -foot
opaque buffer is adequate but conceded staff has the ability to
work that out. Mr. Keifer asked the Board to strengthen the
language in the reverter clause and require the down -zoning rather
than the flexible language contained in the development order. The
language says the County will not down -zone the property before a
certain period of time and unless certain circumstances arise, and
the Board will have nine months to consider redesignation of the
property. He preferred the language "it will revert back to the
original zoning," because he would hate to see the property
developed to an intensive commercial use.
39 BOOK 92 FAGF 9.34
July 19, 1994
I
BOOK 92 PAGE 935
The Chairman determined that no one else wished to be heard
and thereupon closed the public hearing.
Director Keating explained that the reverter clause in the
development order specifies that if the project is abandoned or the
development order expires, there will be a 9 -month period during
which the applicant cannot develop any other commercial on the
property. That 9 -month period of time allows the Board of County
Commissioners the opportunity to hold public hearings and follow
procedures to redesignate the property.
Director Boling added that the 9 -month period of time
mentioned in the reverter clause provides a window of opportunity,
if the conditions are not met, for the Board to consider and decide
whether it would be more appropriate to rezone the property to
another category, like professional office, for example, rather
than revert to the original zoning category.
Commissioner Macht clarified that Mr. Keifer's request is to
change the language "may revert" to "will revert" to the original
zoning of RM -6 and A-1.
Commissioner Macht noted that Mr. Keifer also raised the issue of
opaque buffers, and he led discussion regarding the Wal-Mart
buffers which are not opaque and do not provide adequate screening
for the residents who live across the highway.
Director Boling explained that the planned buffer at Wal-Mart
did not require total screening, and the plantings were grouped to
allow for vision through the landscaping. The buffer requirements
allow two years of growth to achieve opaque buffers, and Code
Enforcement does an annual landscaping inspection.
Chairman Tippin directed staff to complete the presentation on
the second scheduled public hearing.
ORDINANCES 94-19 AND 94-20 WERE ADOPTED AT THE CONCLUSION
OF THE FOLLOWING PUBLIC HEARING
40
July 19, 1994
PUBLIC ]HEARING - REQUEST OF EDWARD T. DeBARTOLO CORP.
FOR APPROVAL OF A DEVELOPMENT ORDER FOR INDIAN
MALL DEVELOPMENT OF REGIONAL IMPACT
The hour of 9:05 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 Reach, 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 Preas•Joumal, a daily newspaper published
of Vero Beaac�c��h In Indian River County, Florida; that the attached copy or advertisement, being
In the matter of
In the- �• Court, was pub.
llshed In said newspaper In the Issues of /v//. /%
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
adverligemeW4pr publication in the said newspaper.
•s�tYtg•1AiY�hntrA>�C ��•'
�Vr-
r.ynbeforemIhia day of
A.D. 19
•.
BmUliit/F�rii>�uliTrtifu6ls earl
rn±: •�' (;C•R Jy72 State I rtmba. m Cmmwwn 1 xP J_ 29. 1817'•
`4SEnel�23LIG 'o
C rel F( C` }O':• 77,
t.
New.: ann14RA 4 EPk"rGl� ..• r
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
FOR DEVELOPMENT OF REGIONAL
IMPACT ((D.R.I.)
The Board of County Commissioners of Indian
River County hereby gives notice of a PUBLIC
HEARING to be held at 9:05 a.m. on July 19, 1994
In the County Commission Chambers of the County
Administration Building, located at 1840 25th
Streeti Vero Beach, Florida. The subject of the
hearing is a proposal by the Edward J. DeBartolo
Corporation to develop a project to be known as
the Indian River Mall. The project Is to consist of a
r I mail, community shopping center, and pe -
rip ral commercial development all totalling ap-
proximately 1,500,000 square feet of gross building
area. The total D.R.I. site area consists of +-164.5
acres located on the east side of 66th Avenue be-
tween S.R. 60 and 26th Street (see location map).
AB documents pertaining to this D.R.I. request are
filed In the Indian River County Planning Division,
2nd floor of the County Administration Building lo-
cated at 1840 25th Street, Vero Beach, 2'rlda.
Documents may be reviewed by members of the
public during normal business hours. An members
of the public are invited to attend and participate In
the public hearing. This official public notice is
hereby gIv�n b yf the Board of Commission-
ers of Indian giver County, Florida, that the Board
Intends to conduct a public hearing pursuant to
Chapter 380.06 Florida Statutes for the referenced
D.R.I. approval request.
This notice Is being published at least sixty (60)
days In advance of the public hearing by the Board
of County Commissioners of Indian River County,
Florida, and Is In addition to any required public,
no"s) of local public hearings to be conducted by,
the Board of County Commissioners pursuant to
notice and public hearing provisions of the Code of
Law and Ordinances of Indian River County,. Flor-
ida, where applicable.
This notice is being provided to the Departrnent of
Community Affairs of the State of . IF orida; • the
Treasure Coast Regional Plannit�uncil; St.
Johns River Water Management • Depart-
ment of Environmental Protection; State of Florida
Department of Transportation; the City of Vero
Beach; the Town of Indian River Shores; the City of
Sebastian, the Town of Orchid; the Town of Falls -
mere; and the Counties of Brevard and St. Lune.
If any person derides to appeal any decision made
on the above matter, he/she wM need a record of
the proceedings, and for such purpose, he/she may
need to ensure that a verbatim record of the pro-
CeWings Is made, which includes testirrt.ny and
evidence upon which the appeal is based. The
County does not provide or prepare such record.
ANYONE WHO NEEDS A SPECIAL ACCOMMODA-
TION FOR ' THIS MEETING MUST CONTACT THE
COUNTY'S AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT
(ADA) COORDINATOR AT 567-8000 X 223 AT
LEAST 48 HOURS IN ADVANCE OF MEETING.
May 16.1994' 1099206
Planning Director Stan Boling made the following presentation:
41
July 19, 1994
Pm, 9th mcF-3"6
( Subject Sit �JL
}
IT
A
m
..F
.•�Kp,
I
••3:'.`,
.til.:.
t': 3i;{¢iti:
CIA
m
STATE
a-1
(ri
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
FOR DEVELOPMENT OF REGIONAL
IMPACT ((D.R.I.)
The Board of County Commissioners of Indian
River County hereby gives notice of a PUBLIC
HEARING to be held at 9:05 a.m. on July 19, 1994
In the County Commission Chambers of the County
Administration Building, located at 1840 25th
Streeti Vero Beach, Florida. The subject of the
hearing is a proposal by the Edward J. DeBartolo
Corporation to develop a project to be known as
the Indian River Mall. The project Is to consist of a
r I mail, community shopping center, and pe -
rip ral commercial development all totalling ap-
proximately 1,500,000 square feet of gross building
area. The total D.R.I. site area consists of +-164.5
acres located on the east side of 66th Avenue be-
tween S.R. 60 and 26th Street (see location map).
AB documents pertaining to this D.R.I. request are
filed In the Indian River County Planning Division,
2nd floor of the County Administration Building lo-
cated at 1840 25th Street, Vero Beach, 2'rlda.
Documents may be reviewed by members of the
public during normal business hours. An members
of the public are invited to attend and participate In
the public hearing. This official public notice is
hereby gIv�n b yf the Board of Commission-
ers of Indian giver County, Florida, that the Board
Intends to conduct a public hearing pursuant to
Chapter 380.06 Florida Statutes for the referenced
D.R.I. approval request.
This notice Is being published at least sixty (60)
days In advance of the public hearing by the Board
of County Commissioners of Indian River County,
Florida, and Is In addition to any required public,
no"s) of local public hearings to be conducted by,
the Board of County Commissioners pursuant to
notice and public hearing provisions of the Code of
Law and Ordinances of Indian River County,. Flor-
ida, where applicable.
This notice is being provided to the Departrnent of
Community Affairs of the State of . IF orida; • the
Treasure Coast Regional Plannit�uncil; St.
Johns River Water Management • Depart-
ment of Environmental Protection; State of Florida
Department of Transportation; the City of Vero
Beach; the Town of Indian River Shores; the City of
Sebastian, the Town of Orchid; the Town of Falls -
mere; and the Counties of Brevard and St. Lune.
If any person derides to appeal any decision made
on the above matter, he/she wM need a record of
the proceedings, and for such purpose, he/she may
need to ensure that a verbatim record of the pro-
CeWings Is made, which includes testirrt.ny and
evidence upon which the appeal is based. The
County does not provide or prepare such record.
ANYONE WHO NEEDS A SPECIAL ACCOMMODA-
TION FOR ' THIS MEETING MUST CONTACT THE
COUNTY'S AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT
(ADA) COORDINATOR AT 567-8000 X 223 AT
LEAST 48 HOURS IN ADVANCE OF MEETING.
May 16.1994' 1099206
Planning Director Stan Boling made the following presentation:
41
July 19, 1994
Pm, 9th mcF-3"6
F_
BOOM 92 PAPA,37
TO: James E. Chandler
County Administrator
DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE:
Robert M. Rea ng, CP
Community De�lvv lopm t Director
FROM: Stan Boling, AICP
Planning Director
DATE: July 13, 1994
SUBJECT: Edward J. DeBartolo Corporation's Request for Approval of
a Development Order for the Indian River Mall (DeBartolo)
Development of Regional Impact (DRI)
It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal
consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at its regular
meeting of July 19, 1994.
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS:
*project Proposal, History & DRI Considerations
The Edward J. DeBartolo Corporation has applied for approval of a
project known as Indian River Mall (see attachment #3). The Indian
River Mall is a proposed large commercial development consisting of
approximately 1,500,000 square feet of gross building area, to be
located on ±164.5 acres between S.R. 60 and 26th Street, east of
66th Avenue ( see attachment #1) . Its scale and scope are such that
the project requires development of regional impact (DRI) review
pursuant to Florida Statutes Chapter 380.06.
During 1989 and 1990, the applicant sought DRI approval for
essentially the same project (1,100,000 square feet of building
area on ±156 acres at the same location). In 1990, however, the
applicant withdrew all project -related applications prior to final
action by the Board of County Commissioners. It should be noted
that the Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council (TCRPC), Planning
and Zoning Commission, and county staff had recommended conditional
approval of the 1989/90 DRI request.
The DRI request now under consideration is a new application,
totally distinct from the previous application. I -n conjunction
with the present DRI request, the applicant is also seeking a
comprehensive plan amendment and rezoning. The Planning and Zoning
Commission has already considered these other two requests and has
recommended that the Board of County Commissioners approve these
requests. The Board of County Commissioners previously reviewed
the comprehensive plan amendment request and voted to transmit the
request to DCA for its review and comment. The DRI request is to
be considered by the Board of County Commissioners in conjunction
with the comprehensive plan amendment and rezoning requests.
The purpose of the DRI process is to provide a mechanism to review
large projects from a regional perspective, culminating in an
July 199 1994
42
assessment report by the regional planning council of the
anticipated regional impacts of the project and recommendations to
mitigate any adverse impacts of the project. Supplied to the local
government of jurisdiction, this regional assessment report
provides a basis for the local government to draft a development
order (D.O.) for the project. The D.O. establishes parameters and
conditions that govern all subsequent project plans (such as site
plans) and development.
Overall, the DRI process gives area governments and agencies that
do not have jurisdiction over the project a chance to review and
comment on the project. The DRI process also provides the State
Department of -Community Affairs (DCA), the project applicant, and
affected parties an opportunity to appeal any local government
actions taken in connection with the application for DRI approval.
•Regional Planning Council Review
The Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council (T.C.R.P.C.) has
coordinated the review of the Indian River Mall project and has
submitted, in the form of official recommendations, an assessment
of the regional impacts of the project. In coordinating the first
part of the DRI review process, the Planning Council followed these
general steps:
(8/5/93) 1. Pre -application conference with applicant,
T.C.R.P.C., county, and other affected agencies and
government entities;
(12/20/93)2. Formal application for development approval (ADA),
including proposals and supporting information;
(Jan -Mar) 3. "Sufficiency" review process involving all affected
agencies and government entities and their
submittal of comments and questions regarding the
ADA;
(Feb -Apr) 4. Responses from the applicant;
(5/02/94)_5. T.C.R.P.C. notification to the County that, by
request of the applicant, the sufficiency review
process is closed;
(6/17/94) 6. T.C.R.P.C. public hearing on the project; approval
of a report and recommendations regarding the
regional impacts of the project;
_ [Note: At its June 17, 1994 meeting, the
T.C.R.P.C. recommended that the county -incorporate
a number of approval conditions into its D.O.
Most of these are included in county staff's
proposed D.O.; see attachment V.]
(6/24/94) 7. T.C.R.P.C. transmittal of its official report and
recommendations to the County.
•Local Government Review
(6/23/94) 1. [Required by county LDRs] Planning and Zoning
Commission consideration of T.C.R.P.C. and County
staff recommendations; approval of a recommendation
to the Hoard of County Commissioners.
[Note: At its meeting of June 23, 1994, the
Planning.and Zoning Commission recommended that the
43
July 19, 1994
BOOK92
.
BOOK 92 FA,E 939
Board of County Commissioners approve the DRI
request with the conditions included in the
recommended D.O.; see attachments #7 & #8.]
(7/19/94) 2. Board of County Commissioners consideration of the
DRI request and T.C.R.P.C., Planning and Zoning
Commission, and staff recommendations. If it so
desires, the Board may approve the request with
conditions.
3. If approved, the D.O. resolution is then recorded
in the public records.
4. The issued D.O. is transmitted to the State,
T.C.R.P.C., and the developer. Within 45 days
after the order is issued, the State, T.C.R.P.C.,
the developer, or any aggrieved party may appeal
the order to the Florida Land and Water
Adjudicatory Commission. This would trigger the
D.O. appeal process set forth in the Florida
Statutes.
5. The developer obtains site plan approval for
various phases of the project (only Planning and
Zoning Commission approval required).
6. The County monitors the progress of the project to
ensure that the terms of the D.O. are met. No
local development approvals or permits that
.conflict with the approved D.O. are to be issued.
7. The developer submits a required annual DRI report
to the County, T.C.R.P.C., and the State. The
report aids in the monitoring of the project's
progress.
•Planning and Zoning Commission Review
In accordance with LDR section 916.05, the Planning and Zoning
Commission considered the DRI request and a draft D.O. resolution
(see attachment #8). The Planning and Zoning Commission voted to
recommend that the Board of County Commissioners approve the DRI
request with the conditions contained in the proposed D.O.
resolution. It should be noted that, more than 10 days prior to
the June 23, 1994 Planning and Zoning Commission meeting, a
courtesy notice regarding both the June 23, 1994 Planning and
Zoning Commission meeting and the July 19, 1994 Board of County
Commissioners meeting was sent to property owners within 300' of
the DRI project site.
*Board of County Commissioners Review
The Board of County Commissioners is now to consider the DRI
request, in conjunction with the previously referenced
comprehensive plan amendment and rezoning requests. Approval of
the D.O. resolution (see attachment #7), with the conditions
contained therein, would constitute approval of the DRI request.
OVERVIEW OF THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT:
The proposed project is located between S.R. 60 and 26th Street,
east of 66th Avenue (see attachment #1). The site contains a
variety of existing vegetative communities. Large portions of the
site contain old groves interspersed with some large oaks, while
44
July 19, 1994
M M M
wetlands with adjacent hardwood uplands exist along the eastern
portion of the site. A +/- 5.1 acre cabbage palm hammock, as well
as a cluster of significant Simpson Stoppers, including the
County's only recognized champion tree, also exist on the site.
The project is summarized as follows:
1. Size of Various Project Areas:
• Total contiguous property owned by applicant: ±215 acres
• Actual D.R.I. area of development: ±164.5 acres
• Conservation Area #1:
-preserved wetlands: 8.5 acres
-wetland mitigation area: 4`.6 acres
-lake banks & tree preservation area: 9.7 acres
-stormwater lakes: 13.1 acres
TOTAL: 35.9 acres
• Conservation Area #2:
-cabbage palm/oak.hammock: 4.7 acres
TOTAL 4.7 acres
2. Existing and Proposed Zoning/CLUP*:
Existing: A-1 (Agricultural), RM -6 (Residential Multi -family
up to 6 units per acre). RS -6 (Residential Single-family up to
6 units per acre); all within an M-1 (Medium Density
Residential) designated area.
Proposed: all DRI areas to be rezoned to CG (General
Commercial) except the ±35.3 acre wetland/detention area along
the eastern boundary of the site ("Conservation Area #111);
all areas proposed for commercial zoning to be re -designated
C/I as part of the S.R. 60/58th Avenue commercial node.
*(Actual area of development)
3. Surrounding Uses:
North: 26th Street/Groves, residential
South: S.R. 60/Commercial, residential
East: vacant, residential, commercial
West: 66th Avenue/Residential (Vista Plantation), Commercial
(strip center)
4. Proposed Commercial Uses (see attachment #3):
•Regional Mall Facility:
945,364
sq.
ft.
gross
floor area
•Community Shopping Center:
404,979
sq.
ft.
gross
floor area
•Peripheral Sites (out -parcels):
166,831
sq.
ft.
gross
floor area
TOTAL:
1,517,174
sq.
ft.
gross
floor area
*Note: The applicant's request includes an allowance to
increase or decrease by 20% the 945,364 square feet of
regional mall facility compared to the other commercial areas.
Thus, the mall facility, itself, could range in size from
756,291 square feet to 1,134,437 square feet. The non -mall
floor area would change to off -set the change in mall floor
area. Under any circumstances, the 1,517,174 sq. ft. floor
area maximum would apply.
5. Development Period: 1994-1999; impact analysis based on
build -out by December 31, 1999.
45
July 19, 1994 B.,OK � .
� 9� P� E J4
BOOK
ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS:
*General Approach of the D.O.
9 mE 941
Hundreds of pages of descriptions and analyses are contained in the
ADA and supplemental reports which are incorporated by reference
into the D.O. (NOTE: all of these materials are available for
inspection at the Planning Division office]. Once approved, the
D.O. will set the basic parameters of the development and specify
conditions that must be satisfied to mitigate anticipated potential
negative impacts caused by construction and operation of the
project.
County staff has drafted a D.O. that closely resembles the staff
report and recommendations of the T.C.R.P.C., but more specifically
addresses several local issues. The proposed development order
(see attachment #7) is structured to tie specific conditions to a
particular and definable step in the county's development approval
and monitoring process.
It should be noted that adoption of the D.O. will constitute
project approval, after which only major site plan approval will be
required. Thus, unless the Board of County Commissioners otherwise
dictates (via an added D.O. condition), the Planning and Zoning
Commission will have final approval authority for the detailed site
planning of this project.
PROPOSED D.O. CONDITIONS
The staff -recommended D.O. is attached to this report (see
attachment #7).. As proposed, the D.O. would be effective for a
period of 20 years, but would lapse if construction was not
initiated within three years of the effective date, unless amended.
The following is a synopsis and explanation of the various topical
sections covered in the recommended D.O.
1.
standard D.O. resolution wording
proposal and findings of fact.
concurrency and is discussed in
report. This section also
regarding the general project
One of the findings involves
more detail later on in this
references the developer's
application information and analyses.
2. Commencement & Progress of Development: This section states
that, if construction of any portion of the project has not
commenced within three (3) years of D.O. approval, then the
approval terminates. As with the Harbor Town Center Mall
project, ,the primary justification for approval of the Indian
River Mall project (including the comprehensive plan amendment
and rezoning) is construction of a regional mall rather than
the non -mall aspects of the project. Thus, the D.O. should
ensure that the mall is built first, and should also ensure
that, if no mall is built, the county can consider down -zoning
the property to a non-commercial use. Therefore, in the same
manner as conditions attached to the Harbor Town Center Mall
approval, the following conditions are included in the Indian
River Mall D.O.:
Submittal of a mall site plan by 1/19/97
Prohibition on issuing building permits for non -mall
buildings until 50% of the mall is constructed
Commencement of mall construction by 12/31/97
Continuation and completion of mall construction, once
commenced
46
July 199 1994
s
In the event these conditions are not met and DRI
approval terminates, no other development approval shall
be given for 9 months so that the county may consider
rezoning and redesignating the site during the 9 month
period.
3. Transfer of Approval: This section ensures that the project
as a whole would remain unified as to the commitments,
conditions, and obligations of the development order in the
event that portions were sold -off. This transfer of approval
provision is similar to the transfer provision contained in
the county's subdivision and site plan ordinances, and is
similar to a condition included in the Harbor Town Center Mall
D.O.
4. Air Quality and Alternative Transportation Modes: The first
several conditions in this section are intended to ensure that
the project is designed to accommodate any future mass transit
system (e.g. bus service) and to ensure that the project
encourages the use of ride -sharing and any future mass transit
system.
The rest of these conditions, as well as the application of
the county's tree protection and landclearing LDRs during site
plan review, address dust and erosion problems that could
arise during construction. These conditions will be
incorporated into the land clearing and tree removal permits
that the planning division issues prior to development.
5. Historic and Archaeological Sites: This section's condition
requires -the developer, upon discovery of artifacts, to
contact the State and arrange for proper protection of such
artifacts.
6. Wetlands: An 8.7 acre mixed hardwood wetland area (currently
re -charged by a flow well) exists on site and is to be
preserved and enhanced by several specific developer actions.
Approximately 3.0 acres of wetland area (located south of the
primary hardwood wetland) is to be filled. A wetland
mitigation plan is required to be approved by the county and
the St. Johns River Water Management District in consultation
with the T.C.R.P.0 prior to any filling or alteration of the
wetland area.
Also, the Development Order requires native upland edge
vegetation around all created and preserved wetland areas. In
addition, any wet stormwater management tracts will require
littoral zone plantings. Lastly, a road right-of-way is to be
reserved where an existing dirt road traverses the wetland
area. This right-of-way will accommodate future vehicular and
pedestrian connection of the commercial area to the future
development of the currently vacant, residentially designated
property located between the DRI site and 26th Street.
7. Habitat Preservation: Approximately 4.7 acres of a +/-5.1
acre cabbage palm hammock are to be preserved to meet the
T.C.R.P.C.'s and County's native vegetation preservation
policies, to preserve the endangered handfern plants which are
located in the palms, and to provide an aesthetic break in the
project's commercial frontage along S.R. 60.
Temporary construction barriers will be required around the
"champion tree" Simpson Stopper cluster located on site, and
around preserve areas to protect these areas from possible
damage during construction. Approval of a management plan for
47
July 19, 1994
80oF 92 PnE 942
Fr -
BOOK 92 PAGE 943
the preserve area is required. Lastly, buffers of native
vegetation shall be planted around the 4.7 acre hammock
preserve to protect the preserve from abutting development.
In addition, the stand of Simpson Stopper is required to be
preserved.
8. Species of Regional Concern and Exotic Species: In the event
it is discovered that previously unidentified species of
regional concern exist on site, the developer shall cease
activities that could negatively impact such species until
proper protection measures can be formulated and approved by
the County and the T. C. R. P. C. in consultation with the US Fish
and Wildlife Service and the Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish
Commission.
9. Exotic Species: As required by county LDRs, exotic species
are required to be removed from the project site.
10. Drainage: Various water quality measures such as water table
level management, use of pervious parking area materials, use
of littoral zones, and filtration are to be considered by the
developer in the project design and are to be used to the
maximum extent possible. Also, the developer is -encouraged to
use the county's allowance for constructing up to 25% of the
mall's parking spaces as unpaved, stabilized sodded areas.
11. Hazardous Materials and Waste: A hazardous materials
management plan is required to be submitted by the applicant,
and must be reviewed and approved by the county, St. Johns
River Water Management District, and the Florida Department of
Environmental Protection prior to site plan release. Also,,.
all site plans are to be consistent with any adopted state or
county wellfield protection ordinances.
12. Water Supply and Wastewater: The conditions in these sections
restrict the use of certain sources for irrigation water,
encourage water conservation, regulate the use of existing on-
site wells, and ensure adequate potable water and wastewater
treatment capacity and service.
13. Solid Waste: The developer is required to participate in any
solid waste stream reduction/recycling plan program
implemented by the County Utility Services Department.
14. Police and Fire Protection: As within the Harbor Town Center
Mall D.O., conditions are proposed that require confirmation
from the Sheriff's Office, prior to building permit issuance,
regarding law enforcement provisions to serve the project.
The developer is also required to coordinate with the
Sheriff's Department and have a site security system in place
prior to site plan release for construction. It should be
noted that during the sufficiency review process, no comments
were received from the Sheriff's Office, and no special
exactions are required in the proposed D.O. Sheriff's Office
staff have indicated that the developer will need to meet with
them during the time of site plan review, to review site plan
specific security concerns.
The last condition in this -section requires verification from
the County Emergency Services Department that sufficient
manpower and equipment exist to handle the development
impacts. Emergency Management has indicated in writing that
no specific exactions are required, and the D.O. proposes no
exactions for fire protection.
July 199 1994
48
15. Energy: These conditions require an energy-efficient project
design.
16. Transportation: All traffic conditions have been established
Eased on analyses performed by the applicant and reviewed by
FDOT, TCRPC, and county traffic engineering. The analyses are
based upon project build -out by December 31, 1999. The D.O.
conditions specify the roadway, intersection, and
signalization improvements needed to accommodate the project
impacts, and the timeframes for beginning and completing the
improvements. Although the project will probably not be built
all at_ once, conditions involving specific roadway
improvements to S.R. 60, 58th Avenue, 26th Street, and various
intersections are tied to the project's initial building
permit and certificate of occupancy (C.O.). Please refer to
D.O. conditions 41, 42, and 44 (see attachment #7). Prior to
the issuance of the first project C.O., the following
improvements must be in place and operational:
a. S.R. 60 six-laning from 58th Avenue to 66th Avenue
b. Paving 26th Street from 58th Avenue to 66th Avenue
c. S.R. 60/Access "F" driveway intersection improvements
d. 26th Street/Access "A" driveway intersection improvements
Prior to issuance of the first project C.O., the following
improvements must be under construction (or complete):
a. 58th Avenue four laning from 26th Street to S.R. 60
b. 58th Avenue four laning from S.R. 60 to 16th Street
Other intersections and roadway improvements, as well as
monitoring requirements, are included in the D.O., and are
summarized in attachment #6 of this report.
As with other D.O.'s, a "safety net" condition is included
(#51) which stops the issuance of all project building permits
after December 31, 1999, unless the developer provides an
updated traffic analysis and the analysis is approved by the
county, FDOT, and TCRPC in consultation with the City of Vero
Beach. Specific construction and timing provisions for any
identified additional traffic improvements would need to be
agreed upon prior to the issuance of any further building
permits.
Traffic condition #40 provides a means of minimizing the
future expansion of 66th Avenue westward into the Vista
Plantation golf course. It should be noted that the project
does not require expansion of 66th Avenue other than for a
project driveway turn lane. D.O. condition #40 will allow for
future canal maintenance (by Indian River Farms Water Control
District) to be performed from the east (mall) side of Lateral
"A", rather than along the west side next to 66th Avenue.
This shift in maintenance access may, in the future, allow use
of a portion of the Lateral "A" canal right-of-way for 66th
Avenue road expansion purposes. Use of some of the canal
right-of-way could minimize the amount of 66th Avenue future
right-of-way expansion; however, it should be noted that
Public Works staff indicate that, at some future date, road
right-of-way reserved over portions of the Vista Plantation
golf course will be needed when 66th Avenue is expanded.
17. Bufferina and Open Space: Because of the size of the project
and the corresponding massive parking areas that would be
unique to such a project, county staff has expressed concerns
to the developer about the importance. of landscaping, as well
49
July 199 1994 EooK 92 PAE,904
BOOK 92 PAGE 945
as the visual impact that aregq.c»i mall would have on the
community's image, the S'.R.' 60, corridor and adjacent areas.
In staff's opinion, buffering should be required to mitigate
a strip commercial appearance along the project boundaries.
The wetlands/detention area will provide a buffer of existing
hardwood vegetation along the northern and eastern border of
the project and will be designated as permanent open space.
The D.O. requires buffers (existing and/or planted vegetation)
along the project's S.R. 60, 66th Avenue, and 26th Street
borders. The buffers would be required where (and when)
development comes within 300' of any of these road rights-of-
way.
Additionally, buffers are required (by applying the County's
land development regulations) between commercial projects and
adjacent residentially zoned areas, such as Waklace Acres to
the south and Rivera Estates to the east. Thus, where
preservation of existing vegetation is insufficient to meet
county buffering standards, buffer improvements will be
required during the site plan review, approval, and
development process.
18. TCRPC Recommendations Not Included: The proposed D.O. does
not contain a few recommendations contained in the TCRPC staf f
report. These conditions (#10, 53, 54, & 55 from the TCRPC
report) contain advisory recommendations that cannot be tied
to the county's development and review process or
recommendations that are covered by other D.O. conditions. It
should be noted that the Regional Planning Council's
recommendation for a city/county workshop on the Indian River
Mall impacts (TCRPC condition #55) was satisfied on July 7,
1994, when such a workshop was held at City Hall.
19. Concurrency: The developer has indicated that it will seek a
specific agreement with the county to spell -out the
developer's commitments to construct necossary identified
traffic improvements and the county's commitment to its
Capital Improvements Program which includes some of the
necessary traffic improvements. Such an agreement would
require Board of County Commissioners approval and would be
incorporated into the D.O. by a future D.O. amendment. The
D.O. contains a "finding of fact" (see paragraph 5., bottom of
P. 1, attachment #7) stating that conditional concurrency
requirements for drainage, solid waste, water, wastewater,
recreation, and transportation are satisfied for the project.
The finding further states that implementing the D.O. road
improvements conditions via a developers agreement with the
county will satisfy the county's initial concurrency
transportation requirements. At a minimum, the developer will
be required to pay its fair share of traffic impact fees
either directly (cash), indirectly (credit for improvements),
or a combination of these.
SUMMARY
All anticipated impacts of the proposed project which were
identified during the ADA review are addressed in the proposed D.O.
As structured, the proposed D.O. includes the T.C.R.P.C.
recommendations with some modifications. County staff has
coordinated with the applicant, T.C.R.P.C., and DCA regarding the
proposed D.O., and has tried to address comments from all parties.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners approve the
proposed development order resolution, approving the Indian River
Mall D.R.I.
50
July 199 1994
Director Boling pointed out that the developer will be
required to dedicate an easement around 26th Street and 66th Avenue
for use by the drainage district for maintenance purposes. That
provides more easement on the east side of 66nd Avenue and means
there will be less right-of-way or easement needed on the west side
of 66th Avenue when that roadway is expanded in the future. The
developer is also required to pave 26th Street. There have been
letters and calls from property owners expressing concern regarding
the cost of paving 26th Street. The recommended procedure is for
the property owners on the north side of 26th Street to donate
right-of-way as their contribution to the project, the County to
contribute as normal to petition paving and the developer to
contribute actual funds. Property owners were concerned about
utilities also, and Director Boling reported that the Utilities
Department confirmed that a water line will be installed down 26th
Street from 58th Avenue west to Indian River Estates, but property
owners will not pay any costs or fees until they actually hook up
to the water line.
Director Boling distributed revisions to the development
order. He explained that the revisions were generated by the
Florida Department of Community Affairs within the past'few days
and as late as 24 hours before the meeting. Their excuse was that
they are in the middle of staff changes and were unable to look at
the development order.
The Chairman opened the public hearing and asked if anyone
wished to be heard in this matter.
Pete Perlick, 5985 23rd Street, Rivera Estates, requested a
pedestrian walkway from Rivera Estates Subdivision to the shopping
mall. He asked, and Director Boling confirmed that there is one
entrance to the mall from 26th Street.
Discussion ensued regarding pedestrian access to the mall, and
Director Boling indicated on the graphic the present locations of
sidewalks and entrances to the mall.
Chairman Tippin assured Mr. Perlick that his request is on the
record and will be addressed during site planning.
William Roolage, 11 Vista Gardens Trail, complained that the
public could not follow the presentation because no one was
pointing to the maps and graphics during staff's presentation. He
suggested it is time for the Board to update the maps and other
51
July 19, 1994 MO�. Z12 FAu 94
graphics used in presentations. Mr. Koolage was concerned about
buffers and barriers and urged the Board to consider those items
carefully. He noticed a number of people in the audience and did
not know if they all were in favor of the mall, but he stressed
that it is the Board's responsibility to inform the public of all
details of developments like this and to protect citizens who buy
property in or near developments where a property is set aside for
commercial use.
Edward -Waddell, 6050 26th Street, asked how much property he
can expect to lose, because as far as he was concerned the road is
wide enough for two-way traffic.
Public Works Director Jim Davis explained that the ultimate
right-of-way for 26th Street as a secondary collector road on our
Thoroughfare Plan is 80 feet. Presently, the right-of-way adjacent
to Lateral A Canal is 30 feet. We require 30 feet right-of-way on
the north side of 26th Street for this project with the possibility
of an additional 20 feet in the future. Initially, we will try to
design it within a 60 -foot right-of-way with the exception of the
driveway to the project where we need a left turn lane, and that
requires 80 feet of right-of-way.
Commissioner Bird explained that the road improvement will ,
require approximately 30 feet on the north side of 26th Street, and
that is to create a two-lane paved road with swale ditches for
drainage. It will be a normal county road, not a major highway.
Commissioner Bird pointed out that the residents on 26th
Street need more detailed plans before they can say they are in
favor of it or not. He was not convinced that we should not buy
the right-of-way rather than requiring the owners to donate it.
Director Boling explained that the development order requires
26th Street to be paved, and the developer is responsible for that.
The developer's agreement will be presented to the Board and the
Board can review the alternatives.
Chairman Tippin noted that paving 26th Street is on our
Thoroughfare Plan regardless of the mall.
Mike Keifer, 1943 Charlotte Avenue, also known as 62nd Drive,
opposed the project. He would not oppose the mall if it were
somewhere else, but it is close to his home, and he offered some
suggestions to lessen the impact on the neighborhood. Mr. Keifer
circulated photographs to the Board members and described the
shoulder on the south side of SR -60 which was not designed to
52
July 19, 1994
handle load-bearing traffic. Residents who live on the six unpaved
residential roads are forced to drive on the shoulder in order to
slow down enough to turn onto the unpaved roads. Exiting the
residential roads onto SR -60 is dangerous because of limited
visibility. He asked the Board to consider the following: a
service road parallel to SR -60 to allow traffic to get off the
highway; a continuous right turn lane on SR -60 along the area of
the six driveways; paving the roadway aprons to county road
standards; closing the access at SR -60 and creating an alternative
access to the south of the properties. Mr. Keifer was concerned
about the safety of the children and suggested a turn -out for
school bus stops. He also suggested barriers to reduce noise. He
asked that the developer be required to mitigate any future
drainage problems. He urged the Board to require that road
improvements be completed before issuing a building permit to the
developer to minimize the impact on traffic in the neighborhood.
Mr. Keifer asked the Board to strengthen the language in the
reverter clause and require the down -zoning rather than the
flexible language contained in the development order. The language
says the County will not down -zone the property before a certain
period of time and unless certain circumstances arise, and the
Board will have nine months to consider redesignation of the
property. He preferred the language "it will revert back to the
original zoning," because he would hate to see the property
developed to an intensive commercial use. He was concerned that if
the development order terminates, the developer could put up a car
lot or some other commercial structure.
Director Keating explained that the developer would be
precluded from any activity during the nine month interval when the
Commission would have the opportunity to redesignate the property.
In response to Mr. Keifer's suggestions, Director Davis
advised that improving the access at the six local roads, like
paving the aprons, would be simple and perhaps the DOT permit will
require that anyway. The suggestion of a turning lane along the
area of the six roadways will be accomplished with the widening of
SR -60 to six lanes. Director Davis was not sure all the residents
would agree to close the access from these unpaved roads onto SR -60
and create access to the south of the properties could give them an
alternative access to 16th Street, and he suggested that Mr. Keifer
initiate a petition for that.
Commissioner Macht observed that we must coordinate with the
School Board regarding the bus stops.
53
July 19, 1994
L, I
hoax 92 FnE 949
Regarding the drainage, Director Davis did not anticipate that
a mall on the north side of SR -60 would affect the drainage on the
south side of that roadway. The mall will retain stormwater and
must meet the Indian River Farms Water Control District's limited
discharge criteria, which may improve drainage in the whole area.
The road improvements in close proximity to the mall will be
completed before a Certificate of Occupancy (C.O.) is issued.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously adopted
Ordinance 94-19 amending the Land Use Element of the
Comprehensive Plan by enlarging the SR -60 and 58th
Avenue Commercial/Industrial Node from 166 acres to
296 acres.
ORDINANCE NO. 94-19
AN ORDINANCE OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, AMENDING THE
LAND USE ELEMENT OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN BY ENLARGING THE
S.R. 60 AND 58TH AVENUE COMMERCIAL/ INDUSTRIAL NODE FROM 166
ACRES TO 296 ACRES, AND PROVIDING SEVERABILITY AND EFFECTIVE
DATE.
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners adopted the Indian
River County Comprehensive Plan on February 13, 1990, and
WHEREAS, the Local Planning Agency held a public hearing on
this comprehensive plan amendment request on February 10, 1994,
after due public notice, and
WHEREAS, the Local Planning Agency reviewed this comprehensive
plan amendment request and made a recommendation to the Board of
County Commissioners, and
WHEREAS, The Board of County Commissioners of Indian River
County held a Transmittal Public Hearing on March 1, 1994 after
advertising pursuant to F.S. 163.3184(15)(b)(1) and (c), and
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners approved the
transmittal of this comprehensive plan amendment to the Florida
Department of Community Affairs for their review and comment, and
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners announced at the
transmittal public hearing its intention to hold and advertise a
final public hearing at the adoption stage of this plan amendment,
and
54
July 19, 1994
ORDINANCE NO. 94- 19
WHEREAS, the Florida Department of Community Affairs received
this Comprehensive Plan Amendment on March 18, 1994, for the State
review pursuant to F.S.163.3184(4), and
WHEREAS, Indian River County received the Objections,
Recommendations, and Comments (ORC) Report from the Florida
Department of Community Affairs on May 23, 1994, and
WHEREAS, Indian River County revised the data and analysis
supporting this comprehensive plan amendment in response to the
ORC Report and pursuant to F.S. 163.3184(7), and
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River
County held a Comprehensive Plan Amendment Adoption Public Hearing
on July 19, 1994, after advertising pursuant to
F.S.163.3184(15)(b)(2) and (c);
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED, by the Board of County
Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, that:
SECTION 1. Comprehensive Plan Amendment Adoption and
- Transmittal
The amendment to the Indian River County Comprehensive Plan
identified in section 2 is hereby adopted, and five (5) copies are
directed to be transmitted to the State of Florida Department of
Community Af fairs and one (1) copy is directed to be transmitted to
the Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council.
SECTION 2. Amendments to the Comprehensive Plan
The land use designation of the following described property
situated in Indian River County, Florida to wit:
Beginning at a point being 50.0 feet east and 30.0 feet south
of the northwest corner of the northwest one-quarter of
section 5, township 33 south, range 39 east; run parallel to
the north line of said section 5, S 890 52' 28" E a distance
of 614.00 feet to the principal point and place of beginning
of the following description:
55
July 19, 1994
d00 "J 2PAGE
BOOK 92 FACE 951
ORDINANCE NO. 94-19
Thence S 890 52' 28" E, 72.00 feet to a point; thence S 000
07' 32" W, 425.00 feet to a point; thence S 440 52' 28" E,
35.36 feet to a point: thence S 890 52' 28" E, 310.00 feet to
a point; thence S 680 00' 00" E, a distance of 165.00 feet to
a point; thence S 780 00' 00" E, a distance of 100.00 feet to
a point; thence S 890 52' 28" E, a distance of 325.00 feet to
a point; thence S 620 00' 00" E, a distance of 715.00 feet to
a point; thence S 400 30' 00" E, a distance of 566.67 feet to
a point; thence S 490 43' 56" E, a distance of 416.46 feet to
a point; thence S 660 53' 54" E, a distance of 45.00 feet to
a point; thence S 890 53' 54" E, a distance of 290.00 feet to
a point; thence N 510 10' 06" E, a distance of 127.09 feet to
a point; thence S 890 52' 48" E, a distance of 590.00 feet to
a point; thence S 000 07' 12" W, a distance of 943.69 feet to
a point on north right-of-way line of State Road 60 Highway;
thence run N 890 53' 54" W along said north right-of-way line
a distance of 1326.17 feet; thence run S 890 52' 37" W a
distance of 709.12 feet to a point of intersection with the
southerly extension of the west boundary line of Wallace Acres
Subdivision, as recorded in Plat Book 7, page 12 Public
Records of Indian River County, Florida, and said north right-
of-way; thence run N 00o 02' 44" E along said west boundary
line a distance of 494.52 feet to the northeast corner of said
subdivision; thence run N 890 50' 24" W along the north
boundary line a distance 619.04 feet to a point; thence run S
000 02' 43" W a distance of 497.58 feet to the said north
right-of-way line of State Road 60 Highway; thence run S 890
52' 25" W a distance of 1277.97 feet to a point on the west
line of Tract 5 of said section 5; thence run N 000 01' 21" E,
and parallel to the west line of said section 5 a distance of
1630.00 feet to a point; thence N450 00' 00" E, 465.00 feet to
a point; thence N 670 00' 00" E, 123.49 feet a point; thence
S 890 52' 28" E, 145.85 feet to a point; thence N 450 07' 32"
E, 35.36 feet to a point; thence N 000 07' 32" E, 425.00 feet
to the point of beginning and containing 130.336 acres of land
more or less.
Is changed from M-1, Medium Density Residential (up to 8
units/acre) to C/I, Commercial/Industrial Node:
0 The Future Land Use Map is hereby revised accordingly,
and
0 Table 2.30 of the Future Land Use Element is revised to
add ±130 acres to the S.R. 60 and 58th Avenue
Commercial/Industrial Node.
SECTION 3. Repeal of Conflicting Provisions
All previous ordinances, resolutions, or motions of the Board
of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida which
conflict with the provisions of this ordinance are hereby repealed
to the extent of such conflict.
SECTION 4. Severability
It is declared to be the intent of the Board of County
Commissioners that if any provision of this ordinance and
therefore, the Indian River County Comprehensive Plan Amendment is
for any reason finally held invalid or unconstitutional by any
court of competent jurisdiction, such provision shall be deemed a
separate, distinct and independent provision and such holding shall
not affect the validity of the remaining provisions.
56
July 199 1994
ORDINANCE NO. 94- 19
SECTION 5. Effective Date
The effective date of this ordinance, and therefore, this plan
amendment, shall be the date a final order is issued by the
Department of Community Affairs or Administration Commission
finding the amendment in compliance with Section 163.3184, Florida
Statutes, whichever occurs earlier. No development orders,
development permits, or land uses dependent on this amendment may
be issued or commence before it has become effective. If a final
order of noncompliance is issued by the Administration Commission,
this amendment may nevertheless be made effective by adoption of a
resolution affirming its effective status, a copy of which
resolutions shall be sent to the Department of Community Affairs,
Bureau of Local Planning, 2740 Centerview Drive, Tallahassee,
Florida 32399-2100.
This ordinance was advertised in the Vero Beach Press -Journal
on the 12th day of July, 1994 for a public hearing to be held on
the 19th day of July, 1994 at which time it was moved for adoption
by Commissioner Eggert , seconded by Commissioner Bird ,
and adopted by the following vote:
Chairman John W. Tippin Ave
Vice Chairman Kenneth R. Macht Ave
Commissioner Fran B. Adams Aye
Commissioner Richard N. Bird Aye
Commissioner Carolyn K. Eggert Aye
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF INDI RIVERCOUNTY.
BY : ' LL
J n Tp WE irm
ATTEST BY:
Jeff ;KjB7ton, Clerk
Acknowledgment by the Department of tofS r ee6W Florida
this 1st day of August , 1994.
Acknowledgment from the Department of State received on this 3rd
day of August , 1994, at 10:pp A.M./RxMxxand filed in
the office of the Clerk of the Board of County Commissioners of
Indian River County, Florida.
APPROVED AS TO FORM AND
LEGAL SUFFICIENCY
Indian Aver Ca AyLr Gvc d Da 1
W m G. Collins /ISI, Deputy County Attorney Admin. C 3
`Robert M. Ke t ng, AICP E'u°yle' ti
Community Development Dir ctor D£o'
u\v\j\irmcpa.ord ---
57
July 19, 1994
ROOK 92 'D ua 95411
f"
801A
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously adopted
Ordinance 94-20 amending the Zoning Ordinance and
the accompanying zoning map from RM -6 and A-1 to CG
for the property located at the northeast corner of
SR -60 and 66th Avenue.
ORDINANCE NO. 94- 20
FACE 953
AN ORDINANCE OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, AMENDING THE
ZONING ORDINANCE AND THE ACCOMPANYING ZONING MAP FROM RM -6 AND
A-1 TO CG, FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF
S.R. 60 AND 66TH AVENUE, AND DESCRIBED HEREIN, AND PROVIDING
FOR EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission, sitting as the
local planning agency on such matters, has held a public hearing
and subsequently made a recommendation regarding this rezoning
request; and
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River
County, Florida, did publish and send its Notice of Intent to
rezone the hereinafter described property; and
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners has determined that
this rezoning is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan of
Indian River County; and
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners has held a public
hearing pursuant to this rezoning request, at which parties in
interest and citizens were heard;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED, by the Board of County
Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, that the zoning of
the following described property situated in Indian River County,
Florida, to -wit:
Beginning at a point being 50.0 feet east and 30.0 feet south
of the northwest corner of the northwest one-quarter of
section 5, township 33 south, range 39 east; run parallel to
the north line of said section 5, S 890 52' 28" E a distance
of 614.00 feet to the principal point and place of beginning
of the following description:
58
July 199 1994
ORDINANCE NO. 94- 20
Thence S 890 52' 28" E, 72.00 feet to a point; thence S 00o
07' 32" W, 425.00 feet to a point; thence S 440 52' 28" E,
35.36 feet to a point: thence S 890 52' 28" E, 310.00 feet to
a point; thence S 680 00' 00" E, a distance of 165.00 feet to
a point; thence S 780 00' 00" E, a distance of 100.00 feet to
a point; thence S 890 52' 28" E, a distance of 325.00 feet to
a point; thence S 620 00' 00" E, a distance of 715.00 feet to
a point; thence S 400 30' 00" E, a distance of 566.67 feet to
a point; thence S 490 43' 56" E, a distance of 416.46 feet to
a point; thence S 660 53' 54" E, a distance of 45.00 feet to
a point; thence S 890 53' 54" E, a distance.of 290.00 feet to
a point; thence N 510 10' 06" E, a distance of 127.09 feet to
a point; thence S 890 52' 48" E, a distance of 590.00 feet to
a point; thence S 00o 07' 12" W, a distance of 943.69 feet to
a point on north right-of-way line of State Road 60 Highway;
thence run N 890 53' 54" W along said north right-of-way line
a distance of 1326.17 feet; thence run S 890 52' 37" W a
distance of 709.12 feet to a point of intersection with the
southerly extension of the west boundary line of Wallace Acres
Subdivision, as recorded in Plat Book 7, page 12 Public
Records of Indian River County, Florida, and said north right-
of-way; thence run N 000 02' 44" E along said west boundary
line a distance of 494.52 feet to the northeast corner of said
subdivision; thence run N 890 50' 24" W along the north
boundary line a distance 619.04 feet to a point; thence run S
00o 02' 43" W a distance of 497.58 feet to the said north
right-of-way line of State Road 60 Highway; thence run S 890
52' 25" W a distance of 1277.97 feet to a point on the west
line of Tract 5 of said section 5; thence run N 000 01' 21" E,
and parallel to the west line of said section 5 a distance of
1630.00 feet to a point; thence N450 00' 00" E, 465.00 feet to
a point; thence N 670 00' 00" E, 123.49 feet a point; thence
S 890 52' 28" E, 145.85 feet to a point; thence N 450 07' 32"
E, 35.36 feet to a point; thence N 000 07' 32" E, 425.00 feet
to the point of beginning and containing 130.336 acres of land
more or less.
Be changed from RM -6 and A-1 to CG.
All with the meaning and intent and as set forth and described in
said Land Development Regulations. _
Effective Date: This ordinance shall become effective upon the
issuance by the State Department of Community Affairs of a Notice
of Intent to find the related Comprehensive Plan Land Use
Designation Amendment contained in Ordinance No. 94- in
compliance in accordance with s. 163.3184(9) or the issuance of a
final order by the Administration Commission finding the referenced
amendment in compliance with s. 163.3184(10).
59
July 19, 1994
BOOK
ORDINANCE NO. 94- 20
02 mu 955
Approved and adopted by the Board of County Commissioners of
Indian River County, Florida, on this 19th day of July, 1994.
This ordinance was advertised in the Vero Beach Press -Journal
on the 28th day of June, 1994 for a public hearing to be held on
the 19th day of July, 1994 at which time it was moved for adoption
by Commissioner Eggert , seconded by Commissioner Bird
, and adopted by the following vote:
Chairman John W. Tippin Aye
Vice -Chairman Kenneth R. Macht Aye
Commissioner Fran B. Adams Aye
Commissioner Richard N. Bird Aye
Commissioner Carolyn K. Eggert Aye
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
BY: C -
John W. Tippin airman
ATTEST BY: ti
Jeffrey K. Barton, Clerk
awz��
Acknowledgment by the Department of State of the State of Florida
this 1st day of August , 1994.
Acknowledgment from the Department of State received on this 3rd
day of August , 1994, at 10:00 A.M./RxM, and filed in
the office of the Clerk of the Board of County Commissioners of
Indian River County, Florida.
APPROVED AS TO FORM AND
LEGAL SUFFICIENCY
William G. Collins II, Deputy County Attorney -
.rJ. inaan fiver Ca ,approved
Rober M. Keat n , AICPi' Aamin.
Community Development rector Legal
—EjiE'1 � /✓/
Dept A!
u\v\ j\irmrzon.ord Risk Mgr.
60
July 19, 1994
Dale
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously adopted
Resolution 94-93, making findings of fact and
conclusions of law pertaining to Indian River Mall,
a Development of Regional Impact, and constituting
this Resolution as a Development Order by Indian
River County in compliance with law,
RESOLUTION NO. 94- 93
A Resolution of the Board of County Commissioners of
Indian River County, Florida, making findings of fact and
conclusions of law pertaining to Indian River Mall, a
Development of Regional Impact, and constituting this
Resolution as a Development Order by Indian River County
in compliance with law; providing an effective date; and
providing a termination date.
WHEREAS, Edward J. DeBartolo Corporation has filed a
Development of Regional Impact Application for Development Approval
with Indian River County, Florida, in accordance with Section
380.06, Florida Statutes; and
WHEREAS, the Developer of
Properties Management, Inc.,
Partnership, L.P., and the owner
Realty Partnership, L.P.; and
the Development is DeBartolo
agent for DeBartolo Realty
of the Development is DeBartolo
WHEREAS, the authorized agents of the Developer are Mr. David
H. Curl, DeBartolo Properties Management, Inc., P.O. Box 3287,
Youngstown, Ohio 44512-6085 and Mr. Thomas Marsicano, Vice
President, Greiner, Inc. P.O. Box 31646, Tampa, FL 33630-3416; and
WHEREAS, said Applicant proposes to construct 1,517,174 square
feet, gross floor area, of retail development (945,364 square feet
of regional mall, 404,979 of community shopping center, and 166,831
square feet of outparcel or peripheral retail) constituting a
Development of Regional Impact on the real property legally
described in Exhibit "A" attached hereto and located in Indian
River County, Florida; and
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners as the governing
body of Indian River County having jurisdiction, pursuant to
Chapter 380, Florida Statutes, is authorized and empowered to
consider Applications for Development Approval for Developments of
Regional Impact; and
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners on the 19th day of
July, 1994, held a duly noticed public hearing on the Development
of Regional Impact Application for Development Approval and has
heard and considered the testimony taken thereat; and
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners has received and
considered the assessment report and recommendations of the
Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council; and
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners has made the
following FINDINGS OF FACT and CONCLUSIONS OF LAW with regard to
the Application for Development Approval:
61
July 199 1994 ' 2 w,
I
RESOLUTION NO. 94- 93
FINDINGS OF FACT
boa 92 fx-E 957
1. The proposed Development is not in an area of critical
state concern designated pursuant to the provisions of Section
380.06, Florida Statutes;
2. The proposed development is consistent with the State
Land Development Plan and the State Comprehensive Plan;
3. The proposed development is consistent with the report
and recommendations of the Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council
submitted pursuant to Section 380.06(12)(a), Florida Statutes; and
4. The proposed Development is consistent with the local
comprehensive plan, zoning, and land development laws and
regulations of the County.
S. The conditional concurrency requirements for drainage,
solid waste, water, wastewater, recreation, and transportation have
been met under the Indian River County Concurrency Management
System. Incorporating the road improvement conditions contained in
this Development Order into an approved developer's agreement
between the developer and Indian River County will satisfy the
initial concurrency transportation requirements of the Indian River
County Concurrency Management System.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
NOW, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, in a public meeting, duly constituted
and assembled this 19th day of July, 1994, that the Indian River
Mall Development of Regional Impact Application for Development
Approval submitted by the Edward J. DeBartolo Corporation is hereby
APPROVED, subject to the following conditions, restrictions, and
limitations:
Application for Development ADoroval
1. The Indian River Mall Application for Development Approval is
incorporated herein by reference. It is relied upon, but not
to the exclusion of other available information, by the
parties in discharging their statutory duties under Chapter
380, Florida Statutes. Substantial compliance with the
representations contained in the Application for Development
Approval, as modified by Development Order conditions, is a
condition for approval.
For the purpose of this condition, the Application for
Development Approval shall include the following items:
a. Application for Development Approval dated December 20,
1993;
b. Supplemental informated dated January 18, 1994; and March
28, 1994; and
C. Revised Map H, the project master development plan,
attached hereto.
62
July 19, 1994
RESOLUTION NO. 94- 93
Commencement and Progress of Development
2.(a). In the event the developer fails to commence significant
physical development within three years from the
effective date of the Development Order, development
approval shall terminate and the development shall be
subject to further development -of -regional -impact review
by the Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council,
Department of Community Affairs, and Indian River County
pursuant to Section 380.06, Florida Statutes. For the
purposes of this paragraph, construction shall be deemed
to have been initiated after placement of permanent
evidence of a structure (other than a mobile home) on a
site, such as the pouring of slabs or footings or any
work beyond the stage of excavation or land clearing.
2. (b) . On or before January 19, 1997, the developer shall submit
to the county planning division a complete -site plan
application for the construction of at least three
hundred twenty thousand (320,000) square feet of regional
commercial facility (single, enclosed mall building). In
the event the developer fails to meet this deadline,
development approval shall terminate and the development
shall be subject to further development -of -regional -
impact review by the Treasure Coast Regional Planning
Council, Department of Community Affairs, and Indian
River County pursuant to Section 380.06, Florida
Statutes.
2.(c). No site plan(s) shall be released and no building permit
shall be issued for the development of the commercial
outparcels or community shopping center ( as referenced in
the ADA) until the developer completes (as determined by
the county building department) of at least fifty percent
(50%) of the structural foundation elements (at, above,
and below grade) necessary for the construction at least
three hundred twenty thousand (320,000) square feet of
regional mall, gross floor area.
2•(d)• In the event the developer fails to commence significant
physical development of at least three hundred twenty
thousand (320,000) square feet of regional mall gross
floor area, on or before December 31, 1997, development
approval shall terminate and the development shall be
subject to further development -of -regional -impact review
by the Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council and
Indian River County pursuant to Section 380.06, Florida
Statutes. The developer shall notify in writing the
Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council and Indian River
County of the date significant physical development has
commenced, and shall specifically identify by reference
to an approved site plan the building(s) and area(s)
within the initial mall construction phase. For the
purpose of this paragraph, significant physical
development shall be deemed to have commenced after
placement of permanent evidence of a structure (other
than a mobile home) on the subject site(s), such as the
Pouring of slabs or footings or any permanent work beyond
the sage of excavation, land clearing, or earthwork.
63
July 199 1994 BOOK 92 F,��� E 958
BOOK 92 PAGE 959
RESOLUTION NO. 94- 93
2.(e). The developer hereby covenants with the county that, in
the event that the Mall Development Order is terminated,
no plans to develop commercial uses on the Mall site
shall be submitted or approved for a period of at least
nine (9) months after Development Order termination. The
purpose of this covenant is to give the county the
ability to reconsider 'the land use designation and zoning
of the site in the event that Mall Development Order is
terminated.
2.(f). The developer shall complete (as determined by the county
building department) all structural foundation elements
(at, above, or below grade) for at least three hundred
twenty thousand (320,000) square feet of regional
commercial facility (mall) gross building area, within
two hundred ten (210) days of the commencement date as
noticed by the developer to the Treasure Coast Regional
Planning Council and Indian River County (reference
2.(d)., above) for the building(s) and area(s)
specifically identified by the developer as the initial
mall construction phase. In the event the developer
fails to complete construction within the prescribed
deadlines, then, after at least 10 calendar days notice
to the developer, the County may, upon hearing, revoke
the mall site plan approval.
2.(g). The developer shall complete "shell" construction of the
initial mall construction phase within twenty-four (24)
months from the commencement date as noticed by the
developer to the Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council
and Indian River County (reference 2.(d)., above) for the
area(s) specifically identified by the developer as the
initial mall construction phase. In the event the
developer fails to complete construction within the
prescribed deadlines, then, after at- least 10 calendar
days notice to the developer, the County may, upon
hearing, revoke the mall site plan approval. For
purposes of this paragraph, "complete shell construction"
is defined as completion of the building foundation,
roofing, and exterior walls as depicted within the
approved building permit plans, as verified by the county
building department upon inspection of the building site.
2.(h). With respect to paragraphs 2.(f). and 2.(g). above, the
following shall apply. In the event that the developer
shall be delayed or hindered in or prevented from the
performance of any act or requirement under conditions
2. (f ) . and 2. (g) . of this Development Order by reasons of
strikes, lockouts or labor troubles; inability to procure
construction materials due to general shortage,
government rationing or regulation of labor, materials,
equipment, facilities or sources of energy (including,
without limitation, electricity, oil or gas); failure of
power or transportation; riots, mob violence, sabotage,
malicious mischief, insurrection or war; Acts of God,
fire, earthquake, flood, hurricane, explosion or other
casualty or other reasons of a similar nature beyond the
reasonable control of the developer in performing work or
doing acts specified under the terms of conditions 2.(f).
and 2.(g). of this Development Order, then, and in each
such event performance of such work or act shall be
64
July 199 1994
RESOLUTION NO. 94-93
excused for the period of ti
duration of both the actual de]
delays resulting therefrom) ant
conditions 2.(f). and 2.(g). of
performance of any such work or
a period equivalent to the
(including the duration of both
consequential delays resulting
Phasing
,e delay (including the
ay and any consequential
any period set forth in
this Development Order in
act shall be extended for
period of such delay
the actual delay and any
therefrom).
3. The phasing of the development_is approved as follows:
One continuous phase of development, with build -out by
December 31, 1999, unless otherwise amended pursuant to 380.06
(19) Florida Statutes.
Termination Date
4. This Development Order shall terminate on July 19, 2014.
Transfer of Approval
5. Notice of transfer of all or a portion of the subject property
shall be filed with the Indian River County Board of County
Commissioners. Prior to transfer, the transferee shall assume
in writing on a form acceptable to the County Attorney, any
and all applicable commitments, responsibilities, and
obligations pursuant to the Development Order. The intent of
this provision is to ensure that subsequent property transfers
do not jeopardize the unified control, responsibilities, and
obligations required of the project as a whole.
Air Quality and Alternative Transportation Modes
6. All primary access points and internal circulation roadways
shall be designed and constructed to provide sufficient
geometry to accommodate transit vehicles. The applicable
standards and recommendations of the American Association of
State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) should be
utilized in determining design requirements for accommodating
transit vehicles to the mall site.
7. At a minimum, boarding and unloading.space at one entrance to
the mall structure shall be designated. Upon implementation
of regularly scheduled transit service, the following
facilities, at a minimum, will be provided: 1) covered bus
shelters with seating, lighting, trash receptacles, etc.; 2)
bus stop signs; 3) bus schedules conspicuously available
within the mall or bus shelter; and 4) mall tenants will be
encouraged to participate in programs that offer shopper
bonuses to those patrons who use transit to get to the mall.
At the end of the first full year of regularly scheduled
transit service to the mall, the developer shall provide a
written summary in the annual report required by Section
380.06, Florida Statutes, regarding the extent to which the
boarding and unloading space has been designated and
facilitated consistent with the above condition.
65
July 19, 1994
BOOK
q� //�� ,y f4fHE r
Boy 92 PnE 961
RESOLUTION NO. 94- 93
8. The developer shall establish and actively support, through
the provision of information and incentives to employees, a
ridesharing program. At the end of the first full year
following the mall's opening, the developer shall provide a
written summary in the annual report required by Section
380.06, Florida Statutes, regarding the structure of the
program and an evaluation of the program's effectiveness.
9. The developer shall cooperate with the Indian River County
Council on Aging or other government transportation/ transit
planning agency or transit provider designated in the future
to serve Indian River County, and provide information on the
general location of employee and shopper residences, regarding
the establishment or expansion of transit routes to serve the
Indian River Mall.
10. With the exception of clearing for access roads, survey lines,
construction trailers, equipment staging areas, and fencing
work, construction shall commence within 30 days after
completion of clearing and grading.
11. During land clearing and site preparation, wetting operations
or other soils treatment techniques appropriate for
controlling unconfined particulate emissions, including grass
seeding and mulching of disturbed areas, shall be undertaken
and implemented by the developer to comply with applicable
Indian River County and Florida Department of Environmental
Protection standards.
HISTORIC AND ARCHEOLOGICAL SITES
12. In the event of discovery of any archaeological artifacts
during project construction, the developer shall stop
construction in that area and immediately notify Indian River
County and the Division of Historical Resources in the Florida
Department of State. Proper protection, to the satisfaction
of the Division, shall be provided by the developer.
WETLANDS
13. At a minimum, the developer shall preserve 8.7 acres of mixed
hardwood wetland identified on Exhibit W-1 of Treasure Coast
Regional Planning Council's Assessment Report for the Indian
River Mall (see copy, attached). The developer shall enhance
the quality of this wetland by: 1) enhancing the hydroperiod
as described in the Indian River Mall Application for
Development Approval, 2) removing all invasive exotic species
and maintaining the wetland free of these species, and 3)
plugging and abandoning the Floridan aquifer well located in
this wetland. The continued viability and maintenance of this
wetland shall be assured by conservation easement pursuant to
section 704.06 Florida Statutes acceptable to Indian River
County that will guarantee preservation of the wetland in
perpetuity, and shall be granted prior to any on-site
development. The County acknowledges that a conservation
easement may be entitled to a special property tax valuation
in accordance with applicable sections of FS Chapter 193.501.
July 19, 1994
RESOLUTION NO. 94- 93
14. The developer shall provide mitigation for the elimination of
3.0 acres of wetland. Mitigation shall include the
establishment of an upland buffer, littoral shelf area, and
wetland enhancement as described in the Indian River Mall
Application for Development Approval. Prior to the initiation
of clearing such wetland area, the developer shall submit and
have approved by Indian River County and St. John's River
Water Management District, in consultation with the Treasure
Coast Regional Planning Council, a wetland mitigation plan,
which describes the methodology and timetable for
implementation of the mitigation. The approved plan shall be
implemented and enforced as a condition of the development
order.
15. The developer shall establish and maintain a buffer zone of
native upland edge vegetation around all preserved and created
wetland and deepwater habitats on-site in accordance with the
following provisions. The buffer zone shall include canopy,
understory and ground cover of native species only. The edge
habitat shall begin at the upland limit of the wetland or
deepwater habitat and shall include a total area of at least
10 square feet per linear foot of wetland or deepwater habitat
perimeter. This upland edge habitat shall be located such
that no less than 50 percent of the total shoreline is
buffered by a minimum width of 10 feet of upland habitat.
16. In order to allow good access to the mall from surrounding
residential land and avoid unnecessary impacts on the regional
roadway network, road right-of-way shall be reserved to
provide access across the wetland preserve area as identified
on Exhibit B, attached. Such right-of-way shall be:
A) reserved via the project site plan to accommodate a two-
lane residential street section consistent with Indian
River County's local road design standards;
B)- located within the alignment of the existing dirt road
which crosses the wetland;
C) perpetually available for connection to the future
residential area located between the project wetlands
area and 26th Street; and
D) subject to approval of applicable regulatory and
permitting agencies.
Any street ultimately constructed within this right-of-way
shall be designed to allow adequate water flow through the
wetland.
HABITAT PRESERVATION
17. The developer shall preserve, by dedicating a conservation_
easement, pursuant to section 704.06 Florida Statutes, to -the`
county prior to project site plan release, the 4.7 acres of
.cabbage palm hammock, including canopy, understory, and ground
cover,.shown on Exhibit C, attached. The intent of this
development condition is to: 1) provide for wildlife and
upland habitat protection on site; 2) provide proper
protection to the endangered species of hand fern and other
listed plant species occurring in this hammock; and 3) assist
in the County's effort to maintain SR 60's quality entrance
and gateway character. The continued viability and
67 mx w,,E 962
July 19, 1994
I
wa 9,2
RESOLUTION NO. 94- 93
maintenance of the preserve shall be assured by a conservation
easement to the county. The County acknowledges that a
conservation easement may be entitled to a special property
tax valuation in accordance with applicable sections of FS
Chapter 193.501. Said easement shall be granted prior to
release of any project site plan.
18. Temporary fencing of the 4.7 acre preserve and all other
wetland and upland areas to be preserved including the stand
of Simpson's Stopper as shown on Exhibit C, attached, shall be
installed by the developer and inspected and approved by
Indian River County prior to commencement of site clearing.
Such -fencing shall be of a type that will clearly identify and
designate the boundaries of the preserve areas and the stand
of Simpson's Stopper, and minimize the potential disturbance
of these features during land clearing and construction. The
temporary fencing shall be established at least 30 feet
outside the actual boundary of said preserve areas. Temporary
fencing shall stay in place until it is necessary to remove it
for finish grading, planting required buffers, and
constructing any required permanent fencing.
19. The developer shall prepare a habitat management plan for the
4.7 acre preserve. The plan shall identify methods to
maintain suitable habitat conditions for the hand fern and
other listed species which exist in the preserve. The plan
should include methods to: 1) reduce the risk of fire to the
hammock; 2) remove exotic vegetation, including Brazilian
pepper and strawberry guava; 3) enhance the existing hydrology
of the preserve; 4) permanently fence the preserve and allow
only limited access for nature appreciation, education, or
scientific study. The management plan shall be approved by
Indian River County and the Department of Community Affairs in
consultation with Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council
prior to the initiation of site clearing activities. The
approved plan shall be implemented and enforced as a condition
of the development order.
20. Development of parcels adjacent to the 4.7 acre cabbage palm
hammock preserve area shall include a densely landscaped
buffer within or directly adjacent to the preserve as
indicated on Exhibit D, attached. The buffers shall be
planted with 100 percent native vegetation. The relocation of
cabbage palms from areas to be cleared on site is highly
recommended for use in the buffers. The purpose of the buffer
is to reduce the amount of pollution entering the hammock, and
to minimize undesirable effects of development on the preserve
area.
SPECIES OF SPECIAL REGIONAL CONCERN
21. In the event that it is determined that any additional
representative of a plant or animal species of special
regional concern (as defined in the Treasure Coast Regional
Planning Council Assessment Report for the Indian River Mall)
is resident on, or otherwise is significantly dependent upon
the Indian River Mall property, the developer shall cease all
activities which might negatively affect that individual
population and immediately notify Treasure Coast Regional
Planning Council and Indian River County. Proper protection,
to the satisfaction of the Treasure Coast Regional Planning
Council and Indian River County, in consultation with the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service and the Florida Game and Fresh Water
Fish Commission, shall be provided by the developer.
68
July 19, 1994
RESOLUTION NO. 94- 93
EXOTIC SPECIES
22. Prior to obtaining a certificate of occupancy for any
structure located on any parcel or area of development, the
developer shall remove all Melaleuca, Brazilian pepper, and
Australian pine which occur on that parcel or area of
development. Removal shall be in such a manner that avoids
seed dispersal by any of these species. There shall be no
planting of these species on site.
DRAINAGE
23. As part of the project's site plan design(s), the surface
water management system shall be designed to maximize shallow
aquifer recharge potential for the site such that the project
will not result in a water table less than 17 feet NGVD across
the site. To help achieve this end, the developer shall
consider use of uncurbed grassed swale conveyances and
depressed grassed water collection areas within the parking
area to the maximum extent possible. Grassed swales and
depressions shall be adequately maintained so they can
function as infiltration areas. In addition, the developer
shall consider other appropriate methods to maximize aquifer
recharge, including: exfiltration, drainage perimeter swales,
increased open space, reduction in parking area, and use of
pervious parking area materials.
24. To improve the quality of water discharge from the site, the
following shall apply:
a. All curbed areas within the boundaries of the development
shall be swept daily. All other parking and road
surfaces shall be swept as necessary, but in no case less
frequently than once per week. Sweeping shall be
accomplished by vacuum type or vacuum regenerative type
sweepers. Sweepers' shall be equipped with speed
governors which will limit operating speed to no more
than five miles per hour.
b. Parking stops or bumps which may collect and concentrate
contaminants, or which would interfere with efficient
sweeping of the parking area, shall not be used on the
project. The developer shall either use curbing or its
equivalent or obtain tire stop waivers pursuant to county
land development regulations.
C. A vegetated littoral zone shall be established for the
lakes constructed on site. Prior to construction of the
surface water management system for the development, the
developer shall prepare a design and management plan for
the wetland/littoral zone that will be developed as part
of that system. The plan shall be subject to approval by
the St. John's River Water Management District and Indian
River County in consultation with the Treasure Coast
Regional Planning Council prior to beginning any
excavation activity. Littoral zones shall be constructed
concurrent with lake excavation and final grading.
Operational permits for that portion of the surface water
management system shall not be utilized until such time
as littoral zones have been found to be constructed in
conformance with approved plans.
W
July 19, 1994
21001
I
BOOP( 92 fmE 965
d. To the maximum extent practical, the 8.7 acre mixed -
hardwood wetland area shall be incorporated into the
water management system to take advantage of water
quality treatment provided by the existing vegetation.
e. At a minimum, water quality treatment equivalent to
retention of the first inch of runoff from the three-
year, one-hour storm event shall be provided prior to
discharge from the site.
25. The developer shall consider in its site plan design(s) use of
Indian River County's allowance of up to 25% of the required
mall parking spaces to consist of unpaved, sodded or otherwise
stabilized areas. In addition, the developer shall consider
in its site plan design(s) other methods of minimizing the
amount of impervious surface constructed for the purposes of
automobile parking on the Indian River Mall site.
HAZARDOUS MATERIALS AND WASTE
26. Prior to issuance of any building permits for Indian River
Mall, the developer shall prepare or cause to have prepared a
hazardous materials management plan which shall be reviewed
and approved by Indian River County, St. John's River Water
Management District, and Florida Department of Environmental
Protection. For the purposes of this plan, hazardous
materials are those constituents found in reportable
quantities on site pursuant to 42 USC, Section 6921 (RCRA); 42
USC, Section 9602 (CERCLA); 42 USC, Section 11011 et seq.
(SARA, Title III); and Part IV, Chapter 403, Florida Statutes.
At a minimum, the plan shall;
a. require disclosure by all owners or tenants of
nonresidential property of all hazardous materials
proposed to be stored, used, or generated on the
premises;
b. require the inspection of premises storing, using, or
generating hazardous materials or wastes prior to
commencement of operation, and periodically thereafter,
to assure that approved facilities and procedures are in
place to properly manage hazardous materials projected to
occur;
C. provide minimum standards and procedures for storage,
prevention of spills, containment of spills, and transfer
and disposal of such materials of wastes;
d. provide for proper maintenance, operation, and monitoring
of hazardous materials and waste management systems
including spill and hazardous materials and waste
containment systems;
e. detail actions and procedures for financial and physical
spill clean-up actions; and
f. describe who will be responsible for financial and
physical spill clean-up actions; and
The approved plan shall be incorporated into the development
by including it as part of any lease or sale agreement
provided to tenants and owners that will use, handle, store,
display, or generate hazardous materials or wastes.
27. All site plans and layouts for Indian River Mall must be in
accordance with the requirements of applicable State and local
wellfield protection ordinances. All plan approvals shall
WEI
July 199 1994
_I
RESOLUTION NO. 94- 93
note what development will take place in areas near canals and
waterways or within zones of influence of any private or
municipal wellfield in the area.
WATER SUPPLY
28. No building permits shall be issued for any portion of the
project until the developer provides evidence from the Indian
River County Department of Utility Services to the Indian
River County Planning Department that adequate potable water
capacity and service/distribution infrastructure will be
available to serve the portion of the project for which
permits are required.
29. The preferred source of irrigation water shall be treated
wastewater effluent at such time as this source is made
available to the site. Should treated wastewater be
unavailable or a supplemental source for irrigation be needed,
existing or created surface waters (i.e., lakes or canals)
shall be used to the maximum extent available. On-site wells
or municipal potable water may be used for irrigation only
after the developer has demonstrated to the satisfaction of
the Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council, St. John's River
Water Management District, and Indian River County that
preferred sources of water are unavailable and that the
proposed source will not adversely affect ground water quality
and quantity. The irrigation system shall be installed so
that it can be connected to wastewater effluent reuse lines as
soon as they become available to the property.
30. In order to reduce irrigation water demand, xeriscape
landscaping shall be implemented throughout the project. As
a minimum, 30 percent of all areas requiring landscape
material shall be landscaped with native or drought -tolerant
species adapted to soil and climatic conditions existing on
site, and 50 percent of all trees shall be native or drought -
tolerant species.
31. All development in the Indian River Mall shall use water -
saving plumbing fixtures and other water conserving devices as
specified in the Water Conservation Act, Section 553.14,
Florida -Statutes, to reduce water use.
WASTEWATER
32. No building permits shall be issued for any portion of the
project until the developer provides evidence from the Indian
River County Department of Utility Services to the Indian
River County Planning Division that adequate wastewater
capacity, service infrastructure, and adequate provisions for
the effluent disposal, will be available to collect, treat and
dispose of the wastewater generated by the portion of the
development for which permits are required.
SOLID WASTE
33. The developer shall participate in any solid waste stream
reduction/recycling plan program implemented by Indian River
County Department of Utility Services. Each annual report
shall address whether or not the developer is participating in
such programs and the extent of participation.
POLICE AND FIRE PROTECTION
34. a. Prior to issuance of any
River Mall, the developer
County Planning Division
71
July 19, 1994
building permits for the Indian
shall provide the Indian River
an update of ADA Exhibit 25.1
Boor, 92 FACE 966-
M111 '` .14
RESOLUTION NO. 94-93
BOOK 9? PAGE 96 7
from the Sheriff's Department regarding the provision of
law enforcement to serve the project.
b. Prior to the release of a site plan(s) for construction
on site, the developer shall certify to the Indian River
County Planning Division that a construction security
system, acceptable to the Sheriff's Department, will be
in place prior to commencement of construction. The
security system shall include continuous patrolling and
other measures such as fencing and lighting.
35. Prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for any
portion of the Indian River Mall, the developer shall certify
to the Indian River County Planning Division that all security
measures and commitments referenced in Section 25 of the
Indian River Mall Application for Development Approval are in
place and will be operational concurrent with the operation of
the portion of the project for which a certificate of
occupancy is sought.
36. Prior to issuance of building permits for any portion of
Indian River Mall, the developer shall provide the Indian
River County Planning Division with written confirmation that
the Indian River County Department of Emergency Services has
sufficient manpower and equipment to serve_ the fire
protection/emergency medical service needs of the portion of
the project for which a permit is sought at adequate service
levels.
ENERGY
37. In the final site and building design plans, the developer
shall: a) comply with the Florida Thermal Efficiency Code
Part VII, Chapter 553, Florida Statutes; b) to the maximum
extent feasible, incorporate measures identified in the
Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council's Regional Energy
Plan dated May 1979, and the Treasure Coast Regional Planning
Council's Regional Comprehensive Policy Plan; and c)
incorporate those energy conservation measures identified on
pages 29-5 through 29-9 of the Indian River Mall Application
for Development Approval.
38. The developer shall incorporate each of the 17 energy saving
methods outlined in the ENERGY section discussion of the
Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council's Assessment Report
for the Indian River Mall unless it can be demonstrated to the
satisfaction of Indian River County that individually each
method is not cost effective.
TRANSPORTATION
39. No building permits for the Indian River Mall Development of
Regional Impact shall be issued until the developer provides
the Indian River County Planning Division a letter from the
Florida Department of Transportation stating that sufficient
road right-of-way exists along the project's SR 60 frontage
for all required SR 60 improvements.
40. Prior to site plan release, the developer shall dedicate to
the county and the Indian River Farms Water Control District
a 30' wide access easement for canal maintenance purposes.
Said easement shall run the length of the Lateral "A" Canal
from SR 60 to 26th Street. The easement will allow possible
future maintenance of the canal from the canal's east side,
rather than from the canal's 66th Avenue side. Such a shift
in maintenance sides is intended to maximize the ability of
the county to use canal right-of-way along 66th Avenue for
72
RESOLUTION NO. 94- 93
road purposes which could help minimize the amount of 66th
Avenue future expansion westbound, toward the Vista Plantation
golf course.
41. No building permits for the Indian River Mall Development of
Regional Impact shall be issued until either: 1) contracts
have been let for the following roadway expansions; 2) the
following expansions have been included within the first three
years of Indian River County's adopted Capital Improvements
Program; or 3) a local government development agreement
consistent with sections 163.3220 through 163.3243, F.S. has
been executed and attached as an exhibit to the Development
Order via an amendment to the Development Order, for the
following improvements. Any such agreement shall include
provisions for surety to guarantee construction of required
improvements.
a. Six -lane SR 60 from 66th Avenue to 58th Avenue;
b. Four -lane 58th Avenue from 26th Street to SR 60; and
C. Four -lane 58th Avenue from SR 60 to 16th Street.
No certificates of occupancy shall be issued for the Indian
River Mall Development of Regional Impact until the roadway
expansion under "a." above is in place and operational, and
"b." through "c." above are in place and operational or actual
construction is underway.
42. No building permits for the Indian River Mall Development of
Regional Impact shall be issued until either: 1) contracts
have been let for the following roadway expansions; 2) the
following expansions have been included within the first three
years of Indian River County's adopted Capital Improvement
Program; or 3) a local government development agreement
consistent with sections 163.3220 through 163.3243, F.S. has
been executed and attached as an exhibit to the Development
Order via an amendment to the Development Order, for the
following improvements. Any such agreement shall include
provisions for surety to guarantee construction of required
improvements.
a. Paving of 26th Street between 66th Avenue and 58th Avenue
as a two-lane facility. Design and construction of this
facility shall be consistent with the Florida Department
of Transportation and Indian River County standards; and
b. Intersection expansion (including signalization if and
when warranted) at 26th Street and the northern project
entrance (Access A) necessary to provide Level of Service
D at buildout of the Mall. _
No certificates of occupancy shall be issued for the Indian
River Mall Development of Regional Impact until the roadway
expansions under "a." and "b." above are in place and
operational.
43. Commencing in 1997, the developer shall undertake a traffic
monitoring program which shall be updated on an annual basis
and included in the Annual Report as specified in the
Development Order. The developer shall submit a Traffic
Monitoring Report to Indian River County, Florida Department
of Transportation (FDOT) and Treasure Coast Regional Planning
Council (TCRPC) for 58th Avenue from 41st Street to 26th
Street and 58th Avenue from 16th Street to 12th Street. The
methodology to be used for traffic monitoring and reporting
shall be discussed and agreed to at.a meeting to be convened
73
J U L 19 1994 Roof 4P'
CA
J U L 19 1994 RESOLUTION NO. 94- 93
by Indian River County with FDOT, TCRPC, the City of Vero
Beach, and the developer prior to 1997.
As a minimum, the report shall:
a. present existing traffic volumes;
b. present existing level of service with all analysis used
to determine the level of service;
C. determine traffic projections for each roadway link and
intersection for one year into the future including
background, discounting all new traffic from other
projects in Indian River County, plus project traffic;
d. specify roadway expansions necessary to provide Level of
Service D for peak-hour/peak-season conditions on the
monitored roadway links and intersections; and
e. identify methods for funding the necessary roadway
expansions.
Commencing in the year 1997, no further building permits for
the Indian River Mall Development of Regional Impact shall be
issued after three months from the due date of -the Annual
Report as established in the Development Order, until the
Traffic Monitoring Report referenced above has been submitted
to and approved by Indian River County, FDOT, TCRPC, in
consultation with the City of Vero Beach.
No further certificates of occupancy shall be issued for the
Indian River Mall Development of Regional Impact within a year
of the date of the Traffic Monitoring Report until roadway
expansions, if any, specified in the approved Traffic
Monitoring Report are under construction. Monitoring of the
roadway links may be discontinued once expansion of the
roadway links to a four -lane cross-section are under
construction or by buildout of the Indian River Mall.
44. No building permits for the Indian River Mall Development of
Regional Impact shall be issued until either: 1) contracts
have been let for the following intersection expansions; 2)
the following expansions have been included within the first
three years of Indian River County's adopted Capital
Improvement Program: or 3) a local government development
agreement consistent with sections 163.3220 through 163.3243,
F.S. has been executed and attached as an exhibit to the
Development Order via an amendment to the Development Order,
for the following improvements. Any such agreement shall
include provisions for surety to guarantee construction of
required improvements.
a. SR 60 and 58th Avenue
Northbound (58th Avenue)
2 left -turn lanes
1 through lane
1 through/right-turn lane
Eastbound (SR 60)
1 left -turn lane
2 through lanes
1 through/right-turn lane
74
Southbound (58th Avenue)
1 left turn lane
1 through lane
1 through/right-turn lane
Westbound (SR 60)
1 left -turn lane
2 through lanes
1 through/right-turn lane
RESOLUTION NO. 94- 93
b. SR 60 and Access F
Southbound (Access F)
2 left -turn lanes
1 right -turn lane
Eastbound (SR 60)
1 left -turn lane
3 through lanes
Westbound (SR 60)
3 through lanes
1 right -turn lane
All above configurations shall be permitted and constructed in
accordance with County and State criteria.
No certificates of occupancy shall be issued for the Indian
River Mall Development of Regional Impact until the
intersection expansion under "b." above is in place and
operational, and "a." above is in place and operational or
actual construction is underway.
45. A signal warrant study shall be conducted at the following
intersections at a time and by a method acceptable to Indian
River County and the Florida Department of Transportation:
a. SR 60 and Access F;
b. SR 60 and 66th Avenue;
C. 26th Street and 58th Avenue; and
d. 26th Street and Access A.
Required signalization shall be permitted and constructed in
accordance with applicable Indian River County criteria on
county roads and Florida Department of Transportation criteria
on State roads. Indian River County and Florida Department of
Transportation shall establish a date for the installation of
any signalization required at the above referenced
intersections. The issuance of building permits for the
project shall cease if signalization is not installed within
one year of the established date.
46. No more than one signalized intersection and one full median
opening designed in accordance with applicable Florida
Department of Transportation (FDOT) standards shall be allowed
along SR 60 between 66th Avenue and 58th Avenue unless
otherwise approved by FDOT and Indian River County.
47. As a minimum, the developer shall pay a fair share
contribution consistent with the road impact fee ordinance of
Indian River County in effect at the time of issuance of
building permits. Any DRI Development Order exaction or fee
shall be credited toward an impact fee or exaction imposed by
local ordinances for the same need.
48. Commencing in 1997, the developer shall undertake a traffic
monitoring program which shall be updated on an annual basis
and included in the Annual Report as identified in the
Development Order. The developer shall submit a Traffic
Monitoring Report to Indian River County for 16th/17th Street
from 43rd Avenue to 27th Avenue. The methodology to be used
when preparing the Report shall be discussed and agreed to at
a meeting between Indian River County, the City of Vero Beach,
and the developer held prior to 1997.
As a minimum, the report shall:
a. present existing traffic volume;
75
JUL 19 199
RESOLUTION NO. 94- 93 $o{)K 9
b. present existing level of service with all analysis used
to determine the level of service;
C. determine traffic projections for each roadway link and
intersection for one year into the future including
background, discounting all new traffic from other
projects in Indian River County, plus project traffic;
d. specify improvements necessary to provide Level of
Service D for peak-hour/peak-season conditions on the
monitored roadway links and intersections; and
e. identify methods for funding the necessary roadway
expansions.
Commencing in the year 1997, no further building permits for
the Indian River Mall Development of Regional Impact shall be
issued after three months from the due date of the Annual
Report as established in the Development Order, until the
Traffic Monitoring Report referenced above has been submitted
to and approved by Indian River County and the City of Vero
Beach.
No further certificates of occupancy shall be issued for the
Indian River Mall Development of Regional Impact within a year
of the date of the Traffic Monitoring Report until roadway
expansions, if any, specified in the approved Traffic
Monitoring Report are under construction. Monitoring of the
roadway links may be discontinued once expansion of the
roadway link to a four -lane cross-section is under
construction or by buildout of the Indian River Mall.
49. Commencing in 1995 and continuing every year thereafter, the
developer shall submit an Annual Status Report indicating the
status (schedule) of guaranteed roadway expansions. This
Annual Status Report shall be submitted to Indian River
County, Florida Department of Transportation, Treasure Coast
Regional Planning Council and the Department of Community
Affairs as part of the Development of Regional Impact Annual
Report.
The Annual Status Report shall list all roadway expansions
needed to be constructed by phase, the guaranteed date of
completion for the construction of each needed expansion, the
party responsible for the guaranteed construction of each
expansion, and the form of the binding commitment that
guarantees construction of each expansion.
No further building permits for the Indian River Mall
Development of Regional Impact shall be issued at the time the
Annual Status Report reveals that any needed transportation
network expansion included in the Development Order is no
longer scheduled or guaranteed, or has been delayed in
schedule such that it is not guaranteed to be in place and
operational, or under actual construction for the entire
expansion by December 31, 1999.
50. A traffic methodology meeting shall be conducted for any
proposed change to the Development Order that may affect
traffic, such as an increase in project size and extension of
the project buildout dates. The Florida Department of
Transportation, the Department of Community Affairs, Treasure
Coast Regional Planning Council, Indian River County, and the
City of Vero Beach shall be present at the meeting. Issues to
be discussed at the meeting include, but are not limited to:
trip generation rates, trip distribution and assignment,
passer-by rates, growth factors, application of the growth
76
RESOLUTION NO. 94- 93
factors, approved developments in the area, and proposed
roadway expansions. A traffic study shall be submitted to the
Florida Department of Transportation, Department of Community
Affairs, Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council, Indian
River County, and the City of Vero Beach which will determine
traffic impacts of the proposed change. This study will
incorporate the methodology discussed at the traffic
methodology meeting. The traffic study shall identify any
additional roadway expansions necessary to maintain the
subject transportation network at objective levels of service.
Additional building permits shall not be issued for the
portions of the Indian River Mall Development of Regional
Impact that are the subject of the proposed change until: 1)
a new project phasing program and roadway expansion program
necessary to maintain acceptable levels of service for the
remainder of the development has been approved by Indian River
County, Florida Department of Transportation, Department of
Community Affairs, and Treasure Coast Regional Planning
Council in consultation with the City of Vero Beach; and b)
the Development Order has been amended to reflect the new
phasing program and set of additional roadway expansions.
51. No additional building permit shall be issued after December
31, 1999, unless a traffic study has been conducted by the
developer, -and submitted to and approved by Indian River
County, Florida Department of Transportation, Department of
Community Affairs, and Treasure Coast Regional Planning
Council, in consultation with the City of Vero Beach, which
demonstrate that the regional roadway network can accommodate
the remaining (yet to be generated) Indian River Mall
generated traffic and growth in background traffic beyond 1999
and still be maintained at Level of Service D during peak-
hour/peak-season conditions. The traffic study shall:
a. be conducted in 1999, and
b. identify the roadway expansions and timing of those
expansions necessary to provide Level of Service D during
peak-hour/peak-season conditions for the subject
transportation network during the projected condition of
- the_ project including project impacts and growth in
background traffic.
Additional building permits shall not be issued until: a) a
new project phasing program and roadway expansion program
necessary to maintain acceptable levels of service for the
remainder of the development has been approved by Indian River
County, Florida Department of Transportation, Department of
Community Affairs, and Treasure Coast Regional Planning
Council in consultation with the City of Vero Reach; and b)
the Development Order has been amended to reflect the new
phasing program and set of additional roadway expansions.
52. The project site plan(s) shall incorporate vehicular and
pedestrian interconnections between commercial sites within
the project area and adjacent to the project area, in
accordance with the county's land development regulations.
53. The County recognizes that in order for the developer to meet
the requirements of the transportation section of this
Development Order it may be necessary for the developer to
acquire road right-of-way which is currently under private
ownership. Upon written request by the developer, the County
agrees to file a petition in eminent domain as is necessary to
exercise its power of eminent domain to acquire such right-of-
way, subject to a court finding of -proper public purpose and
77
JUL v
J U L J9 1994
800 � � � RESOLUTION NO. 94- 93113
public necessity. Should a court enter an order finding no
public purpose or public necessity, and the transportation
conditions contained herein cannot be satisfied, the developer
must file for and obtain modification(s) to the development
order to ensure satisfaction of applicable transportation
level of service standards. No further building permits or
Certificates of Occupancy shall be issued until such
Development Order modification (s) are approved. No settlement
prior to jury award shall occur without the prior approval of
the developer. All attorney's fees, expert fees, and costs
associated with the County's exercise of its power of eminent
domain, including compensation to land owners, shall be borne
by the developer.
54. BUFFERING AND OPEN SPACE
a. The following required buffering provisions shall be
incorporated into the site plans of Indian River Mall and
related DRI project and outparcel developments and shall
be provided and maintained as follows:
•SR 60 frontage: A Type "C" buffer with 3' opaque
feature or its equivalent, as established in the county
land development regulations.
066th Avenue, 26th Street: A Type "D" buffer with 3'
opaque feature or its equivalent, as established in the
county land development regulations.
Buffers shall be provided with planted and/or existing
vegetation and shall be maintained between the referenced
road rights-of-way and development within the subject
site.
(1) The entire referenced buffer shall be provided on
or before December 31, 1999. No certificate of
occupancy (C.O.) shall be issued for the,project or
any portion of the project after December. 31, 1999
unless the required buffer has been provided.
(2) No certificate of occupancy (C.O.) shall be issued
for the project or -any portion of the project
unless the required buffer is provided and
maintained between any of the referenced road
rights-of-way and any development within 300' of
any of the referenced road rights-of-way.
b. Buffering between project uses and adjacent uses shall be
provided and maintained as required in the county's land
development regulations in effect at the time a site plan
application is considered for approval or approval
extension.
C. The county's SR 60 special 75' building setback, as
established in the county land development regulations,
shall apply to all buildings on site.
d. Height, size, and type of all signs used within the
project shall be addressed in a developers agreement
between the developer and the county, approved by the
county prior to site plan release.
78
RESOLUTION NO. 94- 93
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, AS FOLLOWS:
1. Any modification or deviations from the approved plans or
requirements of this Development Order shall be submitted to
the Community Development Director for a determination by the
Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County and
Department of Community Affairs as to whether the change
constitutes a substantial deviation as provided in section
380.06(19), Florida Statutes. The Board of County
Commissioners of Indian River County shall make its
determination of substantial deviation at a public hearing
after notice to the developer.
Z. Indian River County shall monitor the development of the
project to ensure compliance with this Development Order. The
Indian River County Community Development Director shall be
the local official assigned the responsibility for monitoring
the development and enforcing the terms of the Development
Order. The Community Development Director may require
periodic reports of the developer with regard to any item set
forth in this Development Order.
3. The developer shall make an annual report as required by
Section 380.06(18), Florida Statutes. The annual report shall
be submitted each year on the anniversary date of -the adoption
of the Development Order and shall include the following:
a. Any changes in the plan of development, or in the
representations contained in the Application for
Development Approval, or in the phasing for the reporting
year and for the next year;
b. A summary comparison of development activity proposed and
actually conducted for the year;
C. Undeveloped tracts of land that have been sold,
transferred, or leased to a successor developer;
d. Identification and intended use of lands purchased,
leased, or optioned by the developer adjacent to the
- original site since the Development Order was issued;
e. An assessment, listing the developer's and local
government's compliance with each of the conditions of
approval contained in this Development Order and the
commitments specified in the Application for Development
Approval and summarized in the Regional Planning Council
Assessment for the development undertaken; This
assessment shall include a list of each Development Order
condition number and a corresponding statement regarding
the status of compliance with that condition.
f. Any request for a substantial deviation determination
that was filed in the reporting year or is anticipated to
be filed during the next year;
g. An indication of a change, if any, in local government
jurisdiction for any portion of the development since the
Development Order was issued;
h. A list_ of significant local, state, and federal permits
which have been obtained or which are pending by agency,
type of permit, permit number, and purpose of each;
i. The annual report shall be transmitted to Indian River
County, the Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council, the
J U L 19 1994
79
Baa D2;oto
I
_I
J u L 191994 RESOLUTION NO. 94-93 BOOK 912 Plalwb
Florida Department of Community Affairs, the Florida
Department of Environmental Protection, the South Florida
Water Management District, and such additional parties as
may be appropriate or required by law;
j. A copy of any recorded notice of the adoption of a
Development Order or the subsequent modification of an
adopted Development Order that was recorded by the
developer pursuant to Subsection 380.06(15), Florida
Statutes; and,
k. Any other information requested by the Board of County
Commissioners of Indian River County or the Indian River
Community Development Director to be included in the
annual report.
4. The definitions found in Chapter 380, Florida Statutes, shall
apply to this Development Order.
5. Indian River County hereby agrees that prior to July 19, 2014
the Indian River Mall Development of Regional Impact shall not
be subject to down zoning, unit density reduction, or
intensity reduction, except as outlined in Condition 2.(a).
through 2.(h). of this Development Order, unless the County
demonstrates that substantial changes in the conditions
underlying the approval of the Development Order have
occurred, or that the Development Order was based on
substantially inaccurate information provided by the
developer, or that the change is clearly established by Indian
River County to be essential to the public health, safety, or
welfare.
6. This Development Order shall be binding upon the developer and
its assignees or successors in interest. It is understood
that any reference herein to any governmental agency shall be
construed to mean any future instrumentality which may be
created and designated as successor in interest to, or which
otherwise possesses any of the powers and duties of any
referenced government agency in existence on the effective
date of this Development Order.
7. The approval granted by this Development Order is conditional
and shall not be construed to obviate the duty of the
developer to comply with all other applicable local, state,
and federal permitting requirements.
8. In the event that any portion or section of this Development
Order is deemed to be invalid, illegal, or unconstitutional by
a court of competent jurisdiction, then this development shall
be required to obtain a substantial deviation determination.
9. This Development Order shall become effective upon final
approval of the comprehensive plan amendment associated with
the project.
10. Certified copies of this Development Order shall be
transmitted immediately by certified mail to the Department of
Community Affairs, the Treasure Coast Regional Planning
Council, and Edward J. DeBartolo Corporation.
80
RESOLUTION NO. 94- 93
PASSED AND ADOPTED in a public hearing held on this the 19
day of July , 1994.
The foregoing resolution was offered by Commissioner
Eggert and the motion was seconded by Commissioner
Bird , and, upon being put to a vote, the vote was as
follows:
Chairman John W. Tippin
Vice Chairman Kenneth R. Macht Aye
Commissioner Fran Adams Aye
Commissioner Richard N. Bird AyP
Commissioner Carolyn K. Eggert AyP
This Chairman thereupon declared the resolution duly passed and
adopted this 19 day of July , 1994.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
Chairman John W. 'i
ATTEST
Jeffr y K. Ban, County Clerk
APP OVED AS TO P'fV4%rt G MATTERS :
Am -
Robert M. KeatingI/AICP ;
Community Development Director
APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEG SUFFICIENCY
William G. Collins, Deputy
County Attorney
u\c\s\irmall2.res
J U L 19 1994 81
NOW
JUL 19 1994
R9 171
PUBLIC HEARING - REQUEST OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTRY CLUB
LTD. FOR PLANNED DEVELOPMENT SPECIAL EXCEPTION
APPROVAL TO ADD 48.88 ACRES
The hour of 9:05 a.m. having passed, the County Attorney
announced that this public hearing had 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•Joumal, a daily newspaper published
at Vero Beach in Indian River County, Florida; that the attached copy of advertisement, being
.N.ciaai
In the matter 0
In the Court, was .17
pub-
lished in said newspaper in the issues of O6
Affiant further says that the said Vero Beach Press•Joumal is a newspaper published at
Vero Beach, in said Indian River County, Florida, and that the said newspaper has heretofore
been continuously published in said Indian River County, Florida, each daily and has been
entered as second class mail matter at the post office in Vero Beach, in said Indian River Coun-
ty, Florida, for a period of one year next preceding the first publication of the attached copy of
advertisement; and affiant further says that he has neither paid nor promised any person, firm
or corporation any discount, rebate, commission or refund for the purpose of securing this
advertisement for publication in the said newspaper.
✓''• woreio.�andsybscribed beforeahe thi&---f day of r' L A.D. 19
• �' ` (Business Manager)
• My Comm. fxllres ' to ' , l BARBARA C. SPRAGUE. NOTARY PUBLIC,
June 2y. 9S7 Suds of Florida, uy Commesom Eon June 29, 1987
GOMM
• No. CC330572
GANG,. F y�/ ,rri Cyt
• FL , mmry: HAR8ARA C. SPRAGUE Jr
Planning Director Stan Boling
w- � �•`�• Proposed...-
Addlit
River cour"
If
r1 club
.eu ., r. - •. .. ., .,-_...^.•.. ]::-ria'
J.•.n. NOTICE OF PU&AC NEAROIG r .
Nodes of hewq to oaeder the gamng of ups
diel a
W use apparel for an expensidn of Ma
=s papis�esently under) crtVW by
Y ea RWer Quey Ltd, rap Washed n SeWm
331,Tat Wo 33 and Rmge 40. See the mre
map o
A ptb�William
Na laws g at which penes N intaet ad
cdI am tern an call t Wty to be tfeardt will
be tee by ae Board of County Ca grim mea of
Win Film Canty. Rattle, in the Canty Conenls-
am Chanubae of ft Colony Atrmmtretlon &Ad-
Yg, located at 1840 25M Street vera Bddh, Flar-
daon Tueseay, Jdy 18.1994 at S:a5 a.m.
Altyae who nay wish to appeal any dsdsim
wHdt may be made at MIs meeug will reed to an.
aIle dist a wataba mood of de proassolis is
Ideas. MYd7 alkide tesaMlN and evdn68 14at
wliah the appeal s based.
ANYONE WHO NEEDS A SFEMAL ACCOMMODA-.
.TION FOR THS MEETING MUST CONTACT THE
COUNTYB AMEPoCANLS WITH DEASUM ACT
ADA1 COORONATOR AT 587.80M X223 AT
T 48 HOURS IN ADVANCE OF THE MEET-
Plfi. BOARD OF COUNTY
BY4' M w. Tippn. Cfahmm
Ane 21L 1994 1110482
made the following
presentation with the aid of an enlarged map and graphics:
82
July 19, 1994
TO: James E. Chandler
County Administrator
DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE:
Robert M. Reatifg, AT7
Community Developmen Director
THROUGH: Stan Boling, AICP
Planning Director
FROM: John W. McCoy, AICrentt'
Senior Planner, Curevelopment
DATE: July 12, 1994
SUBJECT: Indian River Country Club Ltd. Is Request for Planned
Development Special Exception Approval to Add 48.88 Acres
to the Indian River Country Club Project
It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal
consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at its regular
meeting of July 19, 1994.
*Proposed Development
Urban Resource Group and Masteller & Moler, Inc. have submitted an
application for planned development special exception use and
preliminary plan approval on behalf of Indian River Country Club
Ltd. The applicants' request is to amend the existing, approved
Indian River Country Club conceptual and preliminary PD plan by
adding 48.88 acres and 55 units to the overall project. The 48.88
acre addition is located to the east of the existing Indian River
Country Club development area, east of the Lateral J canal and west
of 1st Avenue S.E. (see attachment #2). The 48.88 acre addition
will be used to expand the proposed golf course and, under future
preliminary plans, to add additional residential units. Some of
the 55 additional units will be constructed within the 48.88 acre
addition; the remainder will be distributed throughout existing
overall project area.
The approval steps in the PD process are as follows: -
Approval Needed
1. Conceptual Plan/Special Exception
2. Preliminary PD
3. Land Development Permits
4. Final PD (plat)
83
July 19, 1994
Reviewina Bodv
PZC & BCC
PZC
staff
BCC
BOOK UIC RAA 79 M
Steps 1 and 2 are being taken concurrently for a portion of the
48.88 acre addition. While the applicant is requesting conceptual
special exception approval to add the entire 48.88 acres to the
overall development, the applicant is requesting preliminary PD
approval on 39.94 acres of the 48.88 acre addition to construct
golf course related improvements. On the remaining 8.94 acres of
the 48.88 acre addition, the applicant will seek preliminary PD
approval for residential development at a later date.
As a result of the 48.88 acre addition, the developer is re-
designing certain parts of the existing approved project area.
All of the design changes are east of 6th Avenue S.W., and are
mostly related to golf course modifications necessary for shifting
two golf holes on to the 48.88 acre addition. Design modifications
will also allow a larger area for residential development within
the existing project area, since less of that area will be designed
for golf course improvements. The modifications made are not
substantial, are depicted on the revised conceptual plan, and will
be approved as part of the conceptual plan modification to add the
48.88 acres.
@Planning and Zoning Commissions Recommendation
At its regular meeting of June 23, 1994, the Planning and Zoning
Commission voted unanimously to recommend that the Board of County
Commissioners grant PD special exception use and conceptual plan
approval for the 48.88 acre addition, and grant preliminary PD
approval for a portion of the 48.88 acre addition subject to Board
of County Commissioners approval of the PD special exception use
request.
•Board of County Commissioners Consideration
Pursuant to Section 971.05 of the LDRs, the Board of County
Commissioners is to consider the appropriateness of the requested
use based on the submitted site plan and suitability of the site
for that use. The Board may approve, approve with conditions or
deny the special exception use. The County may attach any
conditions and safeguards necessary to mitigate impacts and to
ensure compatibility of the use with the surrounding area.
ANALYSIS:
1. Size of Total PD Project Development Area:
Previously Approved PD Project Area: 246.76 acres
Proposed PD addition: 48.88 acres
Gross site area: 295.64 acres
Note: 64.8 acres of the approved conceptual plan are being
modified with this application. _
2. Zoning Classification: RS -6, Residential Single Family
District (up to 6 units per acre)
3. Land Use Designation: L-2, Low Density 2 (up to 6 units per
acre)
4. Density: Existing PD total area: 1.2 dwelling units/acre
Proposed PD total area: 1.2 dwelling units/acre
Note: The applicant is reserving an 8.94 acre parcel within
the 48.88 acre addition for future residential development.
Some of the new 55 units (single family/zero lot line) will be
built on the 8.94 acres, while the remainder of the 55 units
84
July 19, 1994
O
will be distributed throughout the overall project. The exact
allocation of the units will be finalized at the time of
preliminary PD approval for the different parcels.
5. Open Space:
Required: 40%
Proposed: 100% (for 39.94 acre new golf course area)
6. Traffic Circulation: Any proposed residential area within the
48.88 acre addition will be accessed through the existing
project by bridging the Lateral J canal. Details of any such
design will be reviewed with future preliminary PD plans
submitted to develop the 8.94 acre residential portion of the
48.88 acre addition. There will be no new access point on any
public roads. The County Traffic Engineer has- reviewed and
approved the conceptual traffic circulation plan for the
addition.
7. Stormwater Management: The conceptual stormwater plan has
been reviewed and approved by the Public Works Department.
The Public Works Department will perform a detailed drainage
review when the land development permit for this project area
is submitted. In accordance with PD requirements, project
construction cannot commence until the land development permit
is issued.
8. Utilities: The project will receive water and sewer service
from the County Department of Utility Services. These utility
provisions have been approved by the Environmental, Health
Department and County Department of Utility Services.
9. Dedications & Improvements: The proposed 48.88 acre addition
borders 1st Avenue S.E. and 21st Street S.W. *The project's
21st Street S.W. frontage is a paved two-lane road within a
35' wide right-of-way, while 1st Avenue S.E. consists of one
paved lane (one-way street) within a half -width (351) right-
of-way. The developer is responsible for dedicating, without
compensation, the additional right-of-way (251) needed to
bring_ the right-of-way widths of both roads up to the local
road standard of 601. The right-of-way for these two streets
will need to be dedicated prior to or via the final plat.
If it is determined that the subject segments of 1st Avenue
S.E. must be improved from a one-way street to a two-way
street, then an additional lane of pavement will be needed.
If such paving is needed, then the developer will be
responsible for his fair share of paving 1st Avenue S.E. to
the county's two-way local road standards. .Under such
circumstances, the developer would need to escrow his fair
share for the additional paving of the street, as determined
by the Public Works Director, prior to issuance of a
certificate of occupancy (C.O.) and use of the golf course
improvements.
The Public Works Director is assessing the present condition
of 1st Avenue S.E. to determine if the existing one lane of
pavement can meet an acceptable standard for one-way
operation. In addition to the physical conditions, the Public
Works Director is also contacting residents along 1st Avenue
S.E. to determine if it is acceptable to the residents to keep
1st Avenue S.E. as a one-way street. If the Public Works
Director determines that the street can remain as a one-way
street as is, then no escrowing by the developer for future
paving would be required.
85
BOOK 92 FADE 780
July 19, 1994
BOOK 92 PAGUE 981
10. Concurrency: The developer has obtained a conditional
concurrency certificate for the 55 units. Thus, concurrency
requirements for conceptual and preliminary plan approval are
satisfied.
11. Environmental Issues: The 48.88 acre addition consists
largely of native upland habitat, typified by xeric, sandridge
type vegetation. Since the site is over 5 acres in size, the
native upland set-aside requirements of LDR section 929.05
apply. In addition, the site may include habitat for
federally listed endangered species such as the Scrub Jay and
Gopher Tortoise.
The applicant is working with county staff and representatives
of the US Fish and Wildlife Service to satisfy the county's
native upland set-aside requirements and the endangered
species concerns with one preservation area plan. Native
upland set-aside requirements will need to be addressed by
conservation easements established throughout the overall
project area. Endangered species concerns will need to be
addressed by the developer by providing county staff with a
letter from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service stating that
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has no objection_ to the
issuance of a land clearing and tree removal permit for this
project. Such a letter will need to be submitted to county
staff prior to issuance of land clearing and tree removal
permits.
12. Buffers: A 25' wide Type "D" buffer is required along the
project addition's east and north perimeters. A 25' wide Type
"C" buffer is required along the project addition's south
perimeter. The golf improvements will be located along the
perimeters of this project, and will serve to meet the 25'
setback. Preserved vegetation will satisfy -the buffering
requirement.
13. Surrounding Land Use and Zoning:
North:
South:
East:
West:
RECOMMENDATION:
Residential Home/RS-6
Vacant/RS-6
Residential Home/RS-6
Indian River Country Club/RS-6
Based on the analysis performed, staff recommends that the Board of
County Commissioners grant conceptual PD special exception use
approval to add 48.88 acres and 55 residential units to the overall
Indian River Country Club project, with the following conditions:
1. That prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy (C.O.)
and use of the golf course, the applicant shall obtain a
determination from the Public Works Director regarding whether
or not the subject segments of 1st Avenue S.E. are required to
be brought up to the county's two-way local road standard. If
the Public Works Director determines that the subject segments
of 1st Avenue S.E. must be brought -up to the county's two-way
standards, then prior to the issuance of a Certificate of
Occupancy (C.O.),the developer shall escrow with the county
the necessary funds (as determined by the Public Works
Director) for the future paving of 1st Avenue S.E. for two-way
operation.
July 19, 1994
86
M M
2. That prior to or via the final plat, the developer shall
dedicate, without compensation, 25' of right-of-way along the
project site's 21st Street S.W. and lst Avenue S.E. frontages .
3. That prior to or via the final plat, the applicant shall
satisfy the county's native upland set-aside requirement
through conservation easements established throughout the
overall project area.
4. That prior to the issuance of land clearing or tree removal
permits for work within the 48.88 acre addition, the applicant
shall furnish county staff a letter from the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service indicating that the agency has no objection
to the issuance of land clearing and tree removal permits for
the proposed clearing activities within the 48.88 acre
addition.
Public Works Director Jim Davis advised that letters were sent
to the owners of property on the east side of 1st Avenue SE asking
whether they were in favor of extending the pavement to two lanes
which would involve removing vegetation to clear the right-of-way.
Mesdames Roteller, Buck, and Dominguez indicated they were content
with the one-way road to the limited number of lots which that
particular road serves. They wanted the buffer preserved and the
right-of-way not cleared.
The Chairman opened the public hearing and asked if anyone
wished to be heard.
Bob Swift, 3820 Indian River Drive, representing the
applicant, thanked staff for working with them on the paving issue.
He stated that the site plan was designed to minimize the impact on
the neighborhood streets. All traffic related to the development
will work back through an internal road network with one entry on
Highland Drive as originally planned. _
They have been working with U.S. Fish and Wildlife on the
habitat issue and are in process of working out a plan which will
increase the amount of scrub oak area and leave untouched and
undeveloped a ±15 -acre section in the middle of the property which
will be managed as a permanent scrub jay habitat area. Less than
9 acres of the 48.88 acres will be developed residential; the rest
will be open and green space.
Mr. Swift stated for the record that although an agreement on
the paving issue essentially had been reached, the developer was
still being requested to dedicate right-of-way for the local roads.
87 BOOK 92 PAGE 982
July 19, 1994
L_ �
poor PU 2 Fac- 983
Current ordinances do not allow compensation for R/W dedication for
a local road, so the developer is reluctant to give up property
which would neither be improved nor paved. He would like to work
it out with staff in the future, but he did not know if it would be
able to be resolved and he wanted to make the Commissioners aware.
Commissioner Bird inquired if the golf course would be _
reconfigured, and Mr. Swift responded that the 5th and 6th holes
will be moved and replaced by additional green space, a tennis and
swim center, and some residential development.
It was determined that no one else wished to be heard and the
Chairman closed the public hearing.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Adams, the Board unanimously
approved the request with conditions as set_
forth in staff's memorandum.
The Board discussed concerns about habitat set -asides when
there is no evidence of endangered species, and Director Keating
explained that following an environmental survey, U.S. Fish and
Wildlife service determines whether a habitat needs to be
established in a specific area.
PUBLIC HEARING —PROPOSED ORDINANCE LEVYING ADDITIONAL
SURCHARGE OF $12.50 FOR EACH MOVING TRAFFIC VIOLATION
TO FUND AN INTERGOVERNMENTAL RADIO COAEyIUNICATION
PROGRAM
The hour of 9:05 a.m. having passed, the County Attorney
announced that this public hearing has been properly advertised as
follows:
88
July 199 1994
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-Joumal, a daily newspaper published
at Vero Beach in Indian River County, Florida; that the attached copy of advertisement, being
in the Court, was pub -
fished in said newspaper in the issues of y /��`//
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
�pciverUsgment for publication in the said newspaper.
.•`'o o.RA C.
,cPQ�N+S�tVftoe scribed forergethis� day of A. D,19
�� °mM. F")? : in ••. siaess Manager)
29 19 BARBARA C. SPRAGUE. NOTARY PUBU�
Al0. CC„ f y7 Slate of Florida. My Corrtrn ahon Exp. Jhare 29. 7
"'.0p FLOC :
Notary: BARBARA C. SPRAGUE
PUBLIC NOTICE
TW Board al Cairay Ow woo of Wm
Rrrar Oxp.P%bid% haraby PVMW .plica of a
PtB3LfC HEA eC�edled for 9:05 AX on
TTUSUEp�DAAY, JULY 19, 1994, to dsmw m,d oarhsidar
AN ORD NAN OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY.
FLORIDA, LEVYING AN ADDITIONAL SUR-
omm OF $1250 FOR EACH MOVING TRAF.
FIC VIOLATION TO BE USED TO FUND AN IN-
TERGOVERNMENTAL RADIO COMMUNICATION
PROGRAM.
Amy" who may wish to appeal any tleaaian wthidh
ray beriado at tis nheemhg w0 sure
need to en
ttmt a verbatan reoor, of the pladsgs h nmft
wN M harder teathary and evidenoe upon wto
the appeal is based.
Anyone who reeds a meeW accommodation for
ft ineeling may o0raffi.i the Caaaya Ahhedtars
wah DWahildes Act (ADA) Qoordirel, at 567-
rtrt600�0ee0ppgqE.xL 409, at Wast 46 hWS In advance of tha
Jure23,1994 1109365
Emergency Services Director Doug Wright presented the
following recommendation dated July 7, 1994.
TO: Honorable Board of County Commissioners
THROUGH: Jim Chandler, C unty Administrator
FROM: Doug Wright, �Jrector
Emergency Services
DATE: July 8, 1994
SUBJECT: Public Hearing for Consideration of Assessment and
Implementation of $12.50 Surcharge on Moving Traffic
Violations to Assist in Funding an Intergovernmental
Radio Communications System (800 MHz)
It is respectfully requested that the information contained herein be
given formal consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at a
public hearing scheduled for July 19, 1994.
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
On June 21, 1994, the Board of County Commissioners approved a staff
recommendation to schedule a public hearing on July 19, 1994, for
consideration of implementing a $12.50 surcharge on moving traffic
violations to assist in funding an intergovernmental radio
communications system generally known as an 800 MHz trunked radio
system. Staff requested the public hearing based on the following
series of events:
�-k
July 19, 1994
BOOK 92 PACE 98
BOOK 92 PAGE 985
1. On June 8, 1993, the Board authorized staff to obtain cost
information from consultants to complete a comprehensive -
study of the various communications systems in the county.
2. On September 14, 1993, the Board awarded a contract to
Pallens Associates for the comprehensive- communications
study. The study was completed and presented to the Board
on December 14, 1993. The consultant recommended an 800
MHz trunked intergovernmental radio system for the county.
3. The Board held a workshop on February 23, 1994, regarding
allocation of the optional one cent sales tax revenue for
the second five years. The 800 MHz was considered at that
time; however, the Board determined that additional and
more in-depth information was needed before a decision
could be made regarding the radio system.
4. The Board of County Commissioners held a second workshop
meeting on April 28, 1994, regarding consideration of the
allocation of the anticipated revenue from the optional one
cent - sales tax for the next five years. After a staff
presentation, which included alternatives and potential
funding sources, the 800 MHz intergovernmental radio system
was one of the capital projects given tentative approval at
the workshop by the Board pending a public hearing on May
17, 1994. Included in the presentation and recommendation
to the Board was information related to the $12.50
surcharge for moving traffic violations and its use as a
funding source for recurring infrastructure and user
equipment maintenance of the radio system.
5. On May 17, 1994, the Board held a public hearing on the
allocation of the second five years of the optional one
cent sales tax revenue for capital projects. The Board
approved the 800 MHz communications project with funding of
$2,235,500 in FY 94/95 for backbone construction and
$1,606,300 for user equipment in FY 95/96. Revenue from a
$12.50 moving traffic violation surcharge to fund annual
maintenance of the system was again recommended by staff
and approved by the Board as a part of the overall project.
6. Staff corresponded with the Florida Division of
Communications (DIVCOM) pursuant to Chapter 316.655 (6),
Florida Statutes and received written approval on May 19,
1994, to assess a surcharge of $12.50 on moving traffic
violations which occur in the county to fund the
intergovernmental radio communications system.
7. At a regular meeting on June 21, 1994,.the Board approved
a public hearing to consider assessing and implementing a
$12.50 surcharge on moving traffic violations as permitted
by statute to assist in funding the 800 MHz communications
system. The Board directed staff to provide additional
information regarding other fees now being assessed on
traffic violations.
W11
July 199 1994
� s �
Staff reviewed Chapter 318.18 and 316.655, Florida Statutes, and
contacted the Clerk of the Court to obtain the following breakdown of
fees currently assessed on traffic citations:
axa�uvw�;:: �x . ��m� .tea DLiP.LASI�iE >TiRIYIRG SC84QL' ,I
BASLD Old 16 MIzESEED LIMTT.;
LwiHEN `.FINE IS :PATO; WET FEE..IAID
_ TOR DEFSNSIVB `:'Di 3 NG 'SCBOOL
Fine
(56% local)
80.08
Defensive Driving School
(25% local to agency)
76.09
Child Welfare
1.00
Child Welfare
1.00
Juvenile Justice
1.00
Juvenile Justice
1.00
Court Costs
10.00
Court Costs
10.00
Clerk Fee
.52
Clerk Fee
4.53
ACCCTF
5.24
Police Academy
3.00
FNVR
2.08
ACCCTF
5.11
Emergency Medical
7.52
FNVR
1.93
IDSTF
8.56
Sheriff Fee
2.00
NGWTF
4.00
Emergency Medical
7.09
IDSTF
8.13
NGWTF
4.00 11
TOTAL
KEY:
$120.001 TOTAL
$123.88
ACCCTF Additional court cost clearing trust fund
FNVR Florida endowment for vocational rehabilitation
IDSTF Impaired drivers and speeders trust fund
NGWTF Non -game wildlife trust fund
Linda Brown of the Clerk's Office advised staff that approximately
three (3) years ago, the State drastically increased the percentage
of revenue from traffic citations that must go to the state, which
reduced the revenue that remains with local governments. The cost
per citation varies depending on miles over the speed limit and type
of violation.
The $12.50 surcharge being considered would only be applicable to
citations written for serious offenses that are, for the most part,
criminal violations according to, the statutes. These types of
citations are only a small percentage of the numerous offenses for
which an officer can write a traffic citation.
In discussing the communications surcharge with DIVCOM, staff was
informed that forty-two (42) counties in the state have now
implemented the $12.50 surcharcre. None of the counties that have
utilized this funding source implemented a surcharge fee of less than
the $12.50 maximum permitted by statute.
It was also determined that the surcharge revenue can be utilized for
existing communications systems such as towers, purchase of a new
intergovernmental communications system, and existing expenses
related to towers and recurring costs, if utilized by the county and
at least one other agency. This makes the expenses of approximately
$30,000 used to support Hobart Tower eligible to be funded from this
revenue source rather than the general fund.
91
July 19, 1994
Book 92 ifni, 987
Staff had also planned to use surcharge funds as a source of revenue
to pay for consultant services prior to October 1, 1995, related to --
system design, a propagation study, and development of specifications
for an RFP to be issued to potential vendors. This revenue source
would preclude a delay in the Board awarding a contract for beginning
construction of the infrastructure or backbone of the communications
system.
ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS
Staff proceeded to schedule the public hearing for implementation of
the $12.50 moving traffic violation surcharge based on the fact that
it was recommended by the consultant, it was discussed and
recommended by staff in two workshops with the Board without being
excluded from further consideration, and it was included as a source
for funding -the recurring maintenance cost of approximately $125,000
annually in the 800 MHz communications project approved by the Board
at the public hearing held on May 17, 1994.
As stated in prior meetings, staff anticipates the surcharge to
generate approximately $125,000 in revenue annually after a short
period occurs in which a reduction in the number of citations being
written, which is commonly experienced, for reasons discussed in
earlier meetings with the Board. However, staff is sure the Board is
aware that without this source of revenue, other funding sources
would be needed for recurring maintenance costs when the
communications system is constructed and operational. If the
surcharge is implemented by August 1994, the county could potentially
have an additional $75,000 generated, which could be used to offset
revenue now anticipated from the one cent optional sales tax fund and
used for other needed projects.
The alternatives for the Board appear to be as follows:
Alternative No. 1 - Deny approval and implementation of the
$12.50 surcharge and determine another source of funding the
recurring maintenance expense of approximately $125,000 per year
for the communications system after it is constructed and
operational.
Alternative No. 2 - Approve a surcharge fee of less than $12.50
and determine another source of funding the balance of the
recurring maintenance expense of the communications system after
it is constructed and operational.
Alternative No. 3 - Approve implementation and assessment of a
surcharge fee of $12.50 utilizing the revenue to fund the
recurring maintenance expense of the 800 MHz radio
communications system. To the maximum extent possible, funds
generated would also be used to offset revenue anticipated from
the optional one cent sales tax for construction of the
communications system and to eliminate expenses related to
Hobart Tower of approximately $30,000 annually from the General
Fund.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the
this alternative having the
not receive citations from
traffic violations.
July 19, 1994
Board approve Alternative No. 3 based on
least fiscal impact on citizens who do
law enforcement authorities for moving
r M
Commissioner Bird opposed the proposed surcharge because he
believed it would be a further burden to those who could least
afford it, had no relationship to offense, and could diminish the
numbers of traffic tickets written due to the compassion of law
enforcement officers.
Commissioner Eggert contended that if it were tied to a
driver's license or tag, she could agree it was unfair, but this
surcharge would be levied on those who deliberately break the law.
Commissioner Macht remarked that it was easy to exceed the
speed limit in a moment of inattention. He believed the surcharge
was not justifiable and the costs for the communication system
should be borne by all.
Administrator Chandler explained that a surcharge on a penalty
for a moving violation was a funding source provided by State law
for maintenance of emergency communication systems.
Commissioner Adams inquired whether an additional 25 cents to
the 911 telephone bill charge was possible, and Emergency Services
Director Wright explained it could not be considered as a funding
source.
The Chairman opened the public hearing and asked if anyone
wished to be heard.
Clerk of Circuit Court Jeff Barton advised that surrounding
counties impose a surcharge. His office is prepared to manage
collection and disbursement of the surcharge, and requested that it
be effective October 1, 1994, if adopted. He detailed current
difficulties incurred by his office because surrounding counties
impose the surcharge and reminded the Board that his office
receives only 520 per ticket for collection and disbursement
processing.
John Olbermann, 1950 South U.S. #1, felt that IRC shouldn't
impost a surcharge just because other counties do. He maintained
that the cost should be applied equitably to all county citizens.
Bill Roolage,.Vista Gardens Trail, believed it would be
inappropriate to tie a moving violation penalty to the maintenance
cost of the communication system, and he encouraged the Board to
find another way to pay for it.
Joseph Guffanti, registered voter, contended the proposed
surcharge would be taxation without representation or increased
taxation without a compensating increase in representation by
arbitrarily and capriciously discriminating against people whose
behavior had only a far-fetched connection with the alleged need of
the radio system. Secondly, he asserted it violated the cruel and
93 _
92 ���%� 9S8
July 19, 1994
I
92 ,� Jr 989
unusual punishment feature of the Bill of Rights, because it
singled out a group of hapless citizens and caused them to bear an
extraordinary and completely unnecessary increased financial
burden. He described it as discriminatory in nature and an
insidious approach to increased taxation.
It was determined that no one else wished to be heard and the
Chairman closed the public hearing.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by
Commissioner Macht, the Board unanimously
directed staff to recommend another source of
funding the recurring maintenance expense of
approximately $125,000 per year for the
communications system.
PUBLIC HEARING - PROPOSED ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING A
CODE OF ETHICS FOR COMMISSIONERS AND EMPLOYEES
The hour of 9:05 a.m. having passed, the County Attorney
announced that this public hearing had 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
attVVero Beach n Indithat he is an River CounManner tthe Vero ty, Florida; tPress-Journal,
e ttached copy of advertisement,
b
C� [ PIl9UC HEAR91d
T=
aosd d Cant Cammuss of Mn;,
a <�•••� ROIs l�kAma/a 550WAd f0a 9: ssy ,
. 12, to owes de fm.e9 piapoxd a- 1
In the matter ofGR TY FLO � AA CODE
OF ErHICS FOR COKONS50I4M AND
Angta ole mq well to aped any damn I*Kh
m�ry 1! mads at ftPaaee � 6 No m Juy 19.
198a. of need to amus Mgt a mom rsaad of '
s
9 a r
in the Court, was pub. de Ixdwea ies. asdt tains
1
am, Win WAM an WON Is ones.
• Jan 22, 1994 1109711 jj
limned in said newspaper in the issues of
;, lY& _
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. �
,: wQhi t6�abscribed before nye this day of A.D. 19 �
r`;NCii`I�i.' � •;`,.� r-1�:1�. � �_�...:,.u.:i%1',7ib�r'�ii� .
—FoGsmess manager)
Dy Comm EnsuestdA
• Vr
RSARA C SPRAGUE. NOTARY PUBLIC.
June 49. 1997 Slate of Rona. my cwm sun F ■a Jan 29. 1997
NO
040572 z11UMbel.U
9 �,
'•• C OF - :i
,---FLO„ Notary: BARBARA C SPRAGIIF
July 199 1994
94
_I
L _ I
Assistant County Attorney O'Brien advised that after previous
consideration, ordinance inconsistencies were removed from item
(5)(b)(2) concerning refreshments. Also, Supervisor of Elections
Robinson pointed out that "county officer" is the term used in the
Florida Statutes and Constitution for constitutional officers, so,
for clarity, he asked for license to change "county officer" to
either "county employee" or "Board -appointed county employee.,,
In response to a concern Commissioner Eggert raised, Attorney
O'Brien suggested the following change in (5) (b) , "The prohibitions
enumerated in paragraphs (a) and (c) of this section do not
apply... ", which would clarify any misunderstanding regarding
campaign -related contributions.
Attorney O'Brien explained that the proposed ordinance would
not apply to constitutional officers nor their employees; it would
overrule the present County Employee's Manual where in conflict,
and it did not cover nepotism which is covered in the Employee's
Manual. Disclosure of relationship to a certain staff level could
be included in the ordinance if desired.
Commissioner Adams inquired if passage of the ordinance would
avoid future accusations of contracts being awarded to relatives of
County employees, and Administrator Chandler pointed out that the
Personnel Manual has a separate section on nepotism, which follows
State law.
Commissioner Bird felt that the Code of Ethics was
sufficiently covered in Florida Statutes and read the following:
The "Code of Ethics for Public Officers and Employees"
adopted by the Legislature is found in Chapter 112 (Part
III)_.of the Florida Statutes. Foremost among the goals
of the Code is to promote the public interest and
maintain the respect of the people in their government.
The Code is also intended to ensure that public officials
conduct themselves independently and impartially, not
using their offices for private gain, other than
compensation provided by law. While seeking to protect
the integrity of government, the Code also seeks to avoid
the creation of unnecessary barriers to public service.
Commissioner Bird also pointed out that Commissioners were
part-time employees and generally had outside full time employment
and that was envisioned by the Legislature. Also, advisory board
members and some full time employees had second jobs. For those
reasons, the Legislature prescribed certain reporting and conduct
requirements regarding outside employment which include filing
disclosure forms. Commissioner Bird felt that as long as State law
was followed, he saw no problems.
95 �,nnX92 -'!J 990
July 19, 1994
3LfoF 92 P:,PF 901
Administrator Chandler confirmed that the Florida Statute
referenced by Commissioner Bird is incorporated in our Personnel
Manual.
Commissioner Eggert asked who would determine when a County
officer's performance was affected by outside employment, and
Attorney O'Brien replied that the wording would be changed to
"County employees," and would not pertain to Commissioners, adding
that each department head would be responsible.
County Attorney Vitunac confirmed that State law provided the
ability for counties to require additional disclosure, but did not
allow the counties to determine who could run for office.
The Chairman opened the public hearing and asked if anyone
wished to be heard.
Bob Schoen, 4596 Pebble Bay S., suggested language be added to
prohibit county officers from enlisting county employees for
election campaigns and cited specific examples from previous
campaigns. He also suggested that incompatible activities include
Commissioners as well as employees, with the intention of banning
the profit motive from any business transaction with the County.
Discussion followed and Board members agreed that language
could be modified at any time in the future.
Nancy-Offutt, Government Affairs Coordinator for Vero Beach -
Indian River Board of Realtors, spoke against passage of the
ordinance but not against ethics. She was concerned that the
ordinance might disenfranchise a good portion of the population,
more than just realtors, since many residents are active in
business and public service in the community.
Commissioner Macht emphasized that the proposed ordinance
merely requires disclosure, not exclusion from employment by the
County. The public wants to know when a County employee is
involved in a legitimate business transaction with the County.
It was determined that no one else wished to be heard and the
Chairman closed the public hearing.
96
July 199 1994
k
ON MOTION by Commissioner Macht, SECONDED by
Commissioner Eggert, the Board unanimously
adopted the ordinance establishing a Code of
Ethics for Commissioners and Employees, with
changes as suggested by Attorney O'Brien.
ORDINANCE 94- U
AN ORDINANCE OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY,
FLORIDA, ESTABLISHING A CODE OF ETHICS FOR
COMMISSIONERS AND EMPLOYEES.
WHEREAS, Chapter 112, F.S., provides standards of conduct for
public officers and employees; and
WHEREAS, additional requirements will clarify and elevate current
standards and are in the public interest,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, that:
SECTION 1. NEW SECTION.
A new Section 104.06 is added as set forth in Attachment "A" to
this Ordinance.
SECTION 2. SEVERABILITY.
If any section, or any sentence, paragraph, phrase, or word of
this- ordinance is for any reason . held to be unconstitutional,
Inoperative, or void, such holding shall not affect the remaining
portions of this ordinance, and it shall be construed to have been the
legislative intent to pass the ' ordinance without such unconstitutional,
invalid or inoperative part.
SECTION 3. EFFECTIVE DATE.
This ordinance shall become effective upon becoming law.
Approved and adopted by the Board of County Commissioners of
Indian River County, Florida, on this 19 day of J u 1 y 1994.
This ordinance was advertised in the Vero Beach Press -Journal
on the • 2 2 day of J u n e , 1994, for a public hearing to be held
on the 19 day of July 1994, at which timQ it was moved for
adoption by Commissioner ' M a c h t , seconded by Commissioner
Eggert , and adopted by .the following vote:
97
July 199 1994
Chairman John W. Tippin Aye
Vice Chairman Kenneth R. 'Macht Aye
Commissioner Carolyn K. Eggert Aye
Commissioner Richard N. Bird Aye
Commissioner Fran B. Adams A y e
Attest:
Jeff.rey K. Rarton, Clerk
^' 92993
uvr�, 1:1�•L
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSION
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
1
By
John W. Tippin; /C)fairman
Acknowledgement by the Department of State of the State of Florida,
this 1 s tday of August , 1994.
Effective date: Acknowledgement from the Department of State received
on this 3rd day of August , 1994, at 10:00 a.m/pcxx and filed in
the Office of the Clerk of the Board of County Commissioners of Indian
River County, Florida.
Ravliaioh 8/7-19-9A(doo\attilos.doo)Ow
ATTACHMENT "A"
Section 104.06. Code of Ethics and Conduct.
(1) This Code of Ethics is in addition to the requirements of Chapter
112, Florida Statutes. Where there is a conflict between Chapter 112,
F.S. and this code the more stringent requirement shall apply.
(2) This code shall apply to county commissioners and county
employees. The term "person" includes commissioners and county
employees. Written requests for interpretative rulings concerning the
applicability of this code may be submitted to the county attorney for
written reply.
(3) Information concerning any incident or situation in which it
appears that .a board appointed county employee or county commissioner
may have engaged in conduct contrary to this code should be forwarded
by complaint affidavit to the state attorney for the Nineteenth Judicial
District for his investigation and appropriate action.
(4) A person shall avoid any action, whether or not specifically
prohibited by this section, which might result in:
(a) using public office for private gain;
(b) giving preferential treatment to any person; or
(c) making a government decision outside official channels.
(5) (a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) and (c) of this
subsection, a person shall not solicit or accept, directly or indirectly,
any gift, gratuity, favor, entertainment, loan, or any other thing of
monetary value, from anyone who:
(1) has, or is seeking to obtain, contractual or other business or
financial relations with the county;
(2) -conducts operation or activities that are regulated by the
county; or
98
July 199 1994
(3) has interests that may be substantially affected by the
performance or nonperformance of the person's official duty; or
(4) is in any way attempting to affect the person's official actions
at the county.
(5) is offering anything of monetary value, including food and
refreshments, to an employee because of the person's official
position.
(b) The prohibitions enumerated in paragraph (a) and (c) of this
section do not apply in the situations enumerated below:
(1) Where obvious family ( such as those between the parents,
children, or spouse of the person) or other personal
relationships make it clear that it is those relationships rather
than the business of the persons concerned which are the
motivating factors.
(2) Food and refreshments: Under Chapter 112, F.S., the word
"gift" is defined to exclude "Food or beverage consumed at a
single sitting or event". Pursuant to Section 112.326, F.S.,
it is the purpose of this code to require more stringent
county disclosure requirements than provided for in Chapter
112, F.S. Therefore, and notwithstanding any other section
or personnel manual to the contrary, county commissioners,
and county employees may accept food or beverage consumed
at a single sitting or event only if the cost for said food or
beverage does not exceed the Chapter 112, F.S., rate for the
appropriate per diem allowance for said meal. If, under
circumstances beyond the control of the donee, the cost
exceeds the per diem rate then within five (5) working days
of the acceptance, the donee shall file a written disclosure
statement with the executive aide to the commission on a form
provided by said aide. In addition, food or beverage may be
accepted when (i) offered free in the course of a meeting or
other group function not connected with an inspection or
investigation, at which attendance is desirable because it will
assist the person in performing his or her official duties; or
(ii) provided to all panelists or speakers when a person is
participating as a panelist or speaker in a program, seminar
or educational conference.
(3) Loans may be obtained from banks or other financial
institutions on customary terms to finance proper and usual
activities of persons such as home mortgage loans.
(4) Unsolicited advertising or promotional material such as pens,
pencils, note pads, calendars and other items of nominal
intrinsic value may be accepted, as well as job related
literature.
(5) Gifts given for participation in a program, seminar or educa-
tional conference may be accepted only when such gifts are
(1) of nominal intrizisic value (ii) in the : nature of a remem-
brance traditional to the particular sponsoring entity and (iii)
provided to all participants in the program.
(6) Contributions or expenditures reported pursuant to Chapter
106, F.S., campaign -related personal services provided
without compensation by . individuals volunteering their time,
or any other contribution or expenditure by, a political party.
(c) A person shall not solicit a contribution from another person for a
gift to an official superior, make
a donation as a
gift to
an official
superior, or accept a gift from a
person receiving
less pay
than him-
self. However, this paragraph does not prohibit
a voluntary gift of
nominal value or donation in a
nominal amount
made on
a special
occasion such as marriage, illness,
or retirement.
99
y
"' 4
July 199 1994
I
aonx 92 P,.4
. uL
(6) No county employee may engage in outside employment or other
outside activity, with or without compensation, which is in conflict with
or otherwise not compatible with the full and proper. discharge of his
duties and responsibilities to Indian River County. Incompatible
activities include but are not limited to:
(1) acceptance of a fee, compensation, gift, payment of expenses,
or any other thing of monetary value in circumstances in which
acceptance may result in a conflict of interest situation; or
(2) outside employment which tends to impair his mental or
physical capacity to perform his duties and responsibilities in an
acceptable manner; or
(3) outside employment or activities ( excluding the publication of
articles) which reasonably might be regarded as official actions of
-the county or which might bring discredit upon the county.
(7) It shall be the duty of each commissioner, board appointed county
employee, department head and professional staff member to become
familiar with the code of ethics for public officers and employees. To
this end, the personnel director shall distribute to each person in the
above enumerated categories a current copy of the "Florida Commission
on Ethics Guide to the Sunshine Amendment and Code of Ethics for
Public and Employees".
SCHEDULING OF TWO EVENING BOARD HEARINGS TO CONSIDER
LDR AMENDMENTS
The Board reviewed the following memo dated July 13, 1994:
TO: James E. Chandler
County Administrator
DI ION HEAD CONCURRENCE:
6-Mvw f 1g, jygu
Rbbert M. Keating, ICP
Community Dyeyv�elopm nt rfikector
FROM: Stan Boling JAICP
Planning Director
DATE: July 13, 1994
SUBJECT: Approval of Hearing Dates for Two Evening Board Hearings
to Consider LDR Amendments
It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal
consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at its regular
meeting of July 19, 1994.
BACKGROUND:
Since October -1, 1990, the Florida Statutes has required two
evening meetings of the Board of County Commissioners whenever
amendments to the Land Development Regulations (LDRs) are to be
considered and adopted. To minimize the number of required evening
meetings, staff has limited the number of times the LDR's are
amended. This has been done by holding proposed LDR amendments
until a sufficient number of amendments exist.
100
July 199 1994
1
At this time, there are many proposed LDR amendments which now
require consideration and action by the Board of County
Commissioners. These LDR changes have been initiated by county
staff, the Professional Service Advisory Committee (PSAC), and the
Board of County Commissioners. This set of LDR amendments relates
to many issues, including but not limited to the following:
1. Vehicle storage lot (paved or unpaved) use category.
2. Automobile sales in industrial districts.
3. Special_yard situations for multi -frontage lots.
4. Heights of walls and fences.
5. Veterinary clinic/animal hospital special land use criteria
conflict.
6. Setbacks and buffers for country clubs and associated uses.
7. Group homes/ACLF separation distance.
B. Planning and Zoning Commission representation on the Technical
Review Committee.
9. Bufferyards in Multi -Family Projects.
10. Bonding Requirements for Moving of Structures.
11. Site Plan Project Classification.
12. Platting -over Site Plan Projects.
13. Calculation of ACLF/Group Home Land Use Intensity.
14. CH District Side Yard Setbacks Against FEC Railroad.
15. IL & IG District Side Yard Setbacks Against FEC -Railroad.
16. Traffic Impact Fee (TIF) Ordinance 15% Reduction for
Individual Assessments.
17. Review Fee for TIF Individual Assessments.
18. Changes to Subdivision Application Submittal Requirements &
Procedures.
19. FEMA - Recommended Changes to Stormwater Management & Flood
Protection Requirements
20. Live -aboard Vessels: Definition & Restrictions.
21. Dock Rental Restrictions.
22. Limitations on Littoral Zone Requirements.
23. Setbacks for Legal Nonconforming Lots of Record Endnote 112" of
Section 911.08(7) is hereby amended to read as follows:
24. Setbacks for Swimming Pool Structures on Corner & Multi -
Frontage Lots.
The PSAC has reviewed most of the proposed amendments. The
Planning and Zoning Commission is in the process of considering and
making recommendations to the Board regarding the proposed LDR
amendments. To proceed with the review and approval process for
the amendments, the Board must now set dates and times for the
required two evening public hearings.
ANALYSIS AND ALTERNATIVES:
The proposed amendments were considered by the PSAC at several of
its 1994 meetings. The Planning and Zoning Commission is scheduled
to consider the proposed amendments at its July 14, 1994 meeting.
The Board of County Commissioners must hold its meetings after
receiving the Planning and Zoning Commission's recommendations.
While most of the proposed amendments are non -controversial, some
items could require significant discussion.
State requirements mandate seven day notice (newspaper
advertisement) prior to the first meeting, five day notice prior to
the second meeting, and at least two weeks between the two
meetings. The meetings must be held after 5:00 p.m. Planning
staff has coordinated with the Board office staff regarding
July 199 1994
101 _996
I
�r^r 92 y'.�i 997
potential hearing dates in August and early September. One set of -
hearing dates which would comply with all the state requirements
and appears to accommodate Commissioners' schedules is as follows:
MEETING DATE TIME
1. Tuesday, August 16, 1994 501 P.M.
2. Wednesday, August 31, 1994 5:01 P.M.
Staff has tentatively reserved use of the Commission Chambers for
these proposed dates. The Board may establish any other dates that
meet state requirements and during which the Chambers may be used.
RECOMMMATION:
Staff recommends that the Board establish meeting dates for the two
evening public hearings required to consider and adopt the proposed
LDR amendments.
The Board members agreed to schedule the public hearings on
August 15 and 31, 1994, at 5:01 p.m.
IRC COURTHOUSE PROTECT SCHEDULE
The Board reviewed the following memo dated July 8, 1994 and
letter dated July 6, 1994:
Date: July 8, 1994
Zb: James H. Chandler
County Aabiinistrator
FZ'H.T. "Sony" Dean, D .
Department of Gemera7 Services
StIW: Indian River County Courthouse P=ject Schedule
Attached is a FAX letter received from Gary Glenewinkel, of Centex Rocney. As
per our discussion, Mr. Glenewinkel will be here for the BBC meeting cn 7/19/94
to discuss this matter with the Board.
Capt' to:
Courthouse Advisory Committee•
102
July 199 1994
61
July 6, 1994
® M
CENTEX ROONEY
CONSTR UCTIO N COM PA NY
awu Normwesr 5th Way . FOrt l auderdOle. Flohdc 33309
Mr. sonny Dam
Director, Cienmal Services
Board of county Commissioners
iadian River county
Dep�mant of Gena d Services
Ada4iais1tloa Bwkft
1840 25th $Meet, Suite 203
Vern Beach, FL 32960
Re: Indian River-ConrdOM Completion
Dear SonW.
Via Fax (407) 770-5095
As You Imm, we haves been eonc=W for some time about the progress of the project. The
contra' A "s most recent schedule indicates a subs completion date of
� i 0f �' 2I, ls�. whIk I foes � aa� arc `v'g'ut zz, i994 and
aril based on tine cow �� I must tell you
to um the plans and as ft safe reasons for the delays.to date and his ability
It is my reoomnletndadoa that aro adjust the Counties ptopoW move in dates as follows:
• Move is of new furniU= - w0ek of Sqftmber 19, 1994
• Adbober ?A CUIMV L99Owned fim9t u+e n=ft and e - week of
m - First day of busiaess in tine Courthouse - November 1, 1994
I would also suggest that We leave the building daft as
MMOY
fie will be in plac0 and 1110 courthouse ran be opened for touts and WL TWe new
I have waited as long as I feet possible in w*log ft �
not be naoessary b any of the dates. I feel the safest and � to � that It would
� a little morle tithe and adjust the dates now so that there W be am
SyV
64 Gtr
Gari► . Gleaesvialloe'1
Senior Via Dent
P.S. Sonny, I w91 OR you later today to discuss,
General Services Director Sonny Dean called upon Gary
Glenewinkel of Centex Rooney to explain the recommendations in his
letter of July 6, 1994.
103
July 19, 1994
4ti k 92-"998
B'- 92 999
Gary Glenewinkel, representing the Courthouse Project Manager,
recommended scheduling the Courthouse opening for November 1, 1994.
He believed it would be very, very difficult to close out the
project with the contractor and the architect. He believed it has
been a financially difficult project for the contractor. He
detailed the many factors considered in making his recommendation
to delay the opening. They have documented all changes and time
extensions requested by the contractor, which were concurrent with
the magnitude of the changes. The contractor believes he is not
late due to all the changes that had been made, but Mr. Glenewinkel
asserted that not all.the extra time was justified. He confirmed
that the budget for the project was still intact, even with the
delays, and said the Board needs to be as knowledgeable as possible
as the time nears to close out the project. Responding to
Commissioner Macht's question, he believed it would be unnecessary
to go to the bonding company.
Clerk of the Court Jeff Barton, speaking on behalf of his
office and the judiciary, advised that no more court cases are
being scheduled for October and that the calendar is getting full
for the balance of the year. A change in the opening date would
create a monumental task to inform all parties involved in any kind
of case. It took 5 months to plan for the October opening date,
and we need to set a realistic date.
Commissioner Macht suggested the opening date be considered at
the Courthouse Advisory Committee meeting on Thursday, June 26,
1994 and have a Centex Rooney representative, OMB Director Baird,
and other key representatives present.
Commissioner Eggert asked if they would be discussing the
dedication date because she would like to have the dedication after
everything was in, not just the furniture.
Commissioner Macht advised that Chief Justice Steven Grimes
of the. Supreme Court had indicated he would be unable to attend the
dedication.
CONSENSUS of the Board was to let the Courthouse Advisory
Committee consider the opening date, make a
recommendation, and present same at the next Commission
meeting for the Board's determination.
July 19, 1994
104
HEALTH CARE PLAN
The Board reviewed the following memo dated July 8, 1994:
To: Board of County Commissioners Date: July 8, 1994
From: Jack Price Sub: Health Care Plan
-----------------------------------------------------------------
On June 22, 1994, the Board of County Commissioners authorized
staff to negotiate the Health Care Plan with Acordia Benefits of
Florida, to be effective October 1, 1994. Other elements of the
insurance program, including new features such as optional Long
Term Disability insurance, optional employee and dependent life
insurance, and the ability to pay for these benefits, and dependent
medical insurance, through a Premium Conversion (Section 125)
program, are now confirmed also. The benefits set through the
"125" program. will be effective in January, 1995 because of the
time required to prepare internal financial and data processing
systems to accommodate them.
The consultant who assisted with the project, Siver Insurance
Management Consultants, will be represented at the Board meeting by
Ms. Stephanie C. Sheppa, HIA, who will make a brief presentation
and answer any questions from the Board. Her detailed Proposal
Analysis and Recommendation is attached for your review. Also
present at the Board meeting will be representatives from the new
Life and Accidental Death and Dismemberment insurance carrier,
GroupAmerica Insurance Company, the Long Term Disability carrier,
Florida Combined Life Insurance Company, and the Group Medical
Provider, Acordia Benefits of South Florida.
As was reported in the June 22, 1994 agenda item, this project has
resulted in a $640,611 cost reduction to the County. This permits
Indian River County to continue to meet the dual objectives of the
program, to provide competitive health care benefits to employees
and to do so in a cost effective manner.
Recommendation
The Board of County Commissioners award the bids for this program
to Acordia Benefits of South Florida, GroupAmerica Insurance
Company and Florida Combined Life Insurance Company.-
Personnel
ompany.-
Personnel Director Jack Price introduced the consultant and
advised that OMB Director Joe Baird was available to answer any
questions. He expressed appreciation for the great deal of work by
members of the Employee Health Care Committee who were Ann Rankin,
Personnel; Beth Jordan, Risk Manager; Joe Baird, Budget; Weezie
Scheidt, Clerk's Office; and Alma Fred, Sheriff's Department.
105
BOOK PAJOOO.
July 199 1994
MOK 92'W10 01
Stephanie C. Sheppa, Siver Insurance Management Consultants,
presented highlights of the process they used in arriving at the
recommendation outlined in her letter of July 12, 1994, as follows:
July 12, 1994
Mr. Jack Price, Director
Personnel Department
Indian River County
1840 25th Street
Vero Beach,1'L 32960
S
IV
9400 Rcueh S4eet Noetb
St. PeWsbw . F1vida 33702
P.O. Sao 21343 (33742)
3blephooe: (813) 377.2780
Fax: (8 13) 3794W2
Re: Group Medical, Group Life and Accidental Death & Disability and
Group Long Term Disability Insurance - Proposals Analysis and
Recommendation
Dear Mr. Price:
In April 1994, our firm prepared Request for Proposals (RFP) for the
solicitation of competitive proposals for Group Medical, Group Life and
AD&D coverages and Group Long Term Disability Insurance to be effective
October 1, 1994- The RFPs were made available to all interested parties and
a total of twenty-seven (27) companies responded with a variety of proposals
on May 12, 1994.
RECOMMENDATION
It is our opinion that selection of the following proposers will serve the best
interests of the County and its affiliated agencies:
• Group Medical Insurance - Acordia of South Florida, Inc.
(Acordia)
• Group Basic We and AD&D Insurance - GroupAmenca
Insurance Company (GroupAmerica)
• Group Optional Employee Life and AD&D Insurance
GroupAmerica Insurance Company (GroupAmerica)
• Group Dependent We Insurance - GroupAmerica Insurance
Company (GroupAmerica)
• Group Long Term Disability Insurance - Florida Combined Life
Insurance Company (Florida Combined)
By selecting Acordia, the County has the potential to save approximately 28%
over current costs to provide group medical insurance coverage to its
employees and dependents. Additionally, the County will reduce its current
costs by approximately 28% for group basic life and AD&D insurance
coverage with GroupAmerica.
July 19, 1994
106
s
Further, GroupAmerica offers affordable Employee Paid optional life and
AD&D insurance for employees, spouses, and dependents. Florida
Combines voluntary long term disability product provides an opportunity for
the County to offer this new benefit to employees at a competitive rate.
Additional details and the rationale for our recommendation follow.
We appreciate this opportunity to be of service to the Board of County
Commissioners, The Sheriffs Office, The Clerk -s Office, Property Appraiser,
Supervisor of Elections, and Tax Collector.
Sincerely yours,
SIVER INSURANCE MANAGEMENT CONSULTANTS
71rQ
Ste 'e C. Sheppi, MA
Senior Employee Benefits Consultant
Ms. Sheppa responded to questions from the Board concerning
medical case management and the 28% cost reduction.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Macht, the Board unanimously
approved the consultant's recommendation as
outlined in their letter of July 12, 1994.
INDIAN RIVER BOULEVARD
4PHASE IV,
REDUCTION OF RETAINAGE FROM 10% TO 2%
The Board reviewed the following memo dated July 6, 1994:
TO: James Chandler
County Administrator
THROUGH: James., W. Davis, P.E. � DATE: July 6, 1994
Public Works Director
FROM: Terry B. Thompson, P.E�
Capital Projects Manager
SUBJECT: Indian River Boulevard Phase Iv
Reduction of Retainage from 10% to 2%
The Contractor for Indian River Boulevard Phase IV, Dickerson Florida,
Inc., has requested a reduction in retainage from 10% to 2%. As shown on
the attached cover sheet for Application for Payment No. 15, 2% retainage
equates to $69,870.52.
All work has been completed. Final payment and release of the remaining
retainage will be brought to the Board after the As-Builts are completed
and final quantities computed.
RECOMMMATIoms AND FQNDTN_
Staff recommends that the retainage be reduced from 10% to 2%.
Funding is from Account 0309-215-541-066.51.
107
July 19, 1994
wow 82 ,A003-
ON
0
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously
approved reduction of retainage from Dickerson
Florida, Inc., from 10% to 2%, as set out in
staff's memorandum.
58TH AVENUE RIGHT-OF-WAY ACOUOSITOON
PARCELS #106 AND #106A, DAVID AND PRINCESS FELDMAN
The Board reviewed the following memo dated July 7, 1994:
TO: James E. Chandler
County Administrator
THROUGH: James W. Davis, P.E.
Public Works Director
FROM: Donald G. Finney, SRAi �'e
County Right -of -Way Agent
SUWZCT: 58th Avenue Right -of -Way Acquisition; Parcels #106 and
#106A, David and Princess Feldman
DATE: July 7, 1994
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
An additional 56 feet of right-of-way is required on 58th Avenue
for the four lane paving project from Route 60 to Oslo Road.
The property owner has executed a contract at the appraised value
of $11,900 per acre for the RS -1 zoned land.
The contract price is:
#106,
56' x 704'±,
.91 acre
$10,829
#106A,
56' x 667'±,
.86 acre
$10.234
TOTAL
CONTRACT:
$21,063
There are no appraisal or attorney fees.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff request the Board of County Commissioners approve the $21,063
contract and authorize the Chairman to execute the contract.
FUNDING
Funding to be from District 8 Traffic Impact Fee # 101-158-541-
067.48 with reimbursement from the Local Option Sales Tax Revenue.
108
July 199 1994
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously
approved the Contract for Sale and Purchase
with David and Princess Feldman, in the amount
of $21,063, as recommended by staff.
CONTRACT FOR SALE AND PURCHASE WITH APPRAISALS
IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD
RELOCATION OF THE LAURA RIDING JACKSON HOME TO THE
ENVIRONMENTAL LEARNING CENTER SITE
Deputy County Attorney Collins reviewed the following memo
dated July 13, 1994:
TO: The Board of County Commissioners
FROM: Lot/ William G. Collins II - Deputy County Attorney
DATE: July 13, 1994
SUBJECT: Relocation of the Laura Riding Jackson Home to the
Environmental Learning Center Site
Greg Smith has requested the opportunity to make a presentation to the
Board of County Commissioners with respect to the Laura Riding Jackson
home, its historical and cultural significance to Indian River County, and the
appropriateness of relocating the Jacksons home to the Environmental Learning
Center site.
Such a relocation would necessarily have to conform to all county ordinances
with respect to moving permits, site plan modification, etc. The
Environmental Learning Center, Inc. and the Historic Foundation have been
negotiating on their respective responsibilities for approximately one year
and are now near agreement.
There are certain legal issues with respect to the property which should be
understood and agreed to by the parties to the lease prior to- the relocation
of the Jackson home to the ELC site.
1. The property was deeded by the Board of Trustees of the Internal
Improvement Trust Fund to Indian River County for recreational
purposes, with a subsequent amendment to allow the property to be
used for public educational purposes.
2. The 1987 lease between the County and the Pelican Island Audubon
Society provides that the property be used exclusively for an
environmental learning center and accessory uses thereto. The lease
also provides that the property will be used solely for the purpose of
maintaining and operating an environmental information center, and that
failure to comply would allow the county to declare a default in the
lease.
1091 9 ,�11
:80% VI
July 19, 1994
Baa 92
` ' Q
3. Pelican Island Audubon Society assigned the lease to the Environmental
Learning Center, Inc. in January of 1989 subject to continued
operation of the building for the purposes and objectives set out in the
bylaws and articles of incorporation of the Environmental Learning
Center. _
I think it is important for the County as lessor, PIAS as lessee sand the ELC
as assignee to come to an understanding that the term "environmental
education" encompasses more than the physical or natural environment,
extending to the historical and cultural environment. All parties should
understand that the relocation of the historic home of the writer Laura
Riding Jackson is not an event of default under the lease, but would be a
complimentary accessory educational use of the property.
CONCLUSION:
If you concur with Mr. Smith on the relocation of the Jackson home to the
ELC site, authorize the Chairman to execute in triplicate the attached
Addendum of Understanding with respect to the Laura Riding Jackson home.
Greg Smith advised the Board that he has been working for over
a year to have the Laura Riding Jackson Home moved to the site
because of its historical and cultural significance. It is
believed that the home, with Cracker architectural features, was
built in about 1910 and was lived in by Jackson, a poet of
international significance, for over 50 years. The educational and
informative significance would be the illustration of a lifestyle
that had minimal effect on the environment. Ms. Jackson had lived
in the home without electricity or running water and they would
demonstrate how usage modifications impacted natural resources.
They plan to have a pole barn, a cistern, a non-functional
outhouse, and scientific exhibits showing the percolation effects
of waste materials.
Responding to questions, Mr. Smith stated that there will be
some restoration needed for which private fund raising is underway.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Adams, SECONDED by
Commissioner Eggert, the Board unanimously
approved the Addendum of Understanding, as set
forth in staff's memorandum.
ORIGINAL ADDENDUM OF UNDERSTANDING IN ON FILE
IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD
110
July 19, 1994
COUNCIL OF PUBLIC OFFICIALS C0AUM TEE REPORT
The Board reviewed the minutes of the Council of Public
Officials held June 15, 1994, which minutes are on file in the
office of the Board of County Commissioners. Commissioner Macht
advised the minutes were for information only. There was no
discussion nor action required.
ZONING CODE REVIEW
The Board reviewed the following memo dated July 13, 1994:
To: Board of County Commissioners
From: Carolyn K. Eggert, County Commissioner
Date: July 13, 1994
Re: Zoning Codes
This is a request that the Board of County Commission
direct the Community Development Department to review the
zoning codes, especially the uses in the CN, CL, and CG
zones. Also look at the zones as to what characteristics
distinguish them - i.e. serve only the neighborhood or have
less intense uses, etc.
Talked with Bob Keating about this before MPO meeting.
He indicated there are other problems, such as car
dealerships and used -car dealerships.
This would, of course, include definitions for uses and
a look at current uses pharmacy vs drug store;. grocery,
supermarket, department store (Sam's) and convenience
stores. Throughout the retail industry we are seeing large
discount stores that are virtually wholesalers. How do we
deal with them?
Thank you for your consideration of this mat -ter.
111
July 19, 1994
n% 92, im40
Commissioner Eggert advised that Director Keating had
indicated he was having problems in defining certain zoning
districts. In addition, she suggested it might be well to re -check
buffer levels because of today's earlier discussion of the
DeBartolo mall.
Commissioner Bird felt the request too broad and time
consuming for staff.
Commissioner Macht was concerned that the thrust was to
diminish projects in progress and underscored the county's need for
the tax dollars and employment those projects would bring.
Commissioner Adams had no problem with the current definitions
of the CN, CL and CG districts. She suggested any direction to
staff must be narrowed.
Chairman Tippin preferred that Director Keating bring any
problems to the Board as they emerge.
Commissioner Eggert wished to see greater clarification of
commercial development intensity such as giant car dealers and used
car dealers, and to know whether planned retail superstores were,
in fact, wholesale establishments.
Director Keating believed there were not any problems at the
present time. In talking to Commissioner Eggert, he merely said
there was no differentiation between districts for the allowance of
new car dealerships and used car dealers. He assured the Board
that if he encountered any problems, he would bring them forward.
He reminded them that the Professional Services Advisory Committee
(PSAC) regularly reviews overall codes, and he offered a suggestion
for a combined workshop with the BCC, PSAC and Planning & Zoning
Commission sometime in September or October.
Board members did not favor a workshop and expressed
confidence in the professional abilities and discretion of staff.
SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL DISTRICT MEETING
The Board of County Commissioners adjourned at_1:07 p.m. to
meet as the Board of Commissioners of the Solid Waste Disposal
District. Those minutes are being prepared separately. The Board
of County Commissioners reconvened at 1:08 p.m. to consider the
following:
112
July 199 1994
RECONS FOR FUNDING COST OF LIVING
ADTUSTIVIENT FOR ALL COUNTY EMPLOYEES
County Administrator Jim Chandler recounted that at the budget
workshop the Board directed staff to make recommendations on
providing a Cost of Living Adjustment (COLA) for County employees
and methods of funding a COLA, and staff has two alternatives,
depending on the Sheriff's planned step raise for his employees.
Administrator Chandler listed three changes in the budget: (1)
last week's presentation on the health insurance resulted in
savings; (2) cash balances in MSTU and Transportation budgets, and
(3 ) the State modif ied their f igures for the one-half cent sales
tax revenue and their estimate now is $57,000 better than
originally set out, although it is $57,000 less than the current
year. Funds from these three sources cannot provide a 2 percent
across the board COLA increase to begin on October 1, 1994, but we
may be able to provide a 2.2 percent increase if we were to begin
the adjustment on January 1, 1995.
The limitation involves the Sheriff's budget. The Sheriff's
budget includes $190,000 for a step program increase, and we have
recommended that his budget be reduced to the current year's level.
If he cannot reduce his budget, we have Alternate B, which could
provide a COLA increase of 1 percent on October 1, 1994, or 1.2
percent increase on January 1, 1995. Staff reviewed and stretched
all sources to arrive at these recommendations.
Commissioner Bird asked for clarification of the sources of
funds for the 2.2 percent increase in Alternate A.
Administrator Chandler explained that the insurance consultant
transmitted rates which resulted in a savings of $184,000, which
was unexpected prior to last Thursday. The balance of the funds
for the 2.2 percent increase would come from the cash balances in
MSTU and Transportation budgets, and the $57,000 increase in the
State's estimate of our one-half cent sales tax revenue. Staff
predicated all these figures on the goal of no tax increase.
OMB Director Joe Baird emphasized that he could not guarantee
the funding for a COLA increase because of a contingency in the
Emergency Management Services budget. The funding is an estimate
at this time. He stressed that the millage rate must be set so
that the TRIM notices can be mailed out. The Sheriff's budget will
make a difference because 60 percent of law enforcement budget
comes from MSTU revenue while court services come from the General
Fund.
113 Box . �V,4 00(
July 19, 1994
Bom U4 Pis,4®
Sheriff Gary Wheeler sensed that Director Baird was not aware
that the step raises would be excluded from his budget if the
County provides a COLA increase for all County employees. He would
also reduce court security, which would reduce the Sheriff's budget
by $483,000.
Director Baird explained, and Administrator Chandler confirmed
that they were aware of the Sheriff's suggested alternatives but
were following the Board's direction to present alternatives to
provide a COLA increase for all County employees.
Sheriff Wheeler emphasized that if there is COLA raise for all
County employees, he would cut the step raise for his employees.
Director Baird further explained that there is no surplus in
our budget, and he and Administrator Chandler had a difficult time
looking for ways and means to provide a COLA increase for all
County employees.
Commissioner Bird was concerned about security at the
courthouse being cut.
Sheriff Wheeler explained that there will be bailiffs, the
courtrooms will be secure, but there will be no monitoring of the
x-ray machines, no information officer, and no roving security
personnel. Deputies will accompany the prisoners.
Commissioner Eggert asked whether staff calculated the cost of
a 3 percent COLA raise, and Administrator Chandler advised that it
would take $962,494 to provide a 3 percent pool of funds, which
would call for an increase in taxes.
Discussion ensued regarding ways of providing raises to the
County employees and how step programs and salary levels would be
affected.
Director Baird stated that with the information from Sheriff
Wheeler about reducing the courthouse security and cutting the step
raise, he could calculate the millage rate. He pointed out that
the Board must authorize Administrator Chandler to certify that
millage rate.
Administrator Chandler agreed that he now has the necessary
information and will review it and make a recommendation to the
Board for a COLA raise for all County employees.
Commissioner Bird could not imagine opening the Courthouse
without adequate security.
Discussion ensued regarding the security provided at the
Courthouse as well as the cost of school resource officers.
Sheriff Wheeler felt that the school resource officers are
imperative because there are 2,000 students and some of them are
armed. A school resource officer gathers intelligence to prevent
July 19, 1994
114
M
M
problems. The Courthouse is a more stable environment, although
there is a level of danger in any place where people gather.
Sheriff Wheeler understood that the Board has responsibility for
Courthouse security, and somehow the Sheriff's Office acquired that
responsibility by degrees. He has cut his budget as much as
possible. There are other options. If he must carry the
responsibility and liability for Courthouse security by degrees, or
piecemeal, he would prefer that the Board hire private security.
Commissioner Macht commended Sheriff Wheeler on his efforts to
cut his budget and provide security at the Courthouse as well as
the school resource officers. He agreed that we must retain the
school resource officers no matter what.
MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Macht, SECONDED by
Commissioner Eggert, to certify the millage rate as
calculated by OMB Director Joe Baird.
Commissioner Bird asked what will happen when we decide that
we need more security at the courthouse.
Administrator Chandler responded that at the present time we
do not have funds.
Chairman Tippin concluded that staff will work on staying
within the budget, and there are ways to cut when you must.
THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION.
It was voted on and carried unanimously.
There being no further business, on Motion duly made, seconded
and carried, the Board adjourned at 1:50 p.m.
ATTEST:
J. rton, Clerk
MINUTES APPROVED7wrl� �� L
115
July 19, 1994
John W: Tippiri,' Chairmain