HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/25/1994MINUTES ATTACI-ILD
BOARD OF COUNTY COIUSSIONERS
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
A G E N D.A.
OCTOBER 25, 1994 ^
9:00 A.M. - COUNTY COMMISSION CLAMBER
COUNTY ADMIINISTRATION BUILDING
1840 25TH STREET
eVBR.O BEACH, *FLORIDA*
COUNTY COMMSSIONERS
John W. Tiepin, Chairman (Dist. 5) James E. Chandler, County Administrator
Kenneth R. Macht, Vice Chairman (Dist. 3)
Fran B. Adams (Dist. 1 Charles P. Vitunac, County Attorney
Carolyn K. Eggert (Dist. 2)
Richard N. Bird (Dist. 4) Jeffrey K. Barton, Clerk to the Board
9:00 A.M. 1. CALL TO ORDER.
PAGE
2. INVOCATION None
3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE John W. Tippin, Chairman
4. ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA/ENR3ItGENCY ITEMItem 7.H. & 7.K. Deferred for one week
Item 7.0. Letter of resignation from John Morrison, Land Acquisition Advisory Committee
Item 9.B.3. Public Discussion, Attorney Buck Vocelle, Jr., concerning a court decision
relative to Judge Vocelle's appointment of Circuit Judges
Item 11.H.8.Department of Environmental Protection Ruling on Wetlands
Item 13.A.3.Legislative Delegation and Treasure Coast Council Annual Meeting
Item 13.B. New opening date for New Courthouse.
Item 13.F. Funding for printing of the County Organization Informational Booklet
S. PROCL.A TION AND PRRSENTATIONS
Proclamation designating November 5, 1994
as Children's Art Festival Day
6. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A. Regular Meeting of Sept. 6, 1994
B. Regular Meeting of Sept. 13, 1994
7. CONSENT AGENDA
A. Release of County Assessment Liens
Assessment Project #8610, Paving
Drainage
(Memorandum dated 10/13/94)
B. Cancellation of Outstanding Taxes
Properties Purchased for County Use
(Memorandum dated 10/17/94)
C- Deed M by City to County - St. Francis
(Memorandum dated 10/18/94)
D. Release of Utility Liens
(Memorandum dated 10/14/94)
E- Grand Harbor Construction - Assignment
of Warranty to County for Utility
Maintenance Bond - Plat 15, St. Andrews
Island
(Memorandum dated 10/13/94)
7. CONSENT AGENDA - CONTINUED PAGE
F. Release and Substitution of
Conservation Easement - Corrigan
Ranch
(Memorandum dated 10/17/94)
G. 58th Avenue Right -of -Way Acquisition;
Parcels #104 and 104-A, Frank G.
Baratta
(Memorandum dated 10/14/94)
H. Disney Vacation Development Inc.'s
Request for Final Plat Approval for
the Florida Beach Resort
(Memorandum dated 10/18/94)
I. Request for Approval of the Indian
River County Economic Base Study
(Memorandum dated 10/14/94)
J. Progress Report & Reimbursement
Invoice, 1994 Planning Grant Inv. #3
(Memorandum dated 10/13/94)
K. Final Plat Approval for Sea Oaks
Lakeview Estates Planned Development
(Memorandum dated 10/13/94)
L. Award Bid #5011, Traffic Signal
Equipment Traffic Engineering
Annual Contract
(Memorandum dated 10/7/94) _
M. Award Bid #5013, Caustic Soda
Utilities Dept. Annual Contract
(Memorandum dated 10/11/94)
N. Award Bid #5016, Elevator Maintenance
Contract and ADA Elevator Renovations
Buildings & Grounds Annual Contract
(Memorandum dated 10/7/94)
S. CONSTITUTIONAL, OFFICERS AND GOVERNI�N'PAL
AGENCIES
None
9:05 A.M. 9. PUBLIC ITEM
A. PUBLIC HEARINGS
.la. County -Initiated Actions to Resolve
Problems in Pine Lake Estates:
Subdivision Variance, Right -or -Way
Resolution and Scheduling of
Assessment Hearing
(Memorandum dated 10/17/94)
1b. THIS IS NOT A PUBLIC HEARING
Resolutions to Provide for the -Surveying
Improvements and to Set Public Hearing
Date for Pine --Lake Estates Unrecorded
Subdivision
(Memoraadum dated 10/3/94)
9. A. PUBLIC HEARINGS - CONTINUED PAGE
2. Request to Amend the Comprehensive
Plan to Create a New RC, Regional
CcmRnercial, Land_ Use Designation,
and to Redesignate App3 oox *mately
- 130.3 Acres --from M-1 to RC, Plan_ _--
Amendment No. LURA 94-10-0064
(Memorandum dated 10/19/94)
3. Proposed Amendments to the Indian
River Mall (DeBartolo) Development
Order
(Memorandum dated 10/17/94)
B. PUBLIC DISCUSSION ITEM
1. Richard Hutton Requests to
-Discuss Transfer Station
Hours
(No backup)
2. Update on The Indian River Idea
(Letter from Samuel A. Block, Esq.
dated 10/19/94)
10. COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S MATTERS
None
11. DEPARTMENTAL MA TERS
A. C0124MTY DEVELOPMENT
Request for Approval of a Joint
Acquisition Agreement with the
St. Johns River Water Management
District, Relating to Cost -share
Acquisition of Indian River Lagoon -front
LAAC Sites
(Memorandum dated 10/17/94)
B. EN?RGENCY SERVICES
None
C. GENERAL SERVICES
-- None
D: LEISURE SERVICES
None
E. OFFICE OF AND BIIDGET
None
F. PERSONNEL
None
G. PUBLIC WORKS
1. As -Built Resolution & Assessment
Roll for Paving and Drainage
Improvements to 126th St. between
78th Ave. and 79th Ave.
(Memorandum dated 10/17/94)
11. G. PUBLIC WORKS - CONTIN[TED PAGE
2.
Request for Co. to Accept the
Following Roads for Maintenance:
1) 94th Ct between 79th St & 80th St
2) 99th Ct between 83rd St & 85th St
(Vero Lake Estates)
(Memorandum dated 10/18/94)
3.
26th St._R-O-W Acquisition; Seminole
Ventures Inc., NW Corner of 26th St.
& 66TH Ave.
(Memorandum dated 10/10/94) -
4.
Oslo Road, Additional R-O-W,
Parcel #127, Father & Son
Appliance Company
(Memorandum dated 10/19/94)
H. UTILITIES
1.
Roseland Water Tank, C.O.#3 :and
Final Pay Request _.
(Memorandum dated 10/5/94)
2.
Water Main Replacement Project
Tropic Colony Subdivision
Bid No. 4007, Work Authorization #26
(Memorandum• dated 10/14/94)-'--
3.
CR-510/U.S.#1 North Water Main
Project, C.O. #2
(Memorandum dated 10/6/94)
4.
9th Court Water Line Between 4th and
2nd Streets
(Memorandum dated 10/14/94)
5.
45th St. Water Distribution System
(Memorandum dated 10/6/94)
6.
Woodlawn Manor Force Main
(Memorandum= no date)
7.
Removal of Old General Development/
Vero Highlands Buildings, Foundation,
Concrete Walkways, All Existing
Concrete Structures and Asphalt
Drive - Final Pay Request
(Memorandum dated 10/13/94)
12. COUNTY ATTORNEY
None
13. COMMSSIONERS ITEM
A. CHAIRMAN JOHN W TIPPIN
Annual Appointments to Treasure Coast
Regional Planning Council and Ratification
of City of Sebastian Appointment for
Alternate Municipal Member
(Letter dated 10/10/94)
B. VICE CHAIRMN KENNETH R. 1�lCHT
13 . COMUSSIONER' S ITEMS - CONTINUED
C. COMNIISSIONER FRAN B. ADAMS
D. COLUSSIONER CAROLYN K. EGGERT
E. COMMISSIONER RICHARD N. BIRD
14. SPECIAL DISTRICTS
A. EMERGENCY SERVICES DISTRICT
None
B. SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL DISTRICT
None
15. ADJOURNMENT
PAGE
ANYONE WHO MAY WISH TO APPEAL ANY DECISION WHICH MAY BE MADE AT THIS NOTING
WILL NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS LADE WHICH
INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL WILL BE BASED.
ANYONE WHO NEEDS A SPECIAL ACCMMDATION FOR THIS NOTING MAY CONTACT THE
COUNTY'S AMEIRICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT (ADA) COORDINATOR AT 567-8000 % 223
AT LEAST 48 HOURS IN ADVANCE OF NOTING.
Tuesday, October -25, 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, October 25,
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 B. Held, Deputy Clerks.
The Chairman called the meeting to order and led the Pledge of
Allegiance to the Flag.
PROCLAMATION
The Chairman read aloud the following proclamation and
presented it to Sherry Spires, Chief Curator of Education at the
Center for the Arts:
PROCLAMATION
DESIGNATING NOVEMBER 5, 1994
AS
CHILDREN'S ART FESTIVAL DAY
IN
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
WHEREAS, the Children's Art Festival, organized by the
Center. for the Arts, will celebrate its fourteenth anniversary;
.and
WHEREAS, the theme for this year's festival will be "ART FOR
THE FUN OF IT". This event provides the opportunity for hands-on
art' experiences for young people of all ages, preschoolers
through teens. The entire family can enjoy the student art
displays, entertainment, music and food available throughout the
day; and
WHEREAS, the reason the Children's Art Festival came into
existence was because there was a concern by those involved in
establishing a Center for the Arte that the youth of the area
were underexposed and given limited opportunities to participate
in visual site activities. Since the inception of the Children's
Art Festival thirteen years ago, art instruction in the school
systems, both public and private, has increased significantly
making art and humanities awareness an enriching part of the
lives of the young people in our community:
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT PROCLAIMED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA that November 5,
1994 be designated as
CHILDREN'S ART FESTIVAL DAY
in•Indian River County, and the Board expresses its appreciation
to the many hard working volunteers for instituting and
continuing this fine program for the youth in our community.
Adopted this 25 day of October, 1994.
1
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
Johf �� Tipp Cii$�rman
October 25, 1994 BOOK 93 FAr t 56 7
BOOK W PAGE 568
ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA/EMERGENCY. nU MS
Commissioner Macht requested -the addition of Item -I.0., Land
Acquisition Advisory Committee, letter of resignation from John
Morrison.
Commissioner Macht requested addition of Item 13.B., new
opening date for New Courthouse.
County Attorney Vitunac requested addition of Item 9.B.3.,
Public Discussion, Attorney Buck Vocelle, Jr., concerning a court
decision relative to Judge Vocelle's appointment of Circuit Judges.
Chairman Tippin requested addition of Item 13.A.2.,
Legislative Delegation and Treasure Coast Council Annual Meeting.
Administrator Chandler requested one week deferral of Consent
Agenda Items 7.H. and 7.K. for changes, and addition of Item
11.H.8., Department of Environmental Protection Ruling on Wetlands.
Executive Aide to the Board Alice White requested addition of
Item 13.F., concerning funding for printing of the Organization
Informational Booklet.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Adams, the Board unanimously
deferred and added the above items on the
Agenda.
APPROVAL OF AUNUTES
The Chairman asked if there were any additions or corrections
to the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of September 6, 1994. There
were none.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Adams, the Board approved the
Minutes of the Regular Meeting of September 6,
1994, as written.
The Chairman asked if there were any additions or corrections
to the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of September 13, 1994. There
were none.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Adams, the Board approved the
Minutes of the Regular Meeting of September
13, 1994, as written.
2
October 25, 1994
CONSENT AGENDA
A. Release of County Assessment Liens. Paving & Drainage Assessment
Project #8610
The Board reviewed the following memo dated October 13, 1994:
TO: The Board of County Commissioners
FROM:Nancy H. Mossali, Legal Assistant - County Attorney's Office
DATE: October 13, 1994
SUBJECT: RELEASE OF COUNTY ASSESSMENT LIENS -
ASSESSMENT PROJECT NO. 8610 (for paving and drainage)
A routine form of Release has been prepared for Assessment Project No. 8610
(paving and drainage improvements to Floral Park and • Ranch Estates
Subdivision) to- release paid • assessment liens* from - the below listed
properties:
° 28-32-39-00002-0010-00003.0 (Lots 3 & 4, Block I, Ranch Estates
Subdivision)
° 28-32-39-00002-0010-00011.0 (Lots 11 & 12), Block I, Ranch Estates
Subdivision)
° 28-32-39-00002-0040-00009.0 (Lots 9 & 10, Block 4, Ranch Estates
Subdivison)
° 28-32-39-00003-0001-00001.0 (Lots 1 & 2, Block. A, Floral Park
Subdivision)
° 28-32-39-00003-0001-00003.0 (Lots 3 & 4, Block A, Floral Park
Subdivision)
° 28-32-39-00003-0001-00009.0 (Lot 9, Block A, Floral Park
Subdivision)
° 28-32-39-00003-0002-00008.0 (Lot 8, Block B,- Floral Park
Subdivision)
° 28-32-39-00003-0002-00009.0 (Lot 9, Block B, Floral Park
Subdivision)
° 28-32-39-00001-0050-00003.0 (North 645 feet of South 685 feet of
East 125 feet of West 150 feet of Tract 5, Section 28, Township 32
South, Range 39 East)
It is requested that the Board authorize the Chairman to execute said
Release.
Back-up information for the above is on file in the County Attorney's Office. ;
* Properties herein being released from Project No. 8610 are fully described
in the assessment roll attached to Resolution No. 92-215 recorded at O.R.
Book 955, Page 2778, Public Records of Indian River County,- Florida.
3 BOOK 93 PAGE
October 25, 1994
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, _SECONDED by
Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously-
released assessment liens as listed in staff's -
memorandum.
RELEASE OF ASSESSMENT LIENS
IS RECORDED IN THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
B. Cancel Outstanding Taxes on Properties Purchased for County Use
The Board reviewed the following memo dated October 17, 1994:
To: BOARD OF COUNTY MWISSIONERS
-SkI'A' R.
FROM: Lea R. Keller, CIA, County Attorney's Office
THRU: Charles P. Vitunac, County Attorney
DATE: October 17, 1994
RE: CANCELLATION OF OUTSTANDING TAKES
PROPERTIES PURCHASED FOR COUNTY USE
The County recently acquired some right-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 and the Property Appraiser.
REQUESTED ACTION: Board authorize the Chairman to sign the
attached resolutions cancelling taxes upon lands the County recently
acquired.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously
adopted Resolution 94-133 cancelling certain
delinquent taxes upon publicly -owned lands, as
recommended by staff.
4
October 25, 1994
r
Re: R%W=iP99CATrTae, 58th Avenue 10/i7/9a(rc+..aa\tnx..a)VX.141
Parcel $17-33-39-00001-0090-00001.1
Anngel M. Bates
RESOLUTION NO. 94- 133
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:
1. Any and all liens for taxes, delinquent or current, against the property
described in O.R. Book 1036, Page 1701, which was recently acquired by
Indian River County for right of way purposes on 58th Avenue, are hereby
cancelled, pursuant to the authority of section 196.28, F.S.
2. The Clerk .to the Board of County Commissioners is hereby directed to
send a certified copy of this Resolution to the Tax Collector and the
Property Appraiser.
The resolution was moved for adoption 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 Aye
Vice Chairman Kenneth R. Macht Aye
Commissioner Richard N. Bird Aye.
Commissioner Carolyn R. Eggert Aye
Commissioner Fran B. Adams Aye
The Chairman thereupon declared the resolution duly passed and adopted
this 25 day of October , -1994.
Attest:
Clerk a IF"y ,-, 60,TON
Att ent: Deed
October 25, 1994
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY',.FLORIDA
4J o h n W .chi i rma n
Indhn River Ca Approved
Admin.
legal
PR
idg5 ept..isk -Mg r.
Dale
BOOK PAL
C. Deed by City of Vero Beach to County. St. Francis ' Manor
-- The Board reviewed the following memo dated October -18, 1994:
TO: Board of County Commissioners
FROM: Terrence P. O'Brien, Assistant County AttorneyG'�
DATE: October 18, 1994
RE: Deed by City to County - St. Francis Manor
The City owned certain property adjacent to St. Francis Manor which is
located on County property leased to the Manor. The City has deeded
this land to the County on the condition that it be incorporated into
the County's lease with St. Francis Manor.
The County has previously agreed to this course of action, and all that
remains is the acceptance by the -County of the attached quitclaim deed.
Requested Action: Staff recommends acceptance and authorization for the
Chairman to sign the deed on behalf of the Board.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously
accepted and authorized the Chairman to
execute the Quit -Claim Deed from the City of
Vero Beach, as recommended by staff.
QUIT -CLAIM DEED IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF CLERK TO THE BOARD
AND IS RECORDED IN THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
D. Release of Utility Liens
The Board reviewed the following memo dated October 14, 1994:
October 25, 1994
6
W
� s �
TO: B`OOARDOF COUNTY
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
( Q -a- K .
FROM: Lea R. Keller, CIA, County Attorneys Office
DATE: October 14, 1994
RE: RMLMASM OF UTILITY LIMNS
The attached lien -related items 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:
FINETHY LIVINGS
McINTYRE TREW
WATSON
2. Citrus Gardens Water Special Assessment:
TREW
3. Glendale Terrace Water Special Assessment:
GIORDANO
4. Green Acres Water Special Assessment:
WAGNER
5. Phase II Water Special Assessment:
FINETHY
6. Phase III Water Special Assessment:
BECKER CUNNINGHAM
EVERET_T HAWKINS
KISS MARCARIO/KOVALESKI
WALKER
7. State Road 60 Sewer Special Assessment:
Map #41 - Countryside South (Realcor) Lot 23
8. 12th Street Water Special Assessment:
ELLIS
9. W side U.S. #1 from 10 to 4th Streets:
SARACINO (lot Union Bank)
-ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously
approved the Releases of Utility Liens, as
- listed in staff's memorandum.
LIEN RELATED DOCUMENTS
ARE RECORDED IN THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
7 BOOK PAGE i �h
October 25, 1994
BOOK U3 PAL 574
E. Grand Harbor --Construction - Assignment of Warranty to County for
Utilities Maintenance Bond - Plat 15, St. Andrews Island
The Board reviewed the following memo dated October 13,. 1994:
TO: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
t� R -
FROM: Lea R�Keller, CIA, County Attorney's Office
THRU: Charles P. Vitunac, County Attorney
DATE: October 13, 1994
RE: Grand Harbor Construction - Assignment of Warranty to Couaty
for Utility Maintenance Bond - Plat 13, St. Andrews Island
The Development Order for Grand Harbor required that certain utility
improvements be constructed. The contractor (Jobear, Inc.) has issued a
warranty in favor of Grand Harbor (Proctor Construction Company), and
they are now assigning the Maintenance Bond to the County. The attached
Assignment of- Rights under Maintenance Bond is this agreement and
requires the Chairman's signature to accept it on behalf of the County.
If for some reason the Assignment fails and there is warranty work to be
performed, Grand Harbor has agreed to enforce the Maintenance Bond
according to its terms.
REQUESTED ACTION: Board authorize the Chairman to sign the
attached Assignment.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously
approved the Assignment of Rights Under
Maintenance Bond from Proctor Construction
Company, as recommended by staff.
ASSIGNMENT OF RIGHTS DOCUMENT
IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE --OF CLERK TO THE BOARD
F. Release and Substitution of Conservation Easement Corrigan Ranch
The Board reviewed the following memo dated October 17, 1994:
8
October 25, 1994
TO: Board of County Commissioners
FROM: VX/William G. Collins II - Deputy County Attorney
DATE: October 17, 1994 _
SUBJECT: Release and Substitution of Conservation Easement - Corrigan
Ranch
In 1992 a Conservation Easement was placed over 11 acres of the Corrigan
Ranch in association with mining permitting activities. Subsequently the St.
Johns River Water Management District has required- the -Corrigan to provide
more extensive conservation easements.
REQUEST:
1. Release the County's 11 -acre Conservation Easement.
2. Accept a new Conservation Easement covering 44.54 acres, which
easement is made out jointly to the St. Johns River Water Management
District and Indian River County.
RECOMMENDATION:
Accept the substituted Conservation Easement and authorize the Chairman to
execute the Release of Conservation Easement originally provided.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously
approved the Release and Substitution of
Conservation Easement for the Corrigan Ranch,
as recommended by staff.
RELEASE AND SUBSTITUTION OF CONSERVATION EASEMENT
ARE RECORDED IN THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
G. 58th Avenue Right -of -Way Acquisition: Frank G. Baratta. Parcels #104
& 104 -
The Board reviewed the following memo dated October 14, 1994:
g BOOK cJ F'AGE 5��
October 25, 1994 -
Pr -
BOOK 03 PAL 57
- TO: James E. Chandler
County Administrator
THROUGH: James W. Davis, P.E.
Public Works Director
FROM: Donald G. Finney, SRA.
County Right -of -Way Agent CONSENT AGENDA
SUBJECT: 58th Avenue Right -of -Way Acquisition; Parcels #104 and
#104-A, Frank G. Baratta
DATE: October 14, 1994
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
Additional right-of-way is required on 58th Avenue for the paving
improvement project from Route 60 to Oslo Road.
The property owner has executed two contracts at the appraised
value of $15,300 per acre for the two A-1 zoned parcels.
The contract price is $12,546.00 for the .82 acre, 56' wide x
636.09' Parcel #104, and $13,158 for the .86 acre, 56' wide x
666.08' Parcel #104-A.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff requests the Board of County Commissioners approve the
$25,704 total purchase, and authorize the Chairman to execute the
contracts.
FUNDING
Funding to be from District 9 Traffic Impact Fee #101-159-541-
067.30. Reimbursement to be from Local Option 1G Sales Tax
Revenue.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously
approved purchase of right-of-way on 58th
Avenue from Frank G. Baratta in the amount of
$25,704, as recommended by staff.
CONTRACT FOR SALE AND PURCHASE
IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF CLERK TO THE BOARD
H. Disney Vacation Development, Inc., Request for Final Plat Approval for
the Florida Beach Resort
Deferred.
October 25, 1994
10
I. Request for Approval of the Indian River County Economic Base Studv
The Board reviewed the following memo dated October 14, 1994:
TO: James Chandler
-' County Administrator -
D ION HEAD CONCURRENCE
47
Ro ert M. Reati , AIC
Community Develo ment rector
THRU: Sasan Rohani, AICP 5-10 -
Chief, Long -Range Planning
FROM: Jay R. Marlles, AICP
Economic Developmentlanner
DATE: October 14, 1994
RE: REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF THE INDIAN RIVER COUNTY ECONOMIC
BASE STUDY
It is requested that the data herein presented be -given formal
consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their regular
meeting of October 25, 1994.
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
In July, 1993, Indian River County' was awarded an EDA Section
302(a) planning grant in the amount of $75,000. Those grant funds
have been used to update the Commercial/ Industrial Data Source,
prepare a promotional brochure and prepare an economic base study.
Currently, an economic development strategy plan is being drafted.
Recently, the economic base study was completed and reviewed by
the Economic Development Council. A copy of the economic base
study is on file in the Board of County Commissioners office.
On September 27, 1994, the Economic Development Council reviewed
the economic base study and unanimously voted to recommend that the
Board of County Commissioners approve the base study and direct
staff to submit a copy to the Economic Development Administration.
ANALYSIS
As an analysis of the county's economy, the draft economic base
study provides valuable information. Not only does the study
indicate which industries in the county are basic, or export
industries; the study also identifies changes which have occurred
in the county's economic base over time.
Another important part of the economic base study is the multiplier
section. The multiplier indicates how the county's economy
generates additional jobs as a result of capital inflows and how
that money flows through.the county's economy. The employment
multiplier --indicates how many jobs are created through export job -
creation or attraction. Finally, the shift/share analysis
indicates how the county compares economically__ to various other
counties identified in the analysis. Together, this information'
provides a basis for preparing a more detailed economic development
strategy plan for the county. The submission of the base study to
EDA is necessary as part of the county's grant contract wiEDA.,��
11 BOOK V3 un 571
October 25, 1994
WK PAL �
RECOMMENDATION
The Economic Development Council and staff recommend that the Board
- of County Commissioners approve the county's economic base study
and direct staff to submit a copy- of the economic base study to
EDA.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously
approved the County's Economic Base Study and
directed staff to submit a copy to the
Economic Development Administration.
COPY OF ECONOMIC BASE STUDY
IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
J. Progress Report and Reimbursement Invoice. 1994 Planning Grant
Invoice #3
The Board reviewed the following memo dated October 13, 1994
TO: James E-. Chandler
County Administrator
DEP TMENT HEAD CONCURRENCE
-74Robert M. Reatin-, AICP
Community Development
rector
FROM: Sasan Rohani, AICP S;i .
Chief, Long -Range Planning
DATE: October 13, 1994 -
RE: PROGRESS REPORT & REIMBURSEMENT INVOICE
1994 PLANNING GRANT INVOICE #3
It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal
consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their regular
meeting of October 25, 1994.
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
It is required, as part of the Transportation Disadvantaged (TD)
Planning Grant contract between the Indian River County Board of
County Commissioners (BCC)'as the Designated Official Planning
Agency (DOPA) and the State of Florida Commission for the
Transportation Disadvantaged (CTD), -that periodic progress reports
and reimbursement invoices be submitted. To comply with the CTD's
requirements, staff has prepared a progress report and invoice for
the period from July 1, 1994 to September 30, 1994.
For the 1994 planning grant period, the invoice and progress report
represent the third submittal. This progress report and applicable
finished products, such as the Local Coordinating Board (LCB)
meeting minutes, by-laws, etc., are required to accompany all
reimbursement invoices.
12
October 25, 1994
� s �
Attached for your review is a copy of draft invoice #3 and the
progress report. This report, along with the appropriate
supporting documents, will be submitted to the CTD upon the Board
of County Commissioners/DOPA approval.
On October 20, 1994, the Transportation Disadvantaged Local
Coordinating Board (TDLCB) reviewed and approved the attached
progress report and invoice. At that time, the TDLCB, recommended
that the Board of County Commissioners, in its capacity as the
Transportation Disadvantaged Program Designated Official Planning
Agency (DOPA), approve the attached progress report and invoice and
forward these to the CTD.
ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS
Attached is a copy of the progress report and invoice for the July
11 1994 to September 30, 1994 period.
Finished products such as the TDLCB meeting minutes, by-laws, and
reports are required to accompany all reimbursement invoices.
These materials will be submitted to the state along with the
reimbursement invoice and the progress report.
The BCC/DOPA's alternatives are either to approve the transmittal
of the Progress Report and reimbursement invoice as submitted, to
approve transmittal of the Progress Report and invoice with
revisions, or to deny the transmittal of the Progress Report and
reimbursement invoice to the state.
RECOMMENDATION
The TDLCB and the staff recommend that the Board of County
Commissioners/DOPA approve the Progress Report and reimbursement
invoice #3, and direct staff to transmit the report and the invoice
to the State of Florida Commission for the Transportation
Disadvantaged (CTD).
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously
approved the 1994 Planning Grant Progress
Report and Reimbursement Invoice #3 and
directed staff to transmit the report and the
invoice to the State of Florida Commission for
the Transportation Disadvantaged (CTD).
K. Final Plat Approval for Sea Oaks Lakeview Estates Planned
Development
Deferred.
L. Award -Bid #5011. Traffic Signal Equipment Traffic Engineering Annual
Contra
The Board reviewed the following memo dated October 7, 1994:
13 BOOK PAGE 5�1
October 25, 1994
G am PAGE G
DATE: October 7, 1994
TO: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS -
THRU: James E. Chandler, County -Administrator
H.T. "Sonny" Dean, Director
Department of General Service
FROM: Fran Boynton Powell, Purchasing Manager
SUBJ: Award Bid #5011/Traffic Signal Equipment
Traffic Engineering/Annual Contract
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
Bid Opening Date: September 21, 1994
Advertising Dates: September 1, 81 1994
Specifications Mailed to: Eighteen (18) Vendors
Responses: Five (5)
BID TABULATION BID TABULATION
TW Comcorp SEE ATTACHED BID
Orlando, FL TAB SHEET
Transportation Control Systems
Tampa, FL
Traffic Parts Inc
Spring, TX
Econolite Control
Jacksonville, FL
Engineered Casting Inc
Hialeah, FL
RECOMMENDATION•
1. Staff recommends that items #1-25 be awarded to TW
Co--mcorR and items #26-43 & 45-50 to Transportation
Control System as the lowest, most responsive and
responsible bidders meeting specifications as set
forth in the Invitation to Bid.
2. Establish an Open End Contract with TW Comcorn and
Transportation Control Systems with a not to exceed
- amount of $500-000.00. Last year's expenditures were
$45,000.00.
3. Authorize the Purchasing Manager to renew this contract
subject to satisfactory performance, zero cost
increase, vendor acceptance, and the determination that
renewal is in the best interest of the County.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously
awarded Bid #5011 for Traffic Signal Equipment
to TW Comcorp and Transportation Control
Systems and approved open-end contracts with a
not -to -exceed amount of $50,000, as set out in
staff's memorandum.
14
October 5, 1994
M. Award Sid #5013. Utilities Department Annual Contract - Caustic Soda
The Board reviewed the following memo dated October 11, 1994:
DATE: October 11, 1994
TO: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
THRU: James E. Chandler, County -Administrator
H.T. "Sonny" Dean, Director -0
Department of General Services
FROM: Fran Boynton Powell, Purchasing Manager
SUBJ: Award Bid #5013/Caustic Soda
Utilities Department - Annual Contract
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
Bid Opening Date:
Advertising Dates:
Specifications Mailed to:
Replies:
BID TABULATION
Jones Chemicals
Fort Lauderdale, FL
PB & S Chemicals
Orlando, FL
Apperson
Jacksonville, FL
Allied Universal
Miami, FL
RECOMMENDATION:
August 25, 1994 _
August 11, 181 1994
Twenty (20) Vendors
Four (4) Vendors
UNIT PRICE
PER GALLON
$1.20
$1.24
$1.31
$1.55
1. Staff recommends that the bid be awarded to Jones
Chemicals as the lowest, most responsible bidder
meeting specifications.
2. Establish an Open End Contract with Jones Chemicals
with a not to exceed amount of $ 20,000.00 during the
period October 1, 1994 thru September 30, 1995. Last
year's total expenditures were $17,500.00.
3. -Authorize the Purchasing Manager to renew this contract
subject to satisfactory performance, zero cost
increase, vendor acceptance, and the determination that
renewal is in the best interest of the County.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously
awarded Bid #5013 to Jones Chemicals and
---approved an open-end-- contract with a not -to -
exceed amount of_ $20,000, as recommended by.
staff.
15 BOOK PAGE:
October 25, 1994
BOOK bj SAGE
N. Award Bid ##5016. Elevator Maintenance -Contract and ADA Elevator
- Renovations Buildings & Grounds Annual Contract --=_
The Board reviewed the following memo dated October 7,. 1994:
DATE: October 7, 1994
TO: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
THRU: James E. Chandler, County_Admi trator
H.T. "Sonny" Dean, Director
Department of General Servi
FROM: Fran Boynton Powell, Purchasing anage
SUBJ: Award Bid #5016/Elevator Maintenance Contract
and ADA Elevator Renovations
Buildings A Grounds/Annual Contract
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
Bid Opening Date: September 23, 1994
Advertising Dates: September 7,14, 1994
Specifications Mailed to: Eight (8) Vendors
Replies: Two (2)
VENDOR BID TOTAL
Miami Elevator SEE ATTACHED TABULATION
Vero Beach, FL SHEET
Millar Elevator Service
Deerfield Beach, FL
SOURCE OF FUNDS: 001-220-519-033-49Elevator Maintenance)
001-220-519-041.24 (Elevator Renovations)
RECOMMENDATION:
1. Staff recommends that the bid be awarded to Miami
Elevator for both the elevator maintenance and ADA
renovations. Miami Elevator's bid is the most
responsive and responsible meeting the
specifications as set forth in the Invitation to Bid.
2. Issue a -purchase order to Miami Elevator for the
elevator renovations with a not to exceed amount of
$16,822.00.
3. Establish an Open End Contract with Miami Elevator
for the annual elevator maintenance with a not to
exceed amount of $15,000 per year during the period
October 1, 1994 thru September 30, 1997. Last year's
expenditures totaled $10,186.62
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously
awarded Bid #5016 to Miami Elevator for
elevator maintenance and ADA renovations with
a not -to -exceed amount of $16,822, as
recommended by staff.
16
October 25, 1994
� s �
O. Resignation of John Morrison from Land Acquisition -Advisory
mmittee (LAA
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
-` Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously
accepted the resignation of John Morrison from
the Land Acquisition Advisory Committee
(LAAC) .
PUBLIC HEARING - COUNTY -INITIATED ACTIONS TO RESOLVE
PROBLEMS IN PINE LAKE ESTATES: SUBDIVISION VARIANCE,,
RIGHT-OF-WAYRESOLUTION, AND SCHEDULING OF ASSESSMENT
HEARING
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 Beach, Indian River County, Florida
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER: STATE OF FLORIDA
Notice of public Fearing of the Indian River
the undersigned authority personal) appeared J. J. Schumann, J+. who on oath
Before Y y
CounBefore
Sider �� Of County Commissioners to con -
skier a staff•inttieted request for a variance from
- says that he is Business Manager of the Vero Beach Press -Journal, a daily newspaper published
Certain Subdivision ordinance requirements relating
at Vero Beach in Indian River County, Florida; that the attached copy of advertisement, being
to an unrecorded subdivision known as "Pine Lake
Estates;" located on the south side of CR 512 be -
U
104thnale. T ur-
he pthe
a ' " ' "
/
pp�oose�se of the variance request s to allowfor
buAdability legal
' '
of parcels of record located within
"Pine Lake Estates."
in the matter of� _
�<
The Board of County Commissioners will cot -
duct a long hearing regarding the variance re
"Pare
quest, along with other matters related to
Lake Estates." The public hearing, at which parties
In Interest and citizens shall have an opportunity to
in the Court, was pub-
be heard, wM be heard by the Board of County
G c� �� %�y/
Commissioners in the County Commission Cham-
be►s of the County Administration Building located
lished in said newspaper In the issues of 7
at 1840 25th Street, Vero Beach, Florida on Tues-
day, October 25,1994 at 9:05 a.m.
Anyone whom may wish to appeal any dedsion
which may be made at this meeting will need to en-
Afflant further says that the said Vero Beach Press -Journal is a newspaper published at
sure that a verbatim record of the proceedings Is
made which Includes the testimony and evidence
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
upon which the appeal will be based.
ANYONE WHO NEEDS A SPECIAL ACCOMMO-
entered as second class mall matter at the post office in Vero Beach, in said Indian River Coun•
' FOR THIS MEETING MUST CONTACT
DATIONty,
Florida, for a period of one year next preceding the first publication of the attached copy of
THE COUNTY'S AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES
advertisement; and affiant further says that he has neither paid nor promised any person, firm
+ ACT (ADA) COORDINATOR AT X 23
or corporation any discount, rebate, commission or refund for the purpose of securing this
AT48 HOURS IN ADVANCE OF THE
ADVANCE HE
adveltisemen4jor publication in the said newspaper.
C,
�,
Indian River
FRA ��•,•,,. �'/L;/ C)•,
trr"•"Q� sui d before me this day of A.D. 19 :a-.-
s ' �,�"'9�
County
Board of CountyCommissioners
Qil k1 -7i.
By -s -John W. TM, Chairman
-
Oct. 8,1894 1137890
aw (Business Manag
JrcO 2a frfyr� t1h =
r "An c nncuF. Nr? nv nuruic.
CC3tQgj
n. ons a I Iorida, My Cotntmsom I xp. June 29.1997
Sista
Notary. BARBARA C. SPRAGUE
-
17
BOOK , � �G��aE
October 25, 1994
BOOK FACk
Planning Director Stan Boling made. the following presentation
with the aid of the overhead projector:
TO: James E. Chandler
County Administrator
DIV N HEAD CONCURRENCE:
1
ober- M. ea ing, I 1CP
Community Dev lopm nt D ctor
FROM: Stan Boling; AICP
Planning Director
DATE: October 17, 1994
SUBJECT: County -Initiated Actions to Resolve Problems in Pine Lake
Estates: Subdivision Variance, Right -of -Way Resolution,
and Scheduling of Assessment Hearing
It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal
consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at its regular
meeting of October 25, 1994.
BACKGROUND AND CONDITIONS:
General Background
Pine Lake Estates is an unrecorded, unapproved "subdivision"
located on the south side of CR 512, between 104th Avenue and 106th
Avenue (see attachment #1). In 1961, a Pine Lake Estates
informational map was recorded in the public records. The map
depicted 193 "lots" and "rights-of-way". However, the map was not
a plat under state and county law; therefore, the recorded map did
not create legal rights-of-way and lots.
More than 20 years ago, the Property Appraiser's Office tax parcel
maps began depicting all of the blocks, lots, and rights-of-way
shown on the informational map as if a real plat had been recorded;
dozens of separate tax parcels were established. In some
instances, single "lots" were established as individual tax
parcels; in other cases several "lots" under common ownership were
established as single tax parcels. The current pattern of tax
parcel configurations was established during the 1970's and early
1980's.
Currently, there are about 72 separate tax parcels ranging in size
from 70' % 128' (one "lot") to a parcel the size of eight "lots"
combined (see attachment #2). To date,.several residences have
been constructed on various parcels, and some unpaved roadways have
been established within Pine Lake Estates. The southern two-thirds
of the development is zoned RS -1 (Residential Single Family up to
1 unit/acre), and the northern one-third, near CR 512, is zoned CG
(General Commercial).
Staff/Property Owners Meeting
On March -30, 1993, staff of the planning division, public works
department, and county attorney's office, along with Commissioner
Fran Adams, met with Pine Lake Estates property owners to identify
18
October 25, 1994
�I
and discuss problems in the Pine Lake Estates development. After
that meeting, staff researched and discussed the various issues
involved and coordinated with Commissioner Adams. As a result,
-= staff came to a consensus on an approach to address the following
3 basic problems:
1. Unbuildability of many parcels within Pine Lake Estates.
2. Lack of legally established road rights-of-way.
3. Lack of road and drainage improvements and maintenance.
Although concerted action by the property owners could resolve
these problems, staff concluded that such concerted action would
not be forthcoming and that the county would need to take the
initiative.- It was also staff's position that .the Pine Lake*
Estates property owners, rather than the general public, should
bear the costs involved in resolving these problems, since the
property owners would directly benefit from such actions.
*Board Action: Fall 1993
At the September 21, 1993 Board of County Commissioners meeting,
staff recommended that the Board initiate general actions to help
address the 3. problems identified. above. Prior to that meeting,
staff mailed a copy of its report and recommendation to all Pine
Lake Estates property owners listed on the tax rolls. Many Pine
Lake Estates property owners attended the meetings and several
participated in the discussion. At the conclusion of the meeting,
the Board stated that it agreed with staff's recommendations and
authorized staff to:
1. Conduct surveying work necessary to provide a legal
description for road rights-of-way running through Pine Lake
Estates. Owners of Pine La4ke Estates parcels are to be
assessed for the surveying costs on a per "lot" basis
(estimated cost per "lot" not to exceed $48.08).
2. Draft a resolution (which includes the rights-of-way legal
description) for the Board Chairman to sign that would legally
establish road rights-of-way in Pine Lake Estates.
Note: The Board agreed that the rights-of-way would be
accepted by the county for regulation purposes but would not
be accepted for maintenance purposes. Private property
owners, individually or as a group, would be responsible for
maintenance and would be allowed to propose road and drainage
improvements within the rights-of-way via applications to
county engineering for county right-of-way permits.
3. Initiate an application for subdivision variances to be
granted for Pine Lake Estates to allow the buildability of
parcels of record.
Relevant minutes from the September 21, 1993 meeting are contained
in attachment #3 of this report.
Board Action Needed Now
Since the September 21, 1993 meeting, staff has had the road
rights-of-way surveying work performed and checked (at a cost
significantly lower than the original estimate), has drafted a -
resolution for the county to accept and establish the rights-of-
way, and has initiated the subdivision variance process. Although
no Pine Lake Estates property owners are requesting action at this _
19 BOOK FKJL 5'�Sb
October 25; 1994
BOOK U E
F'Au
time, it is staff's opinion that the Pine Lake Estatee initiatives
should now be completed. Therefore, staff is requesting that the
Board:
1. Consider and approve the staff -initiated request for certain
subdivision ordinance variances for Pine Lake Estates, as
described in greater detail further on this report.
2. Adopt the resolution attached to this report to establish and
accept rights-of-way within Pine Lake Estates, as described in
more detail later on in this report.
Note: in a separate agenda item from Public Works, the Board is
requested to adopt resolutions providing for the assessment for
surveying work and setting the public hearing date for the
assessment hearing.
ANALYSIS
Subdivision Variance
In order for the county to recognize all parcels of record within
Pine Lake Estates as "buildable", it is staff's opinion that the
Board should -grant variances from 2 sections of the subdivision
ordinance. These 2 sections are:
1. Section 913.06(1)(A), which requires that a subdivision plat
approved by the county be filed prior to subdividing property.
It should be noted that a similar county regulation was in
effect in 1961 when Pine Lake Estates properties were first
divided [reference Indian River County Subdivision
Regulations, Section III; effective date April 1, 1958]. A
variance from this section is needed so that all Pine Lake
Estates parcels of record (72 in all) can be treated as
legally created and buildable.
2. Section 913.06(1)(E), which requires a plat to be filed to
create new public or private road rights-of-way. A variance
from this section is necessary to'allow the Pine Lake Estates
road rights-of-way to be established by resolution rather than
by platting.
In- staff's opinion, these variances are warranted due to Pine Lake
Estate's unique circumstances and past treatment by the county.
During public proceedings to down -zone portions of Pine Lake
Estates to one acre zoning (held on August 18, 1982 and on January
5, 1983), the Board of County Commissioners established a policy of
allowing development of Pine Lake Estates to proceed under the
restrictions of one unit per acre zoning, while at the same time
recognizing and grandfathering -in then -existing parcels of record
that were smaller than one acre. In addition, in August of 1982,
the county and the original Pine Lake Estates developer commenced,
but never completed, a process to establish county rights-of-way in
Pine Lake Estates. That process resulted in the original
developer, Bertha Weissman, recording a "Declaration of Intent to
Dedicate Rights -of -Way". However, the rights-of-way have not yet
been legally described, and the county has not yet officially
accepted the dedication. [Note: The legal description and right-
of-way acceptance resolution are addressed further on in this
report.] Lastly, based upon the Board's pronouncements and the
mapping of Pine Lake Estates as a standard subdivision in the
Property Appraiser's tax parcel maps, some building permits were
issued in the 1980's to develop Pine Lake Estates parcels. Thus,
in the past, the county has treated the Pine Lake Estates parcels
October 25, 1994
M
M
M
M M
as buildable and commenced a process to establish county rights-of-
way within Pine Lake Estates.
Section 913.11 of the subdivision ordinance gives the Board clear
_ guidance in its review and consideration of a subdivision variance
request. The Board shall not approve a variance unless it finds
all of the following:
"(A) The particular physical conditions, shape, or topography of
the specific property -involved would cause an undue hardship
to the applicant if the strict letter of the land development
regulation is carried out;
(B) The granting of the variance will not cause injury to adjacent
property or any natural resource;
(C) The conditions upon which a request for variance are unique -to
the property for which the waiver is sought and are not
generally applicable to other property in the adjacent area
and do not result from actions of the applicant; and
(D) The variance is consistent with the intent and purpose of the
Indian River County land development regulations, the Indian
River County Comprehensive Land Use Plan, and this Chapter.
If the board approves a -variance, it may attach any such
conditions to the variance as will assure that the variance
will not result in noncompliance with the intent and purpose
of this Chapter. Violation of any such condition shall be
deemed a violation of this Chapter."
It is staff's opinion that the requested variances meet all 4 of
these criteria, as follows.
(A) The present and historical physical configuration of
individually owned parcels within the "subdivision" is unique.
The subdivision includes a mixture of parcels that are
"grandfathered -in" and currently buildable and parcels that
are not. To staff's knowledge, this mixture of parcels having
different "buildability" statuses within one development is
unique to Pine Lake Estates and presents a hardship to owners
of certain "unbuildable" parcels within Pine Lake Estates.
(B) Granting the variances and allowing continued development
-within Pine Lake Estates should not adversely affect adjacent
properties since it is anticipated that traffic and drainage
impacts of development will either be internalized within Pine
Lake Estates or handled through review of individual single
family building permits (RS -1 portion) or site plan
applications (CG portion).
(C) As previously described, the circumstances and regulatory
history of Pine Lake Estates are unique. Therefore, the basis
for granting the variances is not .generally applicable to
other properties.
(D) The requested variances are consistent with the comprehensive
plan designations and zoning districts covering the
"subdivision", and are consistent with the county's past
polidies regarding development of Pine Lake Estates.
Granting the variances will help finalize and make uniform the
development status of all 72 parcels of record within Pine
Lake Estates. Therefore, it is staff's position that the
requested variances be granted.
21
October 25, 1994 BOOK PAGE 5S`'
Establishina & Accentinc Road Rights-o€-Wa
A resolution for Board approval is attached accepting the
dedication of rights-of-way within Pine Lake Estates. The sketched
rights-of-way are described by metes and bounds. No maintenance
responsibility is accepted by Indian River County until -such time
as the Board of County Commissioners accepts maintenance
responsibility by separate resolution. Staff's position is that
any future acceptance of maintenance be made only if the roads are
brought up to county standards (paved). These items are addressed
in the attached resolution (see attachment #6).
Assessing Costs of Surveying Work
The Public Works Department has prepared an agenda item for today's
meeting that the Board will consider next on its meeting agenda.
That agenda item addresses the special assessment process for
recouping the costs of the previously referenced survey work.
Actions required by the Board to initiate the assessment process
are discussed and recommended in that agenda item.
RECOMENDATiON:
Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners:
1. Grant the requested subdivision variances.
2. Adopt and have recorded the attached resolution establishing
and accepting road rights-of-way for legal access, county
control, and private maintenance and improvement.
Director Boling stressed that adoption of the resolution would
establish the rights-of-way where the County would accept the
rights-of-way with no obligation for maintenance.
Director Boling explained that he would discuss the background
of the subdivision and the resolutions establishing the road
rights-of-way and -County Engineer Roger Cain would discuss the
action needed for the assessment for the survey work.
Commissioner Bird asked the anticipated cost to the residents,
and. Director Boling responded that the only cost would be for the
survey work, -and any future improvements would be done by a
separate assessment.
Mr. Cain explained that there is a companion item regarding
resolutions to provide for the survey work and to set the public
hearing date for interested persons to be heard as to the cost of
the survey work. The public hearing is part of the procedure
followed on assessments to property owners. The average cost to
property owners is $21.96, with some as high as $131.78 for parcels
which were combined.
The Chairman opened the public hearing and asked if anyone
wished to be heard in this matter.
October 25, 1994
22
M
M
M
Todd Wallner, 10425 93rd Lane, resident of Pine Lake Estates
for ten years, stated that when he bought his parcel and built his
home, that area was zoned R -1-E, residential one acre estates. He
asked if that zoning category will be changed.
Director Boling advised that in 1982 and 1983 the property was
zoned for one -acre parcels, and since then no parcels have been -
allowed that are less than an acre in size. However, there were
parcels less than an acre in size which existed before the one -acre
zoning went into effect, and the recommended action will not change
those parcels. We are not attempting to make more parcels than
what exist out there now.
Mr. Wallner was concerned that the one -acre parcels would be
divided into smaller parcels.
Chairman Tippin understood that nothing will change; we will
not add or subtract from the number of existing lots.
Commissioner Adams explained that the Board is considering a
resolution to accept the road rights-of-way as requested by the
residents of Pine Lake Estates.
Director Keating further explained that in the early 1980s the
zoning was changed from the single lot zoning to the R -1-E because
there was no infrastructure, no roads or drainage to accommodate
all the lots shown on the information map. The roads were never
dedicated to the County, therefore they did not exist, and the
County had no right to go out there and do anything to these roads.
Mr. Wallner stated that he and his neighbors are in favor of
the County maintaining the roads and drainage.
Commissioner Bird recalled that in the 1980s the Board tried
to make the best of a bad situation. The property owners combined
parcels and built their homes on bigger parcels, and wanted that
lifestyle, so the Board agreed to create the one -acre zoning. But
there were smaller parcels in that area and those smaller parcels
were grandfathered in.
Commissioner Adams noted that normally we do not accept roads
until they are brought up to minimum standards, but would make an
exception in this case. The Board was responding to a request from
the residents of Pine Lake Estates who have a problem.
Mr. Wallner assumed that the County estimated the cost to each
property owner to bring these roads up to standard.
Commissioners Bird and Adams explained that the Board was
-considering only the survey work, not estimating 'the cost to bring
the roads up to standard. The roads are not clearly defined _-
because they have not been maintained, some of the roads have
meandered onto private property, and this survey will show where -
the roads should be. The resolution would establish and accept the
23 BOOK ZJJ PAGE 51
October 25, 1994
BOOK W PAGE 59%
road rights-of-way, which is a legal action wich allows the County
grader access to those roads for maintenance and improvement.
8tepheney-Ade, homeowner at Pine Lake Estates for 8 years,
stated that the residents wish to keep their country atmosphere and
to work with the County. She gave a brief history of her purchase
of six parcels in Pine Lake Estates. She understood that the
process will be taken one step at a time but emphasized that they
have a serious problem regarding protection and legal services as
citizens because they have no access for emergency services. She
asked what the homeowners can do in the meantime. They do their
own road maintenance with a Ford tractor and she asked if there is
a plan proposed for the future.
Attorney Vitunac clarified that Pine Lake Estates will not be
added to the County grader route at this point. The County is
accepting that road, which allows two things: the property owners
can get building permits legally, like any other subdivision, and
Pine Lake Estates can participate in a county road improvement
program in the future. The County is not accepting the obligation
for maintenance, and that leaves a gap as to who is responsible for
maintaining the roads. Normally a homeowners' association would
adopt a plan, present it to the County and do the repairs at its
own expense. Otherwise, the property owners would petition the
County to start a road improvement project for which the County
would charge the property owners, according to our standard
program, but that is not happening today. He explained that the
present consideration is for a survey, -and the property owners will
be charged for the survey costs.
Mrs. Ade was concerned about possible boundary conflicts, and
asked.if the survey determined whether any changes are needed.
County Engineer Roger Cain reported that the survey tried to
establish and check the unrecorded plats. There was a description
that Mrs. Weissman proposed to the county in 1982. The survey
showed no significant encroachment of any property in the right-of-
way.
Director Keating advised that an informational meeting was
held with the -homeowners beforehand, and staff explained a lot of
the issues. However, staff did not. have the results of the survey
at that meeting.
Administrator Chandler suggested that staff convene another
meeting prior to the public hearing on the survey assessment
scheduled for November 15 to inform the property owners what the
October 25, 1994
M
24
77
M
survey shows, to indicate the rights-of-way and to answer questions
regarding future maintenance and/or paving.
Chairman Tippin summarized that it was the consensus of the
Board that staff convene an informational meeting for the property
owners of Pine Lake Estates prior to the public.hearing.
Commissioner Bird further clarified that Mrs. Ade is -
requesting that the residents be included in the total picture
because they are residents of the county and want to receive County
services as far as road paving, drainage and mosquito control.
They want to know what steps they must take to get to that point.
Mrs. Ade explained that most -of the property owners are at
work during the daytime and an evening meeting would - attract better
participation.
Commissioner Adams suggested a meeting in the evening at the
North County Library.
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
granted the requested subdivision variances
for Pine Lake Estates, as recommended by
staff.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Adams, the Board unanimously
adopted Resolution 94-134, accepting the
dedication of rights -of -ways lying within Pine
Lake Estates, an unplatted subdivision, as
recommended by staff.
25 BOOK 9 3 PAL L 59J
October 25, 1994 -
V
lois doennicnt irna jwepnreil i►y -
wid slimiltl b" rrtnrned to
--fhe- Comity. Allormry'a offiee�
-_ 1849 251h St., Vero Beae14
Florida - 32960,
tt li
boor pm
10/ 94 (RESO\pinelake) LEGAL(WGC /nhm)
RESOLUTION NO. 94-_U4
IN THE -RE -COR r--.
OF
JEFFREY 1�. 11AR,ON
CLERK
INDIAN fi VERiCo" FLA
A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, -
FLORIDA, ACCEPTING THE DEDICATION OF
RIGHTS -OF -WAYS LYING WITHIN PINE LAKE
ESTATES, AN UNPLATTED SUBDIVISION.
WHEREAS, Pinelake Estates is a subdivision which has never been
platted although sales maps have been recorded and lot sales have occurred;
and
WHEREAS, most
of the parcels within
the
Pinelake Estates
unrecorded subdivision are
unbuildable because they
have
no frontage on a
dedicated road right-of-way; and
WHEREAS, on September 8, 1982 Bertha Weissman, the fee simple
owner of property in the Southwest 1/4 of the Southwest 114 of Section 21,
Township 31 South, Range 38 East and the North 1/2 of the Northwest 1/4
of the Northwest 1/4 of Section 28, Township 31 South, Range 38 East,
recorded a "Declaration of Intent to Dedicate Right -of -Ways" at O.R. Book
648, Page 2606, Public Records of Indian River County, dedicating in
perpetuity to the use of the public for ingress, egress, drainage, utility
placement and other appropriate and necessary uses; and
WHEREAS, Indian River County has had prepared legal
descriptions of ' the rights -of -ways within the unrecorded plat of Pinelake
Estates Subdivision,
NOW, THEREFORE,
BE IT RESOLVED that in order to secure legal
road frontage rights to lots
of record within the unrecorded plat
of the
Pinelake Estates Subdivision,
the Board --of County Commissioners of
Indian
River County, Florida hereby:
o
1. Accepts the dedication of right-of-ways made by
Bertha
c.�
Weissman at O.R. Book 648,
Page 2606, Public Records of Indian
River
C70
C3
County, Florida, such right-of-ways more particularly described
in the
r%j
tV
attached Exhibit "A", sheets 1
through 3.
N
--
26
October 25, 1994 _
03
01
C-0
M
ui
N
RESOLUTION NO. 94-134
2. Declares that by accepting the dedication of' rights -of -ways,
the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County accepts no
responsibility for any act of construction or maintenance within such
dedicated areas until such time as those obligations are voluntarily assumed
by further resolution of the Board of County Commissioners, or until such
time those roads are brought up to then current County standards for
paving and drainage, through projects assessed to the benefitting
landowners, or through other means.
The resolution was moved for adoption by Commissioner F q9 p r t ,
and the motion was seconded by Commissioner Adams , 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 25 day of October , 1994.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
INDIAN RIMER COUNTY, FLORIDA
At%sti .. By k
_ Jo 101 fj,! rman
Y� r7
J .TBa n, C er _
r � •cl
October 25, 1994
Q
v
Indian River Ca Approved Date
Co
Adrn(rt.Jr0 l U /r/ e
C
E3 idge.I 2
N
Oept.
N
Risk Mgr.
'r
- APPROVED AS TO FORM
AND LEGAL SUFFICIENCY
z(rCf '���_
BY
WILLIAM G. C0LLINS II
DEPUTY COUNTY ATTORNEY
27 BOOK
PAGt
BOOK 93 PAGt 594
RESOLUTIONS TO PROVIDE FOR SURVEYING IMPROVEMENTS
- AND TO SET PUBLIC HEARING FOR PINE LAKE -=-ESTATES
UNRECORDED . SUBDIVISION.
The Board reviewed memo from Civil Engineer Michelle Gentile
dated October 3, 1994:
TO: James Chandler
County Administrator
THROUGH: James W. Davis, P.EL:
Public Works Director
and ..�
Roger D. Cain, P.E.
County Engineer j
FROM: Michelle A. Gentile, CET
Civil Engineer
SUBJECT: Resolutions to Provide for the Surveying Improvements to and set Public Hearing
date for:
Pine Lake Estates Unrecorded Subdivision
DATE: October 3, 1994
As part of the effort to provide appropriate access to the lots in the unrecorded Pine Lakes Estates
Subdivision, so that building permits may be legally issued for this subdivision the county agreed
to have certain tracts surveyed for use as right-of-way in the subdivision. These tracts were those
offered to be dedicated by Bertha Weissman in 1982, as right-of-way. The county attorney's office
and the Planning Division will be submitting to the Board of County Commissioners resolutions and
other items to complete the process directed by the Board at its September 21, 1993 meeting. At
that regular meeting, the Board authorized staff to assess the property owners in Pine Lakes Estates
to cover -the costs of the surveying of the above tracts.. Masteller, Moler and Reed prepared the
survey of these tracts for Pine Lakes Estates for a cost of $4,700.00.
A separate resolution will need to be adopted to hold a Public Hearing to discuss the advisability,
cost and amount of the assessment against each property owner. This Public Hearing has been
scheduled for Tuesday, November 15. 1994 at 9:05 A.M. in the County Commission Chambers.
An assessment roll and plat has been prepared and filed with the Clerk to the Board of County
Commissioners.
It is recommended that the Board:
1) Adopt the resolution providing for the surveying improvements for the project subject to the
terms - outlined in the resolution. The applicable interest rate shall be established by the
Board of County Commissioners at the time the final assessment roll is approved.
2) Adopt a resolution setting the time -and place of the Public Hearing.
28
October 25, 1994
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously adopted
Resolution 94-135, providing for certain surveying
improvements to Pine Lake Estates unrecorded
subdivision, providing the total estimated cost,
method of payment of assessments, number of -annual
installments, and legal description of the area
specifically benefited.
Providing (First Reso.)
1/5/94(ENG)RES 1.MAG\gfk
RESOLUTION NO. 94- 13 5
A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, PROVIDING FOR CERTAIN
SURVEYING IMPROVEMENTS TO PINE LAKE ESTATES
UNRECORDED SUBDIVISION, PROVIDING THE TOTAL ESTIMATED
COST, METHOD OF PAYMENT OF ASSESSMENTS, NUMBER OF
ANNUAL INSTALLMENTS, AND LEGAL: DESCRIPTION OF THE
AREA SPECIFICALLY BENEFITED.
WHEREAS, the County Public .Works Department has initiated a Public
Improvement for surveying Pine Lake Estates, an unrecorded subdivision; and
WHEREAS, the surveying improvements by special assessment funding is
authorized by Chapter 206, Section 206.01 through 206.09, Indian River County Code; and cost
estimates and preliminary assessment rolls have been completed by the Public Works Department;
and the total estimated cost of the surveying improvements is FORTY SEVEN HUNDRED
DOLLARS and NO CENTS ($4,700.00); and
WHEREAS, the special assessment provided hereunder shall, for any given record
owner of property within the area specially benefited, be in an amount equal to that proportion of
one hundred percent (10001b) of the total cost of the project ($4,700.00) which the number of lots
owned by the given owner bears to the total number of lots within the areas specially benefited; and
WHEREAS, the special assessment shall become due and payable at the Office of
the Tax Collector of Indian River County ninety (90) days after the final determination of the special
assessment pursuant to Section 206.08, Indian River County Code; and
29 ap®K 3 F��al
October 25, 1994
BOOK W PAU 5
- - - -= No. 94-13 5
WHEREAS, any special assessment not paid within said ninety (90) day period shall
bear interest beyond the due date at a rate established by the Board of County Commissioners at the
time of preparation of the final assessment roll, and shall be payable in two (2) equal installments,
the first to be made twelve (12) months from the due date and subsequent payments to be due yearly;
and
WHEREAS, after examination of the nature and anticipated usage of the proposed
improvements, the Board of County Commissioners has determined that the following described
properties shall receive a direct and special benefit from these improvement, to wit:
The Southwest 1/4 of the Southwest 1/4 of Section 21, Township 31 South,
Range 38 East, AND The North 1/2 of the Northwest 1/4 of the Northwest
1/4 of Section 28, Township 31 South, Range 38 East, all lying in Indian
River County, Florida. LESS that part lying within the right-of-way of
Fellsmere Road (CR512)
Pine Lake Estates, Unit 1, Unrecorded Subdivision Lots 1 thru 29, Block A;
Lots 1 thm 29, Block B; Lots 1 thru 29, Block C; Lots 1 thru 35, Block D;
Lots 1 thru 18, Block E; Lots 1 thru 12, Block F; Lots 1 thru 12, Block G;
Lots 1 thru 24, Block H;
and
Pine Lake Estates, Unit 1, O.R. BK 123, 139 & 141, Lots 1 thru 5 INC,
Block J & INC Lots Marked Park Area Block J & Lot Marked Pine Lake,
Block J
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY .THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, as follows:
1. The foregoing recitals are affirmed and ratified in their entirety.
2. A project providing for surveying improvements to Pine Lake Estates
Unrecorded Subdivision; heretofore designated as Public Works Project No. 9415 is hereby
approved subject to the terms outlined above and all applicable requirements of Chapter 206, et seq.
Indian River County Code.
30
October 25, 1994
No. 94- 13 5
The foregoing resolution was offered by Commissioner E g g e r t
who moved its adoption. The motion was seconded by Commissioner B i r d
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 passed -and adopted this 2 5 . day - -
of Oct. , 1994.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OFI�N RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
7--
Y&ByW124�,%I
JOIPPIN, C an
Lathan River County
APPrved Dal.
Administration
Budget
Legal
Risk Management
0 y7
Public works
Engineering
141 7
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously adopted
Resolution 94-136 setting 9:05 A. M. on Tuesday,
November 15, 1994 at the County Commission chambers
in the County Administration Building as the time
and -place at which the -owners of property in Pine
Lake Estates unrecorded subdivision and other
interested persons may -appear before the Board of
County Commissioners and -be heard as to the cost of
surveying improvements, as to the manner of payment
therefor,. and as. to the amount to be --specially
assessed against each property benefited.
31 BOOK
October 25, 1994
93 PnL 597
Time and Place (Second Reso.)
BOOK
1 /5/94(ENG)RES2.MAG\gfk
RESOLUTION NO. 94- 13 6-
A RESOLUTION OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA,
SETTING A TIME AND PLACE AT WHICH THE OWNERS OF
PROPERTY IN PINE LAKE ESTATES UNRECORDED
SUBDIVISION AND OTHER INTERESTED PERSONS MAY
APPEAR BEFORE THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS AND BE HEARD AS TO THE COST OF
SURVEYING IMPROVEMENTS, AS TO THE MANNER OF
PAYMENT THEREFOR, AND AS TO THE AMOUNT TO BE
SPECIALLY ASSESSED AGAINST EACH PROPERTY
BENEFITED.
PALMS
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County has, by
Resolution No. 13 5 , determined that it is necessary for the public welfare of the citizens
of the county, and particularly as to those living, working, and owning property within the
area described herein, that surveying improvements be made to said property; and
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners has caused an assessment roll to
be completed and filed with the Clerk to the Board; and
WHEREAS, Section 206.06, Indian River County Code, requires that the Board of
County Commissioners shall fix a time and place at which the owners of the properties to
be assessed or any other persons interested therein may appear before the Board of County
Commissioners and be heard as to the cost of surveying improvements to said property, as
to the manner of payment therefor, and as to the amount to be assessed against each property
benefited.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, as follows:
1. The County Commission shall meet at the County Commission chambers in the
County Administration Building at the hour of 9:05 A.M. on Tuesday. November 15.
1994, at which time the owners of the properties to be assessed and any other
interested persons may appear before said Commission and be heard in regard to said
property. The area improved and the properties specially benefited are more
particularly described upon the assessment plat and the assessment roll with regard
to the special assessments.
Octob=5, 1994
32
F J
RESOLUTION NO..1 3 6
2. All persons interested in the construction of said improvements and the special
assessments against the properties specially benefited may review the assessment plat
showing the area to be assessed, the assessment roll, the plans and specifications for
said improvements, and an estimate of the cost thereof at the office of the Clerk to the
Board any week day from 8:30 A.M. until 5:00 P.M.
3. Notice of the time and place of this public hearing shall be given by the Department
of Public Works by two publications in the Vero Beach Press Journal Newspaper a
week apart. The last publication shall be at least one week prior to the date of the
hearing. The Indian River County Department of Public Works shall give the owner
of each property to be specially assessed at least ten days notice in writing of such
time and place, which shall be served by mailing a copy of such notice to each of such
property owners at his last known address.
The resolution was moved for adoption by Commissioner E g g e r t , and the
motion was seconded by Commissioner Bird , and, upon being put to a vote, the vote
was as follows:
Chairman John W. Tippin .
A y e
Vice Chairman Kenneth R. Macht
A y e
Commissioner Fran B. Adams
Aye
Commissioner Richard N. Bird
A y e
Commissioner Carolyn K. Eggert
Aye
The Chairman thereupon declared the resolution duly passed and adopted this 2 5 day
of October , 1994.
J e .Baj
chment: )
-'0,e.
IT ROLL
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
IN;HANW.
RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
By
TIP airman
Indian River Got?
Approved Date
Administration
Budget
/0//9
Ug,1
10
flo
Risk Management
�C•�
Public Works
Engineering
33 -
October 25, 1994 BOOK f,1E
1
BOOK 9 �l rAmJ. 100
PUBLIC HEARING - REQUEST TO AMEND THE COMPREHENSIVE
PLAN TO CREATE A NEW RC, REGIONAL COMIl MRCTAL, LAND
USE DESIGNATION, AND TO REDESIGNATE APPROXIMATELY 130.3.
ACRES FROM M-1 TO RE, PLAN AMENDMENT NO. LUDA 94-10-0064
The hour of 9:05 a.m. having passed, the County Attorney
announced that this public hearing has been properly advertised as
follows:
: HOW
Y
ti ii ra _
P.O. Box 1268 Vero Beach, Florida 32961 562-2315
COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER Prc;%,q JQpttUlt
SPATE OF FLORIDA
Before the undersigned nttlhorityy ppersrntnlly npperiml 3.3.
Schumann, ,1r. who on onlh says tint he is Business Manager of lite
Vero Bench Press-3ournnl, s newspaper published at Vero Hench In
Indian River County, Florida; thnt
billed ta— I /?i C- i�Iq
was published In said neu spnper in the Issue(s)
Sworn to and subscribed before me this
fill
?
�Ll day of
A.D
'0� ��Gr;
r „
pt%►q
Q•'C�' ��'.
r
Business Manager
F�
tramm.F.Id� � �
��� My
• J:np:?9 1!+at � �
s � ae CC7MS72 .•
n.rcr.n.• 77.•,ys_ rn+tvty prim n;
SL.4..ara..:, ny:.,..en ..ar.r. .4an:n r907
rx..+... • mgr
AI }tc G+
r/
rh..� asa•ran.e ^rn„xye
NOTICE OF CHANGE OF LAND USE AND
CHANGE OF COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TEXT
�8ubJecl Properly
]t0A{I8� e.7_
The Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, rioridn,
will consider a proposal to change the use of land within the
unincorporated portions of Indian River County and to change the text of
the Comprehensive Plan. A public hearing on the proposal will be held on
Tuesday, October 25, 1994, of 9:05 a.m. in the County Commission
Chambers of the County Administration Building, located at 1840 751h
Street, Vero Beach, Florida. At this public hearing fire Board of Counly
Commissioners wig make a final decision to amend lire County's
Comprehensive Pian. The proposed amendment is included in lira
proposed ordinance entitled:
AN ORDINANCE OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA,
AMENDING THE TEXT OF THE FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT Or
TILE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN; AME14DING TILE FUTURE LAND USE
MAP BY REDESIGNAIING APPROXIMATELY 130.3 ACRES
LOCATED AT THE NORIIIEAST CORNER OF S.R. 60 & 66111
AVENUE FROM M-1, MFDIUM-DENSITY RESIDENTIAL -1 TO Rr-,
REGIONAL COMMERCIAL; AND PROVIDING CODIFICATION,
SEVERABILITY AND EFFECTIVE DATE.
Interested parties may appear and be heard at the public: hooting ro-
garding the approval of this proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment.
The pian amendment application may be inspected by the prrhlic of d:e
Community Development Department located on Iiia second floor of the
County Administration Building located at 1840 251h Street, Vero Beach,
Florida, between the hours of 8:30 a.m, and 5:00 p.m. on weekdays.
Anyone who may wish to appeal any decision which may be made at
this meeting will need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceed -
Ings is made which includes the testimony and evidence upon which Ilia
appeal will be based.
Anyone who needs a special accomodafion for this meeting must con-
tact the county's American with Disabilities Act (ADA) Coordinator at 567-
8000 extension 223 at least 48 hours In advance of meeting.
Indian River County
Board of County Commissioners
By: -s- John W. Tipple, Chairman
Community Development Director Bob Keating made the following
presentation:
34
October 25, 1994
TO: James E. Chandler
County Administrator
D NT HEAD CONCURRENCE
f
Robert M. Matin AIC
THROUGH: Sasan Rohani, AICD
Chief, Long - Rang Planning
FROM: John Wachte
Senior Planner, Long -Range Planning
DATE: October 19, 1994
RE: Request to Amend the Comprehensive Plan to Create a New.
RC, Regional Commercial, Land Use Designation and -to
Redesignate Approximately 130.3 Acres from M-1 to RC;
PLAN AMENDMENT NUMBER: LURA 94-10-0064
It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal
consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their regular
meeting of October 25, 1994.
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
This is a county initiated request to amend the Future Land Use
Element of the Comprehensive Plan. The proposed amendments involve
changes to the Future Land Use Map and to the text of the Future
Land Use Element. The text changes will create a new RC, Regional
Commercial, land use designation, while the map changes will
redesignate 130.3 acres of land to the new RC. land use. designation.
These proposed amendments will implement a Stipulated Settlement
Agreement which the Board approved on October 18, 1994. That
Stipulated Settlement Agreement was the result of negotiations
between Indian River County and the State Department of Community
Affairs (DCA) to resolve the issues identified in DCA's Statement
of Intent to find the Indian River Mall Comprehensive Plan
Amendment not in compliance.
While the comprehensive plan amendment process typically requires
both Planning and Zoning Commission and Transmittal Public Hearings
prior to the Final Adoption Public Hearing, amendments associated
with settlement agreements are subject to different requirements.
Because the subject amendments are remedial amendments that are
associated with a Stipulated Settlement Agreement, state law allows
the Board to proceed directly to the Final Adoption Public Hearing.
The proposed additions and deletions to the text of the
comprehensive plan are shown on Attachment 4. In this attachment,
deletions are indicated by strike throughs, while additions are
.shown as underlined.
Background
On January 17, 1994s Ty Tarby, Trustee for the subject property,
submitted_ a request to amend_ -_the Future -Land Use Map of the
comprehensive plan and rezone approximately 130.3 acres located on
the north side of -S.R. -60-between 58th Avenue and 66th Avenue.
That request involved changing the subject property's land use
designation from M-1, Medium -Density Residential -1 (up to 8 units/
acre) to C/I, Commercial/Industrial Node.
35 BOOK 9 . PALL 01
October 25, 1994
_I
BOOK W PALL -60
The purpose of that request was to secure the necessary land use
designation and zoning to develop the property as 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 being
reviewed as a Development of Regional Impact (DRI).
• Adoption of Land -Use Amendment
On February 10, 1994, the Planning and Zoning Commission voted 6-1
to recommend that the Board of County Commissioners transmit the
Indian River Mall Land Use Amendment to DCA for their review. In
March, 1994, the Board of County Commissioners voted 5-0 to
transmit the Indian River Mall Land Use Amendment request to DCA.
Consistent with state regulations, DCA reviewed the Indian River
Mall Amendment and prepared an Objections, Recommendations and
Comments (ORC) Report, which planning staff received on May 23,
1994. The ORC Report contained two objections to the Indian River
Mall Amendment. Those objections dealt with the overallocation of
commercial land in the county, and with the protection of
endangered vegetation on the site. Attachment 5 is a copy of the
ORC Report.
On July 19, 1994, the Board of County Commissioners voted 5-0 to
adopt the Indian River Mall Comprehensive Plan Amendment. Although
the amendment's_ support document was revised to address DCA's
objections, DCA, on September 7, 1994, issued a Statement of Intent
to find the Indian River Mall Amendment "not in compliance".
Attachment 6 is a copy of the Statement of Intent.
• DCA's Objections
In its Statement of Intent, DCA raised one objection. That
objection, dealing with the overallocation of commercial land in
the county, was similar to an objection raised in the ORC Report.
The Statement of Intent's recommended action, however, was entirely
different than the recommended action in the ORC Report.
In both the ORC Report and the Statement of Intent, DCA expressed
concern that there were insufficient safeguards to ensure that the
subject property, if redesignated to C/I, could be developed only
as a- regional mall site. DCA argued that the C/I designation
allows a wide variety of general commercial and industrial
development, for which there is already an overallocation of land.
The county's position is that, since the. Indian River Mall Land Use
Amendment is associated with a DRI, the county has special control
which is not available in a normal rezoning or plan amendment.
That control involves conditioning the DRI Development Order. In
this case, the Development Order could ensure that the subject
property would not be available for general commercial use (for
which there is sufficient land currently available) by providing
enough time for the county to redesignate and rezone the property
if a regional mall was not constructed. The previously approved
Harbortown Mall DRi Development Order contains such conditions, and
the DRI Development Order associated with the Indian River Mall
Land Use Amendment request also contains such conditions.
Additionally, Future Land Use Element Policy 1.24 provides that
land which has been redesignated from -residential to commercial/
industrial will revert to residential if development has not
progressed within certain timeframes.
36
October 25, 1994
Despite the county having addressed DCA's ORC Report objections,
DCA found the Indian River Mall Amendment not in compliance. DCA's
noncompliance statement of intent, however, differed from its ORC
Report in one significant way. In the ORC Report, DCA indicated
that the county could adequately address DCA's objection by
adopting a site specific policy ensuring that no general commercial
uses would be constructed on the subject property if the mall _
facility were not built. With its noncompliance intent statement,
however, DCA changed its recommended action to resolve the
objection. Instead of- a site specific policy as recommended in the
ORC Report, the noncompliance intent statement indicated that the
county had to create a new regional commercial land use designation
and redesignate the subject property to that land use category.
According to the Statement of Intent, the new regional commercial
land use designation (Policy 1.26a on Attachment 4-) should allow
only regional mall/regional commercial development that is approved
through the DRI process. Thus, under DCA's proposal, the regional
commercial land use designation will serve the same function as the
DRI Development Order condition was to serve; that is to ensure
that the site is developed with regional mall/regional commercial
uses rather than general commercial uses.
The significance of DCA's noncompliance finding is that the
proposed Indian River Mall project cannot be built until that
noncompliance determination is resolved. To resolve it, the
affected parties had two options. Essentially, these options were
to negotiate a settlement with DCA staff or to appeal the issue
through the administrative procedures process with an ultimate
decision by the governor -and cabinet, sitting as the Land and Water
Adjudicatory Commission. While the facts in this case supported
the appeal option, the applicant's time constraints favored a
negotiated settlement.
• Stipulated -Settlement Agreement
Shortly after receipt of RCA's Statement of Intent, county staff,
DCA, and the applicant participated in negotiations to bring the
Indian River Mall Amendment into compliance. Subsequently, a
Stipulated Settlement Agreement acceptable to all parties was
drafted. That Stipulated Settlement Agreement was executed by DCA
on September 13, 1994, and approved by the Board of County
Commissioners on October 18, 1994.
With the adoption of the Stipulated Settlement Agreement, the Board
of County Commissioners agreed to take the following remedial
actions within 60 days:
1. adopt a remedial comprehensive plan amendment to create a new
Regional Commercial land use designation; and
2. redesignate the 130.3 acre Indian River Mall site to the
Regional Commercial land use designation.
With Board adoption of the subject remedial amendments, DCA will
take two actions to remove the noncompliance status of the Indian
River Mall Amendment and .thereby eliminate the threat of state
financial sanctions. -Those actions are:
1. issue -a cumulative notice of intent addressing both the
initial Indian River Mall Amendment and the subject remedial
amendments; and
2. request dismissal of the administrative hearing case for the
Indian River Mall Amendment.
37
October 25, 1994 eoa P4L
BOOK PAGt 04
The comprehensive plan amendments comprising the subject request
constitute the remedial actions agreed to by the county in the
adopted and executed settlement agreement. With adoption of the
- amendments, DCA will then be required to take the actions
identified in the settlement agreement to resolve the Indian River
Mall non-compliance issue.
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 3, 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 -61 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 northwest 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 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.
October 25, 1994
38
M
M
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.propertiesalong
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
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 bo-rder. While included in the DRI project
area, this wetland slough system is not part of the subject
amendment request and will remain residentially designated.
October 25, 1994 3 9 BOOK � PACE 0
BOOK
Utilities and Services
PAUL
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.
ANALYSIS
This section will present a description and analysis of each of the
proposed changes to the text of the comprehensive plan, and an
analysis of the reasonableness of the proposed remedial amendment
to the Future Land Use Map. Specifically, this section will
include:
• an analysis of the need for -Regional Commercial designated
land;
• an analysis of proposed changes to the text of the
comprehensive plan;
• an analysis of the proposed remedial amendments' impact on
public facilities;
• an analysis of the proposed remedial amendments' compatibility
with the surrounding area;
• an analysis of the proposed remedial amendments' potential
impact on environmental quality; and
• an analysis of the proposed remedial amendments' consistency
with the comprehensive elan.
40
October 25, 1994
M
M
The Need for Reaional Commercial Desianated'Land
As structured, the RC (Regional Commercial) land use category would
limit the use of property designated as RC to regional
mall/regional commercial uses. Since this land use category would
restrict any property so designated, it is important to determine
if there is a need for regional mall/regional commercial uses in
the county.
According to the Urban Land Institute, a trade area of 150,000
people is needed to support a regional mall. Based on the
projections of the Bureau of Economic and Business Research (BEBR),
Indian River County's permanent 2010 population will be 137,700.
Combined with an expected 2010 seasonal population of 33,283, the
county's peak season population in 2010 will be 170,983. The year
2010 is important, because that is the time horizon of the county's
comprehensive plan.
Considering that the trade area of a regional mall would extend
beyond the boundaries of the county, it is apparent that there is
ample regional population to justify a Regional Commercial land use
designation in Indian River County. Despite this fact, the county
presently has no regional shopping facilities.' Therefore, county
residents must now leave the county to shop at a regional center.
Another key 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
S.R. 60 and 58th Avenue node's centralized location, and that
node's close proximity to the county's 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
41 BOOK 93 FAGS 6.07
October 25, 1994
ROOK F 4 608
initial approval and that only one moll -can .survive in the county,
several reasons exist for the consideration of this request.
The first reason is that there are no guaranteesthatthe
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.
Another reason to consider this request despite the fact that one
regional mall has already received DRI approval is that preventing
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.
During the land use 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.
By creating a Regional Commercial land use designation and
redesignating the subject property to that land use category, the
proposed remedial amendments will ensure that only regional
mall/regional commercial uses will be developed on the subject
property.
Proposed Changes to the Text of.the Comprehensive Plan
Creation of a new regional commercial land use category will
require changes to two policies of the comprehensive plan. The
proposed changes are shown on Attachment 4.
Future Land Use Element Policy 1.26a
DCA, in its Statement of Intent, proposed that the county adopt a
new Future Land Use Element Policy that would create a Regional
_ Commercial land use designation category. As shown on Attachment
..4, Future Land -Use. Element Policy 1.26a implements that proposal.
According to this proposed policy, development within the Regional
Commercial land use designation must meet all of the following
criteria:
1. Development will be limited to major regional malls and
associated retail shopping centers whose market extends beyond
the boundaries of the county.
2.
Development
will
include at
least one "magnet" retail store.
3.
Development
will
be approved
through the DRI process.
4. The minimum open space ratio will be 0.25.
5. The maximum building coverage ratio will be 0.40.
6. The maximum impervious surface ratio will be 0.75.
42
October 25, 1994
The provisions of this policy ensure that Regional Commercial
designated land can be developed only with regional malls and
associated retail uses.
Future Land Use Element Policy 1.2
Future Land Use Element Policy -1.2 lists the Future -Land Use Map's
land use designations. To maintain consistency with proposed
Policy 1.26x, the Regional Commercial land use designation must be
added to that list. The proposed changes to Policy 1.21 shown on
Attachment 4, accomplish that task.
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 (LDRs) 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
concurrency management system component of the Capital Improvements
Element. For Comprehensive Plan amendment 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 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
land use designation. For commercial Comprehensive Plan amendment
requests, the most intense use (according to the county's LDRs) 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 1,5171175 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
43 BOOK 6' F,i"L
October 25, 1994
Redesignated:
±130.3 acres
2.
Existing Land Use Designation:
M-1, Medium -Density
Residential -1 (up to 8
units/acre)
3.
Proposed Land Use Designation:
RC, Regional Commercial
4.
Most Intense Use of Subject
Property under existing
Land Use Designation:
1,042 Dwelling Units (DU)
5.
Most Intense Use of Subject _-Property under Proposed Land Use -
Designation: 1,517,sq
175 uare
feet of Retail Commercial
_.(Shopping Center
in the 5th Edition ITE
Manual)
43 BOOK 6' F,i"L
October 25, 1994
Boob Fi�
b
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:
Existing -Land Use Designation
1. Residential Use Identified in 5th Edition ITE Manual:
Single -Family
2. Average Weekday Trip Ends: 1,042 DU X 9.55 trip ends/DU = 9,951
3. P.M. Peak Hour Trip ends: 1,042 DU X 1.01 trip ends/DU = 1,052
a. Inbound: 65% or 684
b. Outbound: 35% or 368
Proposed Land Use Designation
1. Retail Commercial use Identified in 5th Edition ITE Manual:
Shopping Center
2. For 1,517,175 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
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:
115170175 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 11584
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
44
October 25, 1994
The number of Average Weekday Trip Ends associated with the most
intense use of the subject property under the present" land use
designation is 9,951. 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
11517,175 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 31960. 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
43,406 Average Weekday Trip Ends, or 34,725, will be new.
Similarly, 80%, or 3,168, of the 3,960 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
proposed land use designation will generate 11584 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 land use
designation 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 the proposed -- land use designation amendment.
Impacted roads are defined in the county's LDRs 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
45 BOOK 3 PAGE 611
October 25, 1994
BOOK 3PAL 6V
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 land use designation amendment 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 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 state that
necessary improvements will be made to ensure that- sufficient
capacity is available to serve the anticipated traffic generation
of this project.
The original Development Order associated with the subject request
contained these provisions for segments 1925, 3025 and 3030.
Although approved by the Board of County Commissioners, that
Development Order has been appealed by DCA and is not effective at
this time. An amended Development Order, however, is scheduled to
be considered by the Board at the same Board of County
Commissioners meeting as the subject remedial plan amendments.
That amended Development Order also contains 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 remedial land use designation amendment.
Therefore, with the adoptionzof the referenced Development Order,
the transportation concurrency requirement for this request will be
satisfied.
TRAFFIC CONCURRENCY DETERMINATION
Impacted Road Segments
(peak hour/peak season/peak direction)
Roadway
Segment
Road
From
TO
segment
Capacity
LOS "D"
1130
I.R. Blvd
S. VB City Lmt..
17th Street
1760
1140
I.R. Blvd
17th Street
21st Street
1760
1150
I.R. Blvd
21st Street
S.R. 60
1760
1330
U.S. #1
S. VB City Lmt.
17th Street
2270
1335
U.S. #1
17th Street
S.R. 60
2270
1340
U.S. #1
S.R. 60
Royal Palm P1.
2300
1830
C.R. 510
58th Ave.
U.S. #1
630
1910
S.R..60
C.R. 512
I-95
540
1915
S.R. 60
I-95
82nd Ave.
1680
1920
S.R. 60
82nd Ave.
66th Ave.
1760
1925
S.R. 60
66th Ave.
58th Ave.
1760
1930
S.R. 60
58th Ave.
43rd Ave.
2650
1935
S.R. 60
43rd Ave.
27th Ave.
2650
1940
S.R. 60
27th Ave.
20th Ave.
2600
1945
S.R. 60
20th Ave.
Old Dixie Hwy.
1638
1950
S.R. 60
Old Dixie Hwy.
10th Ave.
1638
1955
S.R. 60
10th Ave.
U.S. #1
1638
1960
S.R. 60
U.S. #1
I.R. Blvd.
1638
1965
S.R.-60
I.R. Blvd.
ICWW
1760
2020
16th Street
58th Ave.
43rd Ave.
830
2030
16th Street
43rd Ave.
27th Ave.
830
2040
16th Street
27th Ave.
20th Ave.
830
2050
16th Street
20th Ave.
Old Dixie Hwy.
970
2220
12th Street
58th Ave.
43rd Ave.
830
2335
Old Dixie Hwy.
16th Street
S.R. 60
830
2460
27th Ave.
S. VS City Lmt.
16th Street
830
2470
27th Ave.
16th Street
S.R.60
830
2480
27th Ave.
S.A. 60
Atlantic Blvd.
830
October 25, 1994
46
W
M M
Roadway
Segment
Road
From
To
SegmentCapacity
LOS "D"
2860
20th Ave.
16th Street
S.R. 60
1760
2920
43rd Ave.
8th Street
12th Street
630
2925
43rd Ave.
12th Street
16th Street
830
2930
43rd Ave.
16th Street
S.R. 60
830
3005
58th Ave.
Oslo Road
4th Street
630
3010
58th Ave.
4th Street
8th Street
630
3015
58th Ave.
8th Street
12th Street
630
3020
58th Ave.
12th Street
16th Street
630
3025
58th Ave.
16th Street
S.R. 60
830
3030
58th Ave.
S.R. 60
41st Street
830
3035
58th Ave.
41st Street
45th Street
630
3040
58th Ave.
45th Street
49th Street
630
3055
58th Ave.
69th Street
C.R. 510
630
3120
66th Ave.
S.R. 60
26th Street
630
3130
66th Ave.
26th Street
41st Street
630
3140
66th Ave.
41st Street
45th Street
630
3150
66th Ave.
45th Street
65th Street
630
3160
66th Ave.
65th Street
69th Street
630.-
3170
66th Ave.
69th Street
C.R. 510
630
3330
82nd Ave.
12th Street
S.A. 60
630
3340
82nd Ave.
S.R. 60
65th Street
630
4230
49th Street
58th Ave.
43rd Ave.
630
4330
45th Street
58th Ave.
43rd Ave.
630
4430
41st Street
58th Ave.
43rd -Ave.
630
4720
26th Street
66th Ave.
58th:Ave. _
630
4730
26th -Street
58th Ave.
43rd Ave.
630
4830
8th Street
58th Ave.
43rd Ave.
630
4930
4th Street
58th Ave.
43rd Ave.
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
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
70.7
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
1R6
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
47C -
BOOK b3 PAUL
October 25, 1994
BOOK 93 PAU614
Existing Demand Total --- Available___ Positive
x st
Roadway Eng Vested Segment- Segment Project Concurrency
Segment Volume volume Demand Capacity Demand Determination
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/ERU/day. 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 remedial amendments.
- 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 455 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 400,0Q0 gallons/day and can accommodate the additional
wastewater generated by the proposed remedial amendments.
Solid Waste
— 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 remedial land use designation
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) .
48
October 25, 1994
M M
M
A review of the solid waste capacity for the active.segtRent 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
remedial amendments, 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.
Recreation
Recreation concurrency requirements apply only to residential
development. Therefore, this remedial comprehensive plan amendment
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 remedial
amendments. Incorporating the referenced road improvements into
the associated DRI Development Order will -satisfy the concurrency
test for the subject request.
Compatibility with the Surrounding Area
The compatibility of the proposed remedial amendments 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.
49 BOOK � PAGE
October 25, 1994
BOOK PAGL616
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 LDRs 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 LDRs 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, 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.
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 associated
with. the subject request on the adjacent land to the east. For
_these reasons, the proposed remedial amendments are compatible with
surrounding areas.
Potential—rmpact on Environmental Quality
The policies of.Conservation Element Objective 5 -and provisions of
chapter 928 of the county's LDRs provide regulatory protection of
wetlands, to ensure "no net loss" of the natural function of
50
October 25, 1994
� � r
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 LDRs
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;
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
from any area of development on
planting of these species on the
pepper, and Australian pine,
the site. There shall be no
site,
51 BOOK 3 fA.�;In
October 25, 1994
800X 'W PAa""61
The herein described Conservation Element Policies and LDR
provisions apply to the subject property under either the existing
or proposed future land use designation. 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). Because 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 LDRs provide sufficient protection to ensure that the
proposed remedial amendments 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
Comprehensive Plan amendment requests are reviewed for consistency
with all policies of the comprehensive plan. As per section
800.07(1) of the County Code, the "Comprehensive Plan may only be
amended in such a way as to preserve the internal consistency of
the plan pursuant to Section 163.3177(2)F.S." Comprehensive plan
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
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 amendment. These criteria are:
• an oversight in the approved plan;
• a mistake in the approved plan; and
• a substantial change in circumstances.
Based on its analysis, staff believes that the proposed land use
amendment meets. the first criterion, while the proposed text
amendments meet the third criterion.
As noted in a previous section, the future land use map currently
depicts ohly+_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
52
October 25, 1994
M
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 land use amendment
meets the first criterion of Future Land Use Element Policy 13.3
and is consistent with the policy.
The proposal to create the new Regional Commercial land use
designation is the result of a change in DCA policy. Previously,
DCA agreed that Development Order conditions were sufficient to
ensure that only regional commercial uses would be developed on a
site. Now, however, DCA contends that a specific land use
designation is needed to ensure that only regional commercial
development occurs on -a site where the land use designation is to
be changed to commercial to accommodate a regional mall.
Therefore, the change in DCA policy constitutes .a change in
circumstances. For that reason, the proposed remedial text
amendments meet the third criterion of Future Land Use Element
Policy 13.3 and are 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.
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 provisions of the proposed Future Land Use Element Policy
1.26a, 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
remedial- amendments are consistent with Future Land Use Element
Policy 1.21.
53 Ofl3 PA., -6
October 25, 1994
mow 93 FA&L,62
- 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 remedial
amendments, the nearest node to the subject node would continue to
be more than 1} miles from the subject node. Therefore, the
proposed remedial amendments are 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 todetermine 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
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 =11 facility. Therefore, the proposed node expansion
meets the above condition and is "otherwise warranted" as defined
in Future Land Use -:Element._.Policy 1.23. For this reason, the
proposed remedial amendments are consistent with Future Land Use
Element Policy 1.23.
54
October 25, 1994
M M M
M
Future Land Use Element Policy 1.24
J
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
Board of County Commissioners as part of a development agreement.
This policy decreases land speculation, and helps ensure that
demand for additional commercially 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 commercially 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 a commercial land use
designation. Therefore, the proposed remedial amendments 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 remedial
amendments are 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
remedial amendments are 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
land use designations. For this reason, the proposed remedial
amendments are 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
55 BOOK
October 25, 1994
these reasons, the proposed remedial amendments are consistent with
Economic Development Objective 1.
As part of the staff analysis, all policies in the comprehensive
plan were considered. Based -on this analysis, staff determined
that the proposed remedial amendments are consistent with the
comprehensive plan. -
CONCLUSION
Based on the analysis, staff has determined that the proposed
remedial amendments are consistent with the comprehensive plan,
compatible with surrounding areas, will not negatively impact
environmental quality, and meet 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.
Additionally, this staff report has been expanded to address the
provisions, including remedial text amendments, of the Stipulated
Settlement Agreement. The proposed text amendments will ensure
that the site is developed with a regional mall rather than with
"general commercial" uses.
Finally, with the adoption of the proposed remedial amendments, DCA
will take action to resolve the noncompliance status of the
original Indian River Mall Amendment and thereby remove the threat
of state financial'sanctions. Staff supports the request.
RECOMMENDATION
Based on the analysis conducted, staff recommends that the Board of
County Commissioners approve the proposed remedial comprehensive
plan text amendments identified in attachment 4, and approve the
request to redesignate the subject property to RC, Regional
Commercial.
Director Keating further explained that even though the Board
previously adopted a land use amendment ordinance changing the
subject parcel from M1 to CI, the effective date of that ordinance
was delineated as the time when the Department of Community Affairs
(DCA) found the amendment in compliance. The effective date never
came about; therefore that -change never actually occurred.
Director heating emphasized that staff researched market areas for
regional.'commercial facilities or mall facilities. It was
determined that .through 2020, the horizon year of our Comp Plan,
the county will have sufficient population, both resident and
October 25, 1994
M -
56
M
M
seasonal, to more than accommodate the -demand -for' a regional mall
facility. That population, coupled with the population in areas
within the market area of a regional mall facility, particularly
south Brevard and north St. Lucie Counties, -actually justifies the*
need for regional mall land here in the county. .It is justified
particularly by the fact that, even though population trends show
that such a facility in such a land use would be warranted, there
currently are no regional commercial facilities in the county.
Staff feels that we have adequately documented and complied with
that requirement within the stipulated settlement agreement.
Director Keating anticipated that DCA will review these specific
plan amendments and issue a cumulative notice of intent finding
this amendment and the previous amendment in compliance, which will
allow the applicant to go forward with this project. DCA also will
move to dismiss the administrative hearing that had been scheduled
on this matter.
Commissioner Eggert led discussion regarding the status of
Harbortown Regional Mall in light of the text changes in the
ordinance regarding the parameters in the RC district.
Director Keating reported that staff met with representatives
of both Indian River Mall and Harbortown Mall. Harbortown was
concerned because their site does not correspond to the proposed
parameters in the RC district. Director Keating stressed that
since DCA came up with the proposed solution, staff did not want to
rock the boat, so we accepted DCA's parameters. The criteria for
sites designated regional commercial range in size from 90 to 150
acres. The Harbortown site currently designated CI is 80 acres;
therefore it is under that range, and,they are concerned that DCA
will insist that Harbortown be designated regional commercial. If
DCA did that, it would require a comp plan amendment to again
change the parameters of the regional commercial district in order
to allow Harb-ortown to be designated such. Staff's position is
that according to our Comp Plan right now there is no problem in
building a regional mall facility in any property designated CI,
commercial industrial. There are no restrictions now and we do not
anticipate any in the future. This new Comp Plan designation RC
will be more restrictive and will allow only regional commercial;
the CI designation allows regional commercial as well as general
commercial.
The Chairman opened the public hearing and asked if anyone
wished to be heard in this matter.
57 BOOK FAQ k
October 25, 1994
BOOK 93 PA.0 ?4
Mildred Jane Long, 2065 63rd Court, Wallace Acres, was
concerned about drainage problems she and her neighbors have. Her
property is quite low and her neighbors' properties were flooded
and received some damage in the recent heavy rains because the
water which should drain south to SR -60 drains mostly to the north.
Ms. Long requested the Board look at their drainage problem in
regard to the ditch that borders Wallace Acres to the north. She
described the low spots that become flooded. She stated that they
definitely have a problem. Ms. Long reported that County Engineer
Roger Cain looked at the situation, saw the problem, and contacted
the State. They in turn came out and made a attempt to clean out
the ditch on SR -60 but it was not done properly. She -has been told
that it is not a County problem, but she asked' the Board to
consider the residents of Wallace Acres when considering the plan
for the new development.
Chairman Tippin responded that the Board members realize there
is a serious drainage problem and will do everything possible to
see that the development will improve drainage in Wallace Acres,
not adversely impact it, and the time to address that subject is at
the time of site planning later on.
The Chairman determined that no one else wished to be heard
and thereupon closed the public hearing.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Adams, the Board unanimously
adopted Ordinance No. 94-29 amending the
Future Land Use element of the Comprehensive
Plan by redesignating approximately 130.3
acres located at the northeast corner of SR -60
and 66th Avenue from M-1 to RC; and enlarging
the SR -60 and 58th Avenue node from 166 to
296.3 acres; and amending the text of the
future land use element of the comprehensive
plan.
58
October 25, 1994
_I
� � r
ORDINANCE NO. 94- 29
AN ORDINANCE OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, AMENDING THE
FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN BY
REDESIGNATING APPROXIMATELY 130.3 ACRES LOCATED AT THE
NORTHEAST CORNER OF S.R. 60 AND 66TH AVENUE FROM M-1 TO RC;
AND ENLARGING THE S.R. 6 0 AND 58TH AVENUE NODE FROM 166 TO
296.3 ACRES; AND AMENDING THE TEXT OF THE FUTURE LAND USE
ELEMENT OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN; AND PROVIDING CODIFICATION,
SEVERABILITY AND EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners adopted the Indian
River County Comprehensive Plan on February 13, 1990, and
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners adopted
comprehensive plan amendment number LUDA 94-01-0087 (The Indian
River Mall Amendment) on July 19, 1994, and
WHEREAS, the Florida Department of Community Affairs (DCA)
issued a Statement of Intent to find comprehensive plan amendment
number LUDA 94-01-0087 (The Indian River Mall Amendment) not in
compliance on September 7, 1994, and
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners adopted a
compliance agreement on October 18, 1994, and
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners must revise the
comprehensive plan according to the compliance agreement, and
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River
County held a Comprehensive Plan Amendment Adoption Public Hearing
on October 25, 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
The amendments to the Indian River County Comprehensive Plan
identified in section 2 are hereby adopted, and ten (10) copies are
directed to be transmitted to the State of Florida Department of
Community Affairs, and one (1) copy is directed to be transmitted
to the Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council.
59
BOOK 93 F'A6E 625
October 25, 1994
BOOK 93 PAGE 626
ORDINANCE NO. 94- 29
SECTION 2. Amendments to the Comprehensive Plan
0 The land use designation of the following described property
situated in Indian River County, Florida to wit:
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:
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_
distanceof 165.00 feet to a point; thence S 780 00' 0.0"
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 66o 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 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 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 67o 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 RC, Regional Commercial.
0 Policy 1.2 of the Future _Land Use Element is revised, as shown on Attachment A.
o Policy 1.26a of the Future Land Use Element, as shown on
Attachment A, is added.
60
October 25, 1994
- ORDINANCE NO. 94- 29
SECTION 3. Codification
The provisions of this ordinance are hereby incorporated into
the County Comprehensive Plan, but.shall not be codified.
SECTION 4. Repeal of Conflicting Provisions
All previous ordinances, resolutions, or motions of the Board
of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida which
conflict with the provisions of this ordinance are hereby repealed
to the extent of such conflict.
SECTION 5. Severability
It is declared to be the intent of the Board of County
Commissioners that if any provision of this ordinance and
therefore, the Indian River County Comprehensive Plan 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.
SECTION 6. 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
on the 19th day of October, 1994 for
the 25th day of October, 1994 at
adoption by Commissioner Eggert
Adams , and
J
Chairman John W. Tippin
Vice Chairman Kenneth R. Macht
Commissioner Fran B. Adams
Commissioner Richard N. Bird
Commissioner Carolyn K. Eggert
n the Vero Beach Press -Journal
a public hearing to be held on
which time it was moved for
, seconded by Commissioner
adopted by the following vote:
BOARD OF -COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF INDIANRIVER Cwt
_ l
BY:
ohn W. Tip , Chai an
ATTEST BY:
n J , K . B on, er
61
October 25, 1994
BOOK PAGE- i
BOOK W PAGE 628
ORDINANCE NO. 94- 29
Acknowledgment by the Department of State of the State of Florida
this 8th day of November, , 1994.
Acknowledgment from the Department of State received on thisl6th
day of November , 1994, at 10:80 A.M./RxXx-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
l —44n A // 0
. Collins II,
Robert M. Keating,
Community Deve opm
County Attorney
rector
ATTACffiENT A
!ne_= 7,- Cs
A�, VtJ i
Admin.
Le^$I
,II
i Rtsk fvigr i
f/�ic%
PROPOSED REVISIONS TO THR TEXT OF THE CONPREHENSIVE PIAN
FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT
Policy 1.2: The Indian River County Future Land Use Map contains
the following land use designations:
Conservation
Agriculture
Residential
Commercial/Industrial
Regional Commercial
Public Facilities
Recreation
Mixed Use (floating land use designation; not depicted on the
future land use map)
Policy 1.26a: The Regional Commercial Land use designation is
intended for major regional malls and associated retail shopping
centers designed to accommodate the needs of the retail market
areas that extend beyond the boundaries of the county. These
developments will include one.or more "magnet" retail stores that
are branches of statewide, multi -state or national organizations
and satellite stores integrated through a common plan of
development -approved through the Chapter 380, F.S., Development of
Regional Impact program. Sites will typically range in size from
90 to 150 acres to -accommodate 750,000 to 1,500,000 gross square
feet of leasable area (mall plus peripheral commercial) with a
minimum open space ratio of 0.25, a maximum building coverage ratio
of 0.40 and maximum impervious surface ratio of 0.75.
62
October 25, 1994
Dais
PUBLIC HEARING - PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO TIS INDIAN
RIVER MALL (DEBARTOLOI DEVELOPMENT ORDER -=-
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 Beach, Indian River Country, Florida
COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER: STATE OF FLORIDA
Before the undersigned authority personally appeared J. J. Schumann, Jr. who on oath
says that he is Business Manager of the Vero Beach Press -Journal, a daily newspaper published
at Vero Beach in Indian River County, Florida; that the attached copy of advertisement, being
,a
in the , / Court, was pub-
lished In said newspaper in the issues of_ "J ewy/ 41" l.��QT/
Affiant further says that the said Vero Beach Press -Journal is a newspaper published at
Vero Beach, in said Indian River County, Florida, and that the said newspaper has heretofore
been continuously published in said Indian River County, Florida, each dally and has been
entered as second class mail matter at the post office in Vero Beach, in said Indian River Coun-
ty, Florida, for a period of one year next preceding the first publication of the attached copy of
advertisement; and affiant further says that he has neither paid nor promised any person, firm
or corporation any discount, rebate, commission or refund for the purpose of securing this
advr,Uum ,,rit or publication in the said n6wspaper.
C. Sls40
�.� S" if 7 abed before me this ay ftD- 19
t H On
;an L Vr�
�. My 00M• Expires : e (Business Manage
June 29 1997 • BARBARA C. PRAGUE, NOTARY PUBLIC,
= i Na CCM72 : State of Florida my Ca srx� ao � 29 1997
tjl i G•: ComrMBSon uaww:CC3M72
1.0
. Opp, �"�,,
M^SIPS&
Notary: BARBARA C. BPRAf�
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
The BoardOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
River Coon of County Commissioners of Indian
>y hereby awes notice of a PUBLIC
HEARING to be held at 9:05 a.m. on Tuesday, Oct-
ober 25, 1994, In the County Commission Cham-
b
e
r
s
of 0 the25th'VeroCounty Adi gam Fld Building located
at 184fact of the hearing is to consider adoption of minor
amendments (..proposed changes,,) to the exist N
development order (D.O.) for the project to be
known as Indian River Mall. The proposed amend_
ments are tnter>dstl to address concerns raised by
he Department the adopted
CommunityCommunityAffairs (DCA) In its
P
D.O. Furthermore, the pro -
Posed amendments would modify certain develop.
ment timeframe Conditions, a transportation cord.
tial, and Other wording contained in the existing
D.O.
The Indian River Mail project site is geromfly lo-
cated as fok ws:
Bound on the south by S.R. 60, on the
Swest by 66th Avenue, ly V south of 26th
treaL
Please see the above location map.
A9 members of the public are invited to attend
and Participate at the public hearing. Anyone who
may wish to appeal any decision which may be
made at the meeting w>d need to enure that a ver-
batim record of the proceedings is made, which in-
peal
n-
� is basedcludes testimony and evidence upon which the ahs
ANYONE WHO NEEDS A SPECIAL ACCOMMODA.
TION
TsTMMENSNGHUSoNY'ARICAWIDISABILI IESAACONTACT C
(ADA) COORDINATOR AT 567-8000 X223 AT
LEAST 48 HOURS IN ADVANCE OF THE MEET
ING. _
River
Bard C�at�
►� - y Commissioners
Oct 6, By�,lofxt Yom, marl -
994 1137144
Planning Director Stan Boling commented from the following:
63
SOOTS 13 PALE
October 25, 1994
BOOK 93 pmVU
TO: James E. Chandler
County Administrator
DIYJATCIN HEAD CONCURRENC :
ert M. eat n ,P
Community Domv lopmen Dire;7r
FROM: Stan Boling, AICP
Planning Director
DATE: October 17, 1994
SUBJECT: Proposed Amendments to the Indian River Mall (DeBartolo)
Development Order
It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal
consideration by the Board'of County Commissioners at its regular
meeting of October 25, 1994.
BACKGROUND:
At its July 19, 1994 meeting, the Board of County Commissioners
reviewed the Indian River Mall DRI request as well as the
corresponding comprehensive plan amendment and rezoning requests.
At that meeting, the Board voted to approve the comprehensive plan
amendment and rezoning requests and adopted the D.O. proposed by
county staff and recommended by the Treasure Coast Regional
Planning Council.
As was reported to the Board during its consideration of these
items, county staff coordinated extensively with other agencies
(e.g. Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council (TCRPC), St. Johns
River Water Management District (SJRWMD), Florida Department of
Transportation (FDOT), and the Department of Community Affairs
(DCA)] to try to ensure that a proposal acceptable to all agencies
would be approved. At the time of consideration of these items, it
was county planning staff's understanding that the requests,
including the D.O. as proposed and as conditioned by both county
and TCRPC staff, were acceptable to all agencies, including DCA.
However, on the last day of its allowable appeal period (September
2, 1994), DCA filed an appeal of the D.O. with the State Land and
Water Adjudicatory Commission. In a similar manner, DCA also found
the project comprehensive plan amendments "not in compliance".
Although many reasons for.the appeal are given within DCA's notice
of appeal, the primary reason stated by DCA staff is that DCA wants
to change the way in which the original D.O. assured that the
project site would be used for regional mall/regional commercial
development rather than general commercial development. Since the
appeal, county staff, and primarily the applicant, have coordinated
with DCA staff to come to an agreement on amendments to the
comprehensive plan and the Indian River Mall D_.O. that address
DCA 's -concerns. Based on these efforts, DCA has proposed and
executed a stipulated settlement agreement with the county that
addresses --PM's comprehensive plan amendment concerns. Similarly,
a stipulated settlement agreement is proposed in relation to the
64
October 25, 1994
D.O. amendments, to ensure that DCA will drop its appeal if the
-- amendments are adopted. The appli-cant is now proposinT-amendments
to the D.O. that are consistent with the proposed stipulated
settlement agreement and that should address DCA's D.O. concerns..
At its regular meeting of October 13, 1994)the Planning and Zoning
Commission voted unanimously to recommend that the Board of County
Commissioners adopt the proposed D.O. amendments.
ANALYSIS:
As with the Harbor Town Mall DRI D.O., the adopted Indian River
Mall D.O. contained a "reverter condition". This condition states
that, if the mall D.O. is terminated (e.g. due to lack of
construction or failure to meet construction deadlines), then the
developer cannot submit or receive approval for any commercial
development on the project site for a period of 9 months after
termination. The condition further states that, during the 9 month
"moratorium", the county can consider redesignating and downzoning
the property. DCA staff now say that they are not satisfied with
such a D.O. condition providing assurances that the site will be
used only for regional commercial uses. Instead, DCA proposes that
the county establish in .the comprehensive plan a "regional
commercial" land use category and that the county re -designate the
Indian River.Mall site as a "regional commercial" 'site. Under
DCA's proposal, the "regional commercial" land use category
policies will allow only regional mall/regional commercial
development that is approved: through the DRI process. Thus, under
DCA's proposal, a comprehensive plan designation rather than a D.O.
condition will be used to ensure that the site is developed with
regional mall/regional commercial rather than general commercial
uses.
Specifically, the proposed D.O. amendments are as follows:
1. Revise page 1 of the original D.O. to reference the maximum
number of project parking spaces at 71685. Planning staff's
analysis is that this will more than accommodate the total
number of spaces that are -likely to be required under the
county's -parking code (approximately 7,000).
2. Revise conditions 2.(a.), 2.(b.), and 2.(d.) of the D.O. to
require the developer to commence construction within 2 years
rather than 3 years, and to ensure that corresponding site
plan submittal and construction commencement timeframes are
also reduced, accordingly.
3. Delete condition 2.(e.), the "reverter condition", since the
proposed comprehensive plan amendment to redesignate the site
to the regional commercial land use plan designation will
ensure- that the site will develop only with regional
mall/regional commercial uses. The D.O. amendments should be
subject to adoption of the corresponding comprehensive plan
amendments to ensure that DCA's proposed assurances are in
place when the existing D.O. condition 2.(e.) assurances are
deleted.
Note: Other aspects of -the D.O., including conditions 2.(c.)
and 2.(d.) will continue to ensure that a regional mall
facility is constructed on the site prior to construction of
any other type of commercial facility.
4. Minor changes are proposed to reflect the fact that condition
2.(e.) will be eliminated -and some following conditions will
be re -numbered.
65 PAUIE (130
October 25, 1994
5. Delete the third paragraph of transportation condition 49.
Public Works staf f , as well as planning staf f , agree that this
wording can be deleted since the first two paragraphs of the
condition accomplish the intent of the condition, which is to
require road construction project schedule information to be
contained in the project's annual DRI report.
County planning staff has no objections to the proposed D.O.
amendments, since the amendments will continue to ensure that the
site is developed for regional mall/regional commercial rather than
general commercial uses, and since the amendments will allow the
_ project to proceed in a manner, consistent with the project's
original DRI/D.O. approval.
The proposed stipulated settlement relating to the D.O. (see
attachment #3) is to be signed by the applicant, the county, and
DCA. County planning staff and Deputy County Attorney Will Collins
have reviewed the agreement and have no objections to it. Staff
notes that signing the agreement will facilitate the dropping of
DCA's D.O. appeal.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners:
1. Authorize the Board Chairman to sign the stipulated settlement
agreement relating to the development order (D.O.) amendments.
2. Adopt the resolution approving the amendments to the D.O.
Director Boling explained that this resolution amending the
development order approved on July -19, 1994 is related to the
Comprehensive Plan amendment in the prior agenda item. DCA was
consistent in appealing the Comp Plan amendment as well as the
development order. To address DCA concerns, there were two items
for the Board to consider. One was another settlement agreement to
respond to DCA's concern to allow them to withdraw their appeal.
The other was the resolution to amend the previous resolution and
development order. Director Boling distributed additional backup
material which included a proposed resolution, Findings of Fact and
minor changes dealing with the timing of DCA's withdrawal of their
appeal after the Comp Plan amendment is found in compliance.
The Chairman opened the public hearing and asked if anyone
wished to be heard in this matter. There being none, he closed the
public hearing.
Dick Greco, representative of the DeBartolo Corporation,
anticipated -everything from here on to be reasonably routine. His
company is moving along, working on the project almost night and
day. He stated that this project is for real, finally.- They will
have ground breaking. He thanked the Board members and staff. He
October 25, 1994
M
66
M
M
conceded that it has not been an._.easy project but everybody
responded and worked well together. He predicted that Indian River
County will have a greater mall than originally anticipated; it has
gone from four -to six department stores. He stated that there is
a tremendous amount of interest in this area and that speaks well
of everyone in Indian River County.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Adams, the Board unanimously
adopted Resolution 94-137 amending the
Development Order (D.O.) approved by the Board
of County Commissioners for the Indian River
Mall Development of Regional Impact (D.R.I.)
RESOLUTION NO. 94- 137
RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN
RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA AMENDING THE DEVELOPMENT ORDER
(D.O.) APPROVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS FOR
THE INDIAN RIVER MALL: DEVELOPMENT OF REGIONAL IMPACT
(D.R.I.)
WHEREAS, on July 19, 1994 pursuant to Chapter 380 Florida
Statutes, of Indian River County adopted Resolution No. 94-93
approving the Indian River Mall D.R.I.; and
WHEREAS, on September 2, 1994 the Department of Community
Affairs (DCA) filed a Notice of Appeal to the State of Florida Land
and Water Adjudicatory Commission to appeal the Indian River Mall
D.O.; and
WHEREAS, to.fully resolve DCA Is.concerns the following D.O.
amendments are proposed and are approved so that DCA will file a
voluntary dismissal with prejudice of the D.O. appeal.
- NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS -OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY that the D.O. as contained in
Resolution No: 94-93 be amended as follows:
1. That the fourth "WHEREAS" clause on page 1 of the D.O. be
amended to read as follows:
"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) and a
maximum of 7,685 parking spaces, 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"
2. That condition 2 of D.0 be amended to read as follows:
67 BOOK ZJ3 FA6Lc
October 25, 1994
BOOK W PAGE 63
RESOLUTION NO. 94-137
"Commencement and Progress of Development
2.(a). 11 The developer ' • shall commence
significant physical development within two years
from the effective date of the Development Order, unless
such timeframe is modified by the Board of County
Commissioners, as part of a development agreement, to
extend the deadline "to commence significant physical
development to three (3) years from the effective date of
the DeveloDment Order. In the event the Developer fails
to meet the deadline, development approval snal..l
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)• or • - January 19, 199T Within eighteen (18) months
from the effective date of the Development Order, 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) unless such timeframe is modified by the Board
of County Commissioners, as part of a development
agreement, to extend the deadline to submit such a
complete site plan application to thirty (30) months from
the effective date of the Development_ Order. 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) 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.
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 - . December •• ,within the
timeframe setforth in Daraaraph 2.(a.), above,
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
68
October 25, 1994
M W M
M M
RESOLUTION NO. 94-_J37 ..
- building(s) and area{ -s) within the initial mall
construction phase. For the purpose of this paragraph,
significant physical development.shallbe 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.
2. e.
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.
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
areas) 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.
With respect to paragraphs 2. e . and 2.• f .
above, the following shall apply. In the event that the
developer shall be delayed or hindered in or prevented
from the performance of an act or requirement under
conditions 2. e . and 2. • f of this Development
Order by reasons of strikes, lockouts or labor troubles;
69
October 25, 1994 BOOK PACE
BOOK PAGE
RESOLUTION NO. 94- 137
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. e . and 2.• f . of this
Development Order, then, and in each such event
performance of such work or act shall be -excused for the
period of the delay (including the duration of both the
actual delay and any consequential delays resulting
therefrom) and an period set forth in conditions
2. e . and 2. • f of this Development Order in
performance of any such work or act shall be extended for
a period equivalent to the period of such delay
(including the duration of both the actual delay and any
consequential delays resulting therefrom)."
3. That condition 49 of the D.O. be amended to read as follows:
1149. 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.
4. That -ttem 5. on page 19 "-of the D.O. be amended to read as
follows:
70
October 25, 1994
M M M
RESOLUTION NO. 94-_137
-
115. Indian River County hereby agrees that prior to Jirly 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.(Mg). 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."
Coding: Words in type are deletions from the existing
D.O. Words underlined, except for headings, are additions.
4
FINDINGS OF FACTS
1. The following Findings of Fact are made:
a. The amendments to the Development Order, as included
herein, and the Stipulated Settlement Agreement, attached
hereto as Exhibit "1", have been considered by the Board
of County Commissioners at a duly noticed public hearing
held on October 25, 1994, pursuant to Subsection 380.06,
Florida Statutes.'
b. The amendments to the Development Order, as included
herein, do not create a change to a previously approved
DRI constituting a substantial deviation under the
provisions of Subsection 380.06(19), Florida Statutes.
C. The Board of County Commissioners has approved and
executed the Stipulated Settlement Agreement, a copy of
which is attached hereto as Exhibit 11111, and made a part
hereof.
d. The amendments._ to the Development Order, as included
herein, implement the Stipulated Settlement Agreement for
the compromise and settlement of disputed claims and to
avoid the expense and uncertainty of litigation.
e. All statutory procedures and procedures required by
agency rule have been adhered to.
f. All Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law made in the
Development Order are incorporated herein by reference.
2. The original Development Order is hereby reaffirmed in its
entirety except as amended by this Resolution.
3. This Resolution amending the original Development Order shall
become effective upon final approval of the comprehensive plan
amendment associated with the project.
4. The Developer shall record a notice of adoption of this
modification to the adopted Development Order in accordance
with Subsection 380.06(15)(f), Florida Statutes.
5. Upon adoption, this Resolution shall be transmitted by the Ex
Officio Clerk to the Board of County Commissioners, by
certified mail, to DCA, the Treasure Coast Regional Planning
Council, the Developer, and any other recipients specified by
statute or rule.
71
October 25, 1994 BOOK 03 Pb6E 637
BOOK PALL
RESOLUTION NO. 94- 137
The foregoing resolution was offered by Commissioner
FggPrt #nd the motion was seconded by Commissioner
Adams , and, upon being put to a vote,, the vote was as
follows:
Chairman John W. Tippin
Vice Chairman Ren Macht
Commissioner Fran B. Adams
Commissioner Richard N. Bird
Commissioner Carolyn R. Eggert
This Chairman thereupon declared the resolution duly passed and
adopted this 2_ day of October , 1994.
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
INDIA"IVER COUNTY�,,FLORIDA
CHA , John W. in
ATTEST: IQ
�J f ey. K� B onCD C.
APPROVED AS TO PLANNIN4'MATTERS:
Ro ert . Keating, ICP
.�/
APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGAL SUFFICIENCY:
William G. Collins
Deputy County Attorney
72
October 25, 1994
PUBLIC DISCUSSION - RICHARD HUTrON REQUEST TO DISCUSS
- TRANSFER STATION HOURS - -=-
Richard Hotton, 1975 First Place Southwest, came before the.
Board and described his experience at the Oslo Transfer Station.
He complained that the hours were shortened and the- transfer
station was closed two days a week without proper notice. He
stated that he was advised a notice had been placed in the
newspaper, but he didn't see it. He complained that the sign on
the transfer station gate was small and unreadable.' Mr. Hutton
related that he spent time at the Oslo Transfer Station and noticed
trash at the gate, alongside the road, and in the canal. He stated
that he had conversations with the workmen at the transfer station
and they admitted that on Friday there is a lot of cleaning up to
do because it is closed on Wednesday and Thursday. Mr. Hutton
concluded that people were confused and thought all transfer
stations were closed on Wednesday and Thursday. He explained that
when a person has a bag of garbage and a bag of recyclable material
in the trunk of the car, it is possible to bring the recyclables
back another time, but the garbage in the trunk would smell if you
left it any length of time. Mr. Hutton informed the Board of his
attempt to get an explanation from County employees. He was upset
that a County employee informed him that the reason the transfer
stations were closed two days a week and had shorter hours is to
keep the costs down and not raise the fee. He complained that the
fee increased but the service decreased. After telling
Commissioner Adams his problem, she requested he appear before the
Board. Mr. Hutton also objected to the 1.6 tons being charged to
his residence for two people. His little church is being charged
for 6 tons of garbage, which he carries out in a little shopping
bag. Mr. Hutton thanked the Board for listening to his complaints
and asked fora reasonable explanation for the changes in transfer
station hours and the increase in the fee.
Commissioner Adams noted that Mr. Hutton appeared on his own
behalf but represents many people who feel they have been
tremendously inconvenienced by the hours which the Board set for
- the transfer stations. She felt the subject should be revisited.
She described the garbage being left very neatly outside the gate
of the Fellsmere transfer station, which indicates that the
citizens want to comply. However, there is the possibility and
probability of trash being strewn about the community as aluminum
prices go up and people dig for cans, or dogs get into the bags
looking for food. There is a potential problem, and she felt the
73 Boa 93 Pb.GE ..,�
October 25, 1994 '
boor W fAu 640
Board should reconsider either the hours or days of operation of
the transfer stations. She realized that there is a tremendous
stress on Solid Waste Disposal District Manager Ron Brooks.
Commissioner Eggert reported she also received many telephone
calls, and she noted that the callers requested the transfer
stations remain open until at least 6:00 p.m. They were not so -
much bothered with the recyclables as the garbage, and they
suggested that if the transfer station is closed, we have a drive-
through garbage dumpster, and the recyclables could be handled at
another time. She thought those two points were important to
consider. Commissioner Eggert pointed out that she has received a
lot of calls about a lot of things but this subject caused the most
"hot" calls. People are really upset and frustrated, and
justifiably so.
Chairman Tippin stated he also received a phenomenal number of
calls on this subject and agreed it should be revisited.
Commissioner Macht felt that Mr. Hutton's question about•why
the fee went up and hours of service went down should be answered.
Administrator Chandler offered to meet with Mr. Hutton and go
through the details. He recounted many hours at the budget
workshops discussing the solid Waste Disposal District budget.
Over the last three years a number of mandated programs were
implemented with no change in the fee. One program was the single -
and multi -family recycling program which was in excess of a million
dollars. Another mandate required seven new positions. Those were
implemented without a change in the rate, but we can no longer
absorb that kind of recurring cost without a rate adjustment.
Reith Miller, 961 Riviera Avenue, Sebastian, agreed with all
Mr. Hutton's comments. He stressed that he was more upset by the
increase in the Solid Waste Disposal District assessment than
closing and/or limiting the time at the transfer stations. He drew
the Board's attention to the transfer station near Roseland Road,
which is in close proximity to Riverwalk Shopping Center. He
reported that the dumpsters at the shopping center are being used
by people who cannot leave their garbage at the transfer station,
to the point where the dumpsters must be locked. Mr. Miller stated
that he is acquainted with the person who handles those dumpsters
and it is.a real problem. He also noted that when the solid waste
is. transferred to the Landfill, the trucks are •fully loaded and
some of the solid waste, especially plastic bottles, flies off the
trucks onto Roseland Road. He urged the Board to address this
problem because we have a beautiful community and he would like to
see it stay that way.
74
October 25, 1994
Chairman Tippin directed staff to -include this subject on the
agenda, and Commissioner Adams preferred it be included next week.
- Administrator Chandler stated that staff would present some
alternatives in ..terms of the hours and days of operation. He -
assured the Board that staff anticipated that if people missed the
notice in the paper and went to the transfer station on a day it
was closed, they would leave their trash at the gate. Staff did
anticipate we would have some of these problems until people fully
realized that it was closed on certain days.
PUBLIC DISCUSSION - UPDATE ON THE INDIAN RIVER IDEA
Attorney Sam Block, made the following presentation:
October 19, 1994
Jim Chandler
County Administration Building
1840 25th Street
Vero Beach, Florida 32960
Dear Jim:
As Chairman of the Task Force on THE INDIAN RIDER IDEA, may I request some time at next
Tuesday's, October 25, Comi
unty Commission meeting to update the Commissioners on the
progress we have made in furthering THE IDEA.
The Task Force, whose membership consists of the board chairmen of our mainstream non-profit
organizations, the superintendent of schools and several public service providers, was organized;
last January to coordinate the fiuther development and coordination of the several aspects bf
THE INDIAN RIVER IDEA.
One such aspect was the further development of IRENE, our "community telecomputing" system.
_ As you no doubt read in a recent press story, Indian River County was granted one of the first
ninety grants awarded by the National Telecommunications Information Administration, the only
such grant made in Florida, to fiuther strengthen our local information infrastructure and create a
gateway to the Internet. Among the several grant components is an award to the County Library
to underwrite its connection to IRENE. Once implemented, citizens will be able to access the on-
line library catalog from home or office.
I appreciate your assistance in facilitating my request.
Yours truly, -
amuel A. Block
7.9 BOOK 3 PAf E 641
October 25, 1994
BOOK 93 PAGE 644'
Mr. Block emphasized that the Indian River program is a
prototype and our IRENE community telecomputing system must keep
moving. IRENE allows us to hook into Internet which will hook us
into the world. The library will be accessible from home computers
through IRENE and will allow users to find books throughout the
state. A portion of the grant funds will be used to upgrade the
electronics in our library. There is a system management disk
which will allow individuals to use over 60,000 self-help programs
to better their positions at work. Gracewood and Piper will use
these programs, as well as the citrus and banking industries. It
is something that has moved along quite readily in the social
services area, United Way, the hospital, health services, and
criminal justice. Another important area of telecomputing
communication is the home and the school; parents and teachers will
be able to communicate with each other and with other areas of the
community through a modem. -Mr. Block proposed that we work toward
a time when every fifth -grader will pick up books, a computer and
a modem as part of his school tools. Mr. Block characterized this
as an exciting area of development. The Task Force is not asking
for tax dollars. The community owns this program, the Task Force
is trying to advance it, and Mr. Block invited the Commission to
come on board and participate.
Commissioner Eggert agreed this is a very exciting program.
She noted that some of the schools are cutting back on their own
library and using our library, and we must upgrade our library
computer equipment, which includes telephone lines and other
expenses. The potential is here, in the library and in the
community, to better interact with the schools and families.
Mr. Block further explained that the government access channel
could be used for electronic town meetings. That could avoid some
problems like the one which occurred earlier in the meeting with
the transfer stations.
Chairman Tippin thanked Mr. Block and asked him to keep up the
good work.
Commissioner Macht agreed that we will become hitchhikers on
the communications highway. We have the capability in the County
right now.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Adams, the Board unanimously appointed
Commissioner Ken Macht to the Task Force on the
Indian River Idea.
October 25, 1994
76
0
_I
PUBLIC DISCUSSION - L. B. (BUCKS VOCELLE, M. REGARDING
COURT DECISION AND LEGAL REPRESENTATION OF HONORABLE
L. B. VOCELLE
Attorney L. B. (Buck) Vocelle, Jr., came before the Board and
reported on his activity in the legal proceedings involving his
father, Judge L. B. Vocelle, Chief Judge of the 19th Judicial
Circuit. He requested that the County Attorney take over the case
and that the Board support the case and fund the costs. Mr.
Vocelle recounted that the case was initiated when a defendant,
Robert Lee Dozier, challenged County Judge Wild's ability to hear
his felony case. The 4th District Court of Appeal issued an
opinion called Dozier v. the Honorable Joe Wild, in which they
struck down two administrative orders issued by Judge Vocelle.
Those administrative orders appointed Judges Wild and Balsiger to
felony cases here in Indian River County. The net effect of the
4th District's decision was to quash these orders, and county
judges are no longer able to blanket themselves for hearing felony
cases. They must do so on individual assignments. Mr. Vocelle
related that we_have a backup in felony caseload in Indian River
County and the action of the 4th District has created havoc. Mr.
Vocelle stated that he requested to be heard by the Board to help
further the legal proceedings and to fund the costs. His legal
services on his father's behalf have been pro bono. Mr. Vocelle
researched the case and concluded that the best way to challenge
the opinion was by a vehicle called a Petition for Writ of
Prohibition to the Supreme Court of Florida. He contacted the
Attorney General's office but they 'would not represent Judge
Vocelle because there is a conflict in that they are representing
Judge Wild. They consider it a political football and they did not
want .to get involved. in it. Mr. Vocelle felt that the County
Attorney's office could become involved because it affects the
County so severely. We have more felony cases handled by county
judges than other counties, and the speedy trial rule affects those
cases. Defendants will not waive speedy trial, and prosecutors are
scrambling to get their cases to trial, but we do not have the
circuit judge manpower to hear all the cases.
Attorney Vitunac advised that -first the Board must decide if
this is a Board of County Commissioner issue. He recognized that
it is a state issue and a circuit issue, but he was not convinced
it is a Board of County Commissioners issue. If the Board took any
action, Indian River County would be funding a defense for the
whole circuit. The Board members must also decide if they agree
October 25, 1994
77 BOOK 93 PAGE 640'
BOOK W PAA44
with the opinion of the 4th District Court of Appeal or if they
feel that the assignment of our county judges to hear felony cases
was in violation of the Constitution, and if judges act as circuit
judges they should be circuit judges. Attorney Vitunac stated that
if the Board members disagree with the 4th District's opinion, the
County Attorney's office is capable of stepping- in for Buck
Vocelle. He added that he spoke to a county judge and was advised
that the County ought to stay out of it.
Discussion ensued regarding the assignment of county judges to
hear circuit cases, and Mr. Vocelle advised that it is a state-wide
practice for a county judge to be appointed to a six-month
assignment to handle circuit cases. This is the first decision
that quashed an administrative order. Judges Balsiger and Wild
each handled fifty percent of the felony caseload, which means that
a felony defendant did not see a circuit judge, and that makes our
county unique.
Further discussion ensued regarding the issues involved in the
case, and it was the consensus and direction of the Board that
Attorney Vitunac do further research and present more information
to the Board at the next meeting.
REOUEST FOR APPROVAL OF A TOINT ACQUISITION AGREEMENT
WITH THE ST JOHNS RIVER WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT,
RELATING TO COST -SHARE ACOUISITION OF INDIAN RIVER
LAGOON -FRONT LAAC SITES
The Board reviewed the following memo dated October 17, 1994:
October 25, 1994
M
78
M
TO: James E. Chandler -
County Administrator
DEP NT HEAD CONCURRENCE:
Ro ert ea ng,C
n
Community Developmme
lojDire or
FROM: Roland DeBlois;'AICP
Chief, Environmental Planning
DATE: October 17, 1994
RE: Request for Approval of a Joint Acquisition Agreement
with the St.. Johns River Water Management District,
Relating to Cost -Share Acquisition of Indian River
Lagoon -front LAAC Sites
It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal
consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at its regular
meeting of October 25, 1994.
DESCRIPTION -AND CONDITIONS
For the past few years, `environmentally significant coastal
hammocks and estuarine wetlands along the Indian River Lagoon,
south of Vero Beach to the county line, have been targeted for
cost -share acquisition by Indian River County and the St. Johns
River Water Management District. Consequently, these properties
have been included on the Land Acquisition Advisory Committee's
(LAAC's) priority site list, and in the Five -Year Acquisition Plan
of the St. Johns River Water Management District ('SJRWMD).
A "core" project in this area, the +300 acre Oslo Riverfront
property, was jointly acquired for conservation by the SJRWMD and
the County in 1991. Since that time, both the District and the
County have agreed to proceed with steps (surveys, appraisals)
leading toward acquisition of the."Lowenstein/Salama" property,
approximately.+127. acres of lagoon -front property south of Oslo
Road (see attached County Resolution 93-110 relating to the
project).
Appraisals of the Lowenstein/Salama property have recently been
accepted by the SJRWMD. District staff, in coordination with County
staff, are now ready to proceed with landowner negotiations.
The County and the District have agreed to a 50/50 cost -share
acquisition of the Lowenstein/Salama Project, subject to final
approval. However, no written agreement has-been jointly executed
by the County and the District relating to technical aspects of the
acquisition negotiation process. A joint acquisition agreement to
address these matters and expanded to include other County LAAC
sites in the District's Five -Year Acquisition Plan would facilitate
cost -share acquisition of these environmentally significant
properties.
For Board approval, attached is a proposed Joint Acquisition
Agreement with the SJRWMD, relating to cost -share acquisition of
lagoon -front LAAC sites in southern Indian River County.
79 sooK 9 3 PALE
October 25, 1994
"`J � A
am � � F'AGk 646
Agreement Overview
The proposed' Joint Acquisition Agreement identifies how the
District and the County will proceed in preparing to negotiate; in
negotiating; and in closing on eligible tracts. The Agreement
defines eligible tracts as those, either now or in the future, on
both the County's (LAAC's) and District's list of environmental
lands (along the lagoon in south county) approved for acquisition.
The Agreement provides for acquisition process costs and
responsibilities (appraisals, reviews, title reports, and surveys)
being split 50/50 between the District and the County. Similar to
the Oslo Riverfront property purchase, -the Agreement specifies that
acquired property will be held jointly by the District and the
County, with each owning an undivided 50% interest.
Under the heading of "Management", the Agreement provides that -a
conceptual management plan will be prepared prior to a purchase
agreement, by the entity (the District or the County) which will be
responsible for short and long term management. Final. management
plans will be approved _and implemented no later than one year after
closing.
The Agreement allows for amendment or modification to the Agreement
subject to mutual consent by the County and the District.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners authorize
the Board Chairman to execute the attached Joint. Acquisition
Agreement.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Adams, SECONDED by
Commissioner Macht, the Board unanimously
approved and authorized the Chairman to
execute the Joint Acquisition Agreement, as
recommended by staff.
AS -BUILT RESOLUTION & ASSESSMENT ROLL FOR PAVING AND
DRAINAGE . IMPROVEMENTS TO 126TH STREET (ROSELAND�
BETWEEN 78TH AND 79Th AVENUES
The Board reviewed the following memo dated October 17, 1994:
80
October 25, 1994
_I
TO: James Chandler
- County Administrator
THROUGH: James W. Davis, P.E.
Public Works Director
and
Roger D. Cain, P.E.
County Engineer
FROM: Michelle A. Gentile, CET
Civil Engineer
SUBJECT: As -Built Resolution & Assessment Roll for Paving and Drainage Improvements
to:
1) 126th Street between 78th Avenue and 79th Avenue
DATE: October 17, 1994
The paving of the above mentioned road has been completed. The final assessment is as follows:
$32,676.56 -100%
$24,507.42 - 75%
(14) Parcels
Final Gost
$30,174.31 - 100016
$23,083.34 - 75%*
(14) Parcels
$1,750.53/per Parcel $1,648.81/per Parcel
*This figure includes 2% Tax Collector's fee.
The final assessment roll has been prepared and is ready to be delivered to the Clerk to the Board.
Assessments are to be paid within 90 days or in 2 equal installments, the first to be made twelve
months from the due date and subsequent payments to be due yearly from the due date at an interest
- rate of 8% established by the Board of County Commissioners.
ALTERNATIVES AND AN LMI4
Since the final assessment to the benefitted owners is less than the preliminary assessment roll, the
only alternative presented is to approve the final assessment roll.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the final assessment roll and the "As -Built Resolution" for the paving of the
above mentioned road be approved by the Board of County Commissioners and that it be transferred
to the Tax Collector for recording in the "Assessment Lien Book" and for collection.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Adams, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously
adopted Resolution 94-138 certifying "as—
built" costs for certain paving and drainage
improvements to 126th Street (Roseland),
between 78th Avenue and 79th Avenue,
designated as Project No. 9046, and other
construction necessitated by such project.
81
October 25, 1994
y
BOOK W PAL 6 4 8
As -Built (Fourth Reso.) 1/5/94(ENG)RES4.MAG\gfk
RESOLUTION NO. 94-138
A RESOLUTION OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY CERTIFYING
"AS -BUILT"' COSTS FOR CERTAIN PAVING AND DRAINAGE
IMPROVEMENTS TO 126TH STREET (ROSELAND), BETWEEN
78TH AVENUE AND 79TH AVENUE, DESIGNATED -AS PROJECT _
NO. 9046, AND OTHER CONSTRUCTION NECESSITATED BY
SUCH PROJECT; PROVIDING FOR FORMAL COMPLETION
DATE, AND DATE FOR PAYMENT WITHOUT PENALTY AND
INTEREST.
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Indian
River County determined that the improvements described herein
specially benefited the property located within the boundaries as
described in this title, designated as Project No. 9046, are in
the public interest and promote the public welfare of the county;
and
WHEREAS, on January 18, 1994, the Board held a public
hearing in the Commission Chambers at which time the owners of
the property to be assessed were afforded an opportunity to
appear before the Board to be heard as to the propriety and
advisability of making such improvements; and
WHEREAS, after such public hearing was held the County
Commission adopted Resolution No. 94-17, which confirmed the
special assessment cost of the project to the property specially
benefited by the project in the amounts listed in an attachment
to that resolution; and
WHEREAS, the Director of Public Works has certified the
actual "as -built" cost now that the project has been completed is
$1,648.81 per parcel, which is less than $1,750.53 per parcel in
the confirming Resolution No. 94-17,
NOW.THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that:
1. Resolution No. 94-17 is modified as follows: 'The
completion date for Project No. 9046 is declared to be August 30,
1994, and the last day that payment may be made avoiding interest
and penalty charges is ninety (90) days after passage of this _
resolut-i-on. - - -
- 2. Payments. --bearing interest at the rate of 8% per
annum may be made in two equal installments, the first to be made
twelve (12) months from the due date and the subsequent payments
82
October 25, 1994
94-138
to be due yearly from the due date.. The due date is ninety -(go)
days after the passage of this resolution.
3. The final assessment roll for said project listed in
Resolution No. 94-17 shall be as set forth in attached Exhibit
"A" to this resolution.
4. The assessments as shown in attached Exhibit "Ai' shall
stand confirmed and remain legal, valid, and binding first liens
against the property against which such assessments are made
until paid.
5. The assessments shown in Exhibit "A'i, attached to
Resolution No.94-17 were recorded by the County on the public
records of Indian River County, and the lien shall constitute
prima facie evidence of its validity.
This resolution was moved for adoption by Commissioner
Adams , and the motion was seconded by
Commissioner Bird and, upon being put
to a vote, the vote was as follows:
Chairman John W. Tippin Aye
Vice—Chairman Kenneth R. Macht Aye
Commissioner Carolyn K. Eggert Aye
Commissioner Fran B. Adams Aye
Commissioner Richard N. Bird Aye
The Chairman thereupon declared the resolution duly
passed and adopted this 25 day of October ,
- 1994.
Attest:
JEFFREY K. BARTON,
Attachment: -Exhibit "A"
83
October 25, 1994
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY,.FLORIDA
By
OHN W. TIPP N
&aIrman
inalan River Eanq roved Date
Administration '�f��i�pq y
Public Works
Engineering
Boa 93 PAGE 4
BOOK
REQUEST FOR THE COUNTY TO ACCEPT THE FOLLOWING ROADS
IN VERO LAKE ESTATES FOR MAINTENANCE: 1) 94TH COURT
BETWEEN 79TH AND 80TH STREETS, AND 2) 99TH COURT
BETWEEN 83RD AND 85TH STREETS
The Board reviewed the following memo dated October 18, 1994:
TO: James E. Chandler,
County Administrator
FROM: James W. Davis, P.E.,
Public Works Director
SUBJECT: Request for County to Accept the Following Roads for Maintenance -
1) 94th Court between 79th Street and 80th Street (Vero Lake Estates)
2) 99th Court between 83rd Street and 85th Street(Vero Lake Estates)
REF. LETTER: 1) Daniel Brognano to Jim Davis dated Oct. 4, 1994
2) Dave Avchen to Indian River Co. received Oct. 14, 1994
DATE: October 18, 1994 FILE: 94" AGN
DESCRIMON AND CONDITIONS
The County Public Works Department has received requests for the Department to begin
grading a portion of 94th Court and 99th Court in Vero Lakes Estates Subdivision. These roads
are located in County dedicated right-of-way, but have not been historically graded.
ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS
Staff has evaluated the requests under the evaluation criteria for non -maintained roads and a
score of 75 points was assigned to each. A minimum score of 75 points has been previously used
for staff to recommend maintenance grading.
RECOMMENDATIONS AND FUNDING
Since evaluation of 94th Court between 79th Street and 80th Street and 99th Court between
83rd Street and 85th Street earned scores of 75 points, staff recommends that they be added to
the County road grading route.
.ON MOTION by_Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Adams, the Board unanimously
_added roads to the County road grading route
as listed in staffs memorandum.
84
October 25, 1994
i
RIGHT-OF-WAY ACQUISITION - NORTE DIE,ST CORNER OF 26TH
STREET AND 66TH AVENUE -
The Board.reviewed the following memo dated October 10, 1994:.
TO: James E. Chandler
County Administrator
THROUGH: James W. Davis, P.E.
Public Works Director
AND
Roger D. Cain, P.E.
County Engineer
FROM: Donald G. Finney, SRA �a►�
County Right -of -Way Agent
SUBJECT: 26th Street Right -of -Way Acquisition; Seminole Ventures,
Inc., northwest corner of 26th Street & 66th Avenue
COUNTY PROJECT #: 8528, 26th Street Petition Paving & Drainage
Improvements
DATE: October 10, 1994
DESCRIPTION AND.CONDITIONS
Seminole Ventures, Inc. will deed a 30' wide by 455' right-of-way
to Indian River County in exchange for no assessment for the
petition paving and drainage project. The right-of-way appraised
value is $4,726.00. The asmessment is $10,219.30.
The Board of County Commissioners previously authorized staff to
acquire the right-of-way for this project by any legal means at its
regularly scheduled meeting of January 21, 1992.
There are no engineers, appraisers or attorneys fees to be paid by
Indian River County.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff requests the Board of County Commissioners. approve the
agreement, and.Authorize the Chairman to execute the contract.
FUNDING
Funding to be from Petition Paving Account No. 111 -214-541-066.12
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Adams, the Board unanimously
approved the Contract for Sale and Purchase
with Seminole Ventures, Inc., for right-of-way
acquisition on 26th Street, as recommended by
staff.
CONTRACT FOR SALE AND PURCHASE
IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF CLERK TO THE BOARD
85
October 25, 1994
Boa 3 F,6E tjL
BOOK
RIGHT-OF-WAY ACQUISITION ON OSLO ROAD - PARCEL #127,
FATHER & SON APPLIANCE COMPANY
The Board reviewed the following memo dated October 19, 1994:
TO: James E. Chandler, County Administrator
THROUGH: James W. Davis, P.E., Public Works Director
AND
Terry B. Thompson, P.E., Capital Projects Manager
FROM: Donald G. Finney, SRA, County Right -of --Way A g e n t
SUBJECT: Oslo Road, Additional Right -of -Way; Parcel 1127,
Father & Son, Appliance Company
COUNTY PROJECT #: 8919
DATE: October 19, 1994 QELE: 26MOT AGN
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
Additional right-of-way on the south side of Oslo Road is needed to continue the widening of
Oslo Road fiuther to the west from the top of the ridge to the canal. On October 18, 1994, a
contract for $14,810 with Father & Son Appliance Company was brought to the Board. The
Board requested that Paragraph B.4 in the Addendum to the Contract be revised to establish
a time limit to the County's obligation to remove or modify a section of the retzaining wall as the
seller desires. The addendum on the attached conrraLt contains an eight year limit to Paragraph
B.4.
At the Board meeting on Oct. 18, staff was inaccurate about the location of the retaining wall.
The wall is located within the limits of the new right-of-way.
RECOMMENDATIONS AND FUNDING
Staff requests the Board of County Commissioners approve the $14,810 purchase and payment
of $1,200 attorney's -fee. and authorize the Chairman to execute the contract. -
Funding to be from Account No. 101-156-541-067.43, Traffic Impact Fee, District 6
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously
_approved the purchase of right-of-way on Oslo
Road from Father & Son Appliance Company in
the amount- of $14,810 plus $1,200. for
attorney's fees, as -recommended by staff.
CONTRACT FOR SALE AND PURCHASE
IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF CLERK TO THE BOARD
86
October 25, 1994
ROSELAND WATER TANK. C.O. #3 AND FINAL PAY REQUEST
-- The Board reviewed the following memo dated October 5, 1994:
DATE: OCTOBER 5, 1994
TO: JAMES E. CHANDLER
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR_
FROM: TERRANCE G. PINTS r
DIRECTOR OF UTILITY SERVICES
:STAFFED AND ROBERT O. WISEMEN, P.E.
PREPARED BY: ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEER
DEPARTMENT OF UTILITY SERVICES
SUBJECT: ROSELAND WATER TANK
CHANGE ORDER NO. 3 AND FINAL PAY REQUEST
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY PROJECT NO. UW -92 -07 -DS
BACKGROUND:
on March 9, 1993, the Board of County Commissioners approved and
Neel
the contract for the above -referenced project to Brown
Steel Contractors, Inc. On July 6, 1993, the Board of County
Commissioners approved Change Order No. 1 to adjust the contract to
$878,280.00. (see attached copy of change order)
On April 4, 1994, the Board of County Commissioners approved Change
Order No. 2 to adjust the contract to $857,006.00. (Gee attached
copy of change order)
The project is now complete and the contractor has submitted Change
Order No. 3 and final pay request.
ANALYSIS:
Change Order No. 3, consists Of the installation of sod on the
retention pond ($500) to avoid erosion due to the heaivy rainfall.
Some direct costs in inspections were accrued by Mock, Roos and
Associates, Inc. (the engineer) in the amount of $3,000.00 and by
the County in the amount of $1,950.00. These costs were deducted
,from the final cost.
Change Order No. 3 reduces the contract in the amount of $4,450.00,
adjusting the final contract amount to $852,556.00. Previous
payments were made to the contractor in the amount of $761,899.50,
leaving a balance of $90,656.50 including retainage.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
The staff of the Department of Utility Services recommends the
approval of Change Order No. 3 and of the final pay request for
$90,656.50 as payment in full to Brown Steel Contractors, Inc., for
services rendered .
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Adams, the Board unanimously
approved Change Order No. 3 and final pay
request for $90,656.50 to Brown Steel
Contractors, Inc., as recommended by staff.
CHANGE ORDER NO. 3 AND FINAL PAY REQUEST
ARE ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF CLERK TO THE BOARD
87
October 25, 1994
BOOK pgG
PF -1
"�; -
,
BOOK 3 PAA 6
WATER MAIN REPLACEMENT - TROPIC COLONY SIJBD . ION
WORK AU-THORIZAITON #26
The Board reviewed the following memo dated October 14, 1994:
DATE: OCTOBER 14, 1994
TO: JAMES E. CHANDLER
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
FROM: TERRANCE G. PIi /
DIRECTOR OF UTILITY ERVICES
PREPARED TERRY H. DRUM
AND STAFFED ENVIRONMENTAL SPECIALIST
BY: DEPARTMENT OF UTILITY SERVICER
SUBJECT: WATER MAIN REPLACEMENT PROJECT
TROPIC COLONY SUBDIVISION, INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
BID NO..4007, INDIAN RIVER COUNTY PROJECT NO.
UW -94 -18 -DS, WORK AUTHORIZATION NO. 26
BACKGROUND
On September 21, 1993, the Board of County Commissioners approved
the award -of the labor contract bid to Driveways, Inc., Bid No.
4007. (See Attached Minutes.) The Department of Utility Services
proposed to use this labor contract to replace the distribution
System within the subject area. This is in: response to the
continuing problems of rusting,- leaking and low pressure with the
existing galvanized water lines.
Surveying has been completed. The above subject is designed for
construction. This project is comprised of the replacement of
existing 2 -inch galvanized water mains with approximately
14,800 linear feet of 2 -inch PVC water main and fittings, 2 linear
feet of service tubing, 1,680 linear feet of jack and bore, and
replacement of 132 meters and meter boles.
ANALYSIS
The cost of the labor to construct the 2 -inch PVC water main under
the labor contract is $146,358.60 (See Attached Work Authorization
No. 26 with Driveways, Inc.) The pipe, valves, and fittings will
be supplied by- the County at a cost of $32,000. In-house
engineering, inspection, and administrative costs are estimated to
be $19,850.
The construction of these replacement water lines is a part of a
continuing effort by the Department to replace galvanized water
lines in Indian River County. Funding for this project will be
from renewal and replacement funds.
RECOMMENDATION
The staff of the Department of Utility services recommends that the
Board of County Commissioners approve the execution of the attached
agreement, which approves Work Authorization No. 26, with
Driveways, Inc., to construct .the water line replacement in the
amount of $1460,358.60 to replace an estimated total of 14,800
linear feet -of water main and authorizes expenditure of $51, 850 for
'fnaterials "and in-house support, for a total project cost of
$1981,208.60. - - -
88
October 25, 1994
ON MOTION by Commissioner .,AdaLms, ,S.ECONDED by
Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously.
- approved Work Authorization No. 26 with
-
Driveways, Inc., as set out - in staff's
memorandum.
AGREEMENT
IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF CLERK TO THE BOARD
CR 510/U.S.#1 NORTH WATER MAIN PROTECT, CHANGE ORDER #2
The Board reviewed the following memo -dated October 6, 1994:
DATE: OCTOBER 6, 1994
TO: JAMES E. CHANDLER
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
FROM: TERRANCE G. PI
DIRECTOR OF UTILITY SERVICES
PREPARED WILLIAM F. MCCAIN
,AND STAFFED CAAPI T ,CTS ENGINEER
-BY: DEP FUTILITY SERVICES
SUBJECT: CR 510/US 1 NORTH WATER MAIN PROJECT
CHANGE ORDER NO. 2
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY PROJECT NO. UW -93 -30 -DS
BACKGROUND
On July 5, 1994, the Indian River County Board of County
Commissioners approved a contract with Speegle Construction, Inc.,
for the construction of the above -referenced project. As a result
of upcoming commercial development on.CR 510 east of US 1 and the
need for future water service to Marsh Island and the Environmental
Learning Center, the Utilities Department now would like to.
construct its Master -planned water service to this area. Due to the
low unit costs in this existing.contract, we feel that a change
order to this contract is the most expeditious and cost-effective
method -to accomplish the proposed construction. We are presenting,
for the Boards approval, an addendum to the existing work
authorization with Masteller and Moler, Inc., for design and Change
Order No. 2 with Speegle for construction of the afore -mentioned
line.
ANALYSIS
The original contract price with Speegle (including Change Order No.
1) was $1,111,458.75. The cost of the change order is $121,473.68
(see attached Change Order No. 2). Also, please find attached
Addendum No. 1 in the amount of $14,575.00 with the consulting
engineer on this project. Approval of this addendum will bring the
total engineering services to $134,475.00, or approximately 10±%. of
the construction cost, which is well within acceptable limits for a
project of this nature and magnitude.
The staff of the Department of Utility Services recommends approval.
of Change Order No. 2 with Speegle Construction, Inc., and Addendum -
No. 1 with Masteller and Moler, Inc., as presented.
89 BOOK. t) ph" 515
October 25, 1994
BOOK
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously
approved Change Order No. 2 with Speegle
Construction, Inc., and Addendum No. 1 with
Masteller and Moler, Inc., as presented in
stafffs memorandum.
CHANGE ORDER AND ADDENDUM
ARE ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF CLERK TO THE BOARD
z.
PA4L 65LO,
91H COURT WATER LINE BETWEEN 41H AND 2ND STREETS
The Board reviewed the following memo dated October 14,.1994:
DATES OCTOBER 14, 1994
TO: JAMES E. CHANDLER
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
PROMS TEWNHENTAL
O
DIILITY SERVICES
PREPARED H.R
AND STAFFED ENENGINEER
BYS DEPARTMENT OF UTILITY SERVICES
SUBJECT: 9TH COURT WATER LINE
BETWEEN 4TH AND 2ND STREETS
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY PROJECT NO. UW -94-11-D8
BACKGROUND
Currently, most residents of 9th Court are on well and septic
tanks, and desire County potable water. In addition, fire
protection ie needed and will be provided by this project.
ANALYSI8
In order to provide County water to the remaining residents of 9th
Court and to provide much needed fire protection, we propose to
construct a 6" and 4" water line with 4 accompanying services.
Since some of the residents of 9th Court are already on County
water or have been assessed through previous projects, it was
considered that a full assessment project would not be equitable to
the remaining residents. A line extension fee of $6.51 per linear
foot will be charged to those owners desiring water.
The staff of the Department of Utility Services recommends approval
of the -subject project at an estimated cost of $35,000. Design will
be in-house.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
--Commissioner Adams, ---the Board unanimously
approved -the 9th._Court Water Line project
between 4th and 2nd Street at an estimated
cost of $35,000, as recommended by staff.
90
October 25, 1994
45TH STREET WATER DISI R WXMON SYS - SURVEY SERVICES
The Board reviewed the following memo dated October 6, 1994:
DATE: OCTOBER 6, 1994
TO: JAMES E. CHANDLER
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
FROM: TERRANCZEj.1n
DIRECT CES
PREPARED H. D.E.
AND STAFFED ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEER
BY: DEPARTMENT OF UTILITY SERVICES
SUBJECT: 45TH STREET WATER DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY PROJECT NO. UW -94 -13 -DS
BACKGROUND
k
On September 6; 19940 the Board -of -County Commissioners approved the
subject assessment project and authorized engineering design
services to be done in-house.
ANALYSIS
Preparatory to design, the subject area must be surveyed. Three
quotes were received as follows:
H. F. Lenz Company $ 9,960
Carter Associates, Inc. $11,840
Masteller, Moler and Reed,'Inc. $14,950
RECOMMENDATION- . .
-The staff of the Department of Utility Services recommends approval
to proceed with -the surveying and to award the contract to the low
bidder, H. F. Lenz Company, in the amount of $9,960.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Adams, the Board unanimously
awarded the contract for surveying to H. F.
Lenz company in the amount of $9,960, as
recommended by staff.
91
October 25, 1994
BOOK pAu 6"1
i
BOOK 93 PAGE
WOODLAWN MANOR FORCE MAIN
The Board reviewed the following undated memo:
TO: JAMES E. CHANDLER
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
FROM: TERRANCE G. PINTO'_
DIRECTOR OF UTILITY 1�VICES
PREPARED WILLIAM
AND STAFFED CAPIT JECTS ENGINEER
BY: DEP OF UTILITY SERVICES
SUBJECT: WOODLAWN MANOR FORCE MAIN
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, PROJECT NO. US -93 -07 -CS
BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS
This is an ongoing utility sewer project that has been bid, awarded
and is now ready to go to construction. Asza- result of the
necessity to Jack and Bore the. FEC right-of-way being a part of
this project, we are required to execute a right-of-way agreement
with the FEC. (See attached Agreement)
RECOMMENDATION
The staff of the Department of Utility Services recommends that the
Board of County Commissioners execute the FEC right-of-way
agreement as presented.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Adams, SECONDED by
Commissioner Eggert, the Board unanimously
approved and authorized the Chairman to
execute the right-of-way agreement with
Florida East Coast Railway Company, as
recommended by staff.
PARTIALLY EXECUTED COPY OF AGREEMENT
IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF CLERK TO THE BOARD
October 25, 1994
92
7-7 L
I—
REMOVAL OF OLD GENERAL DEVELOP_MENT/VERO HIGHLANDS
-
BUILDINGS - FINAL PAY REQUEST- - -=
The Board.reviewed the following memo dated October 13, 1994:.
DATE: OCTOBER 13, 1994
TO: JAMES E. CHANDLER
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
FROM: TERRANCE G. PINTA' l/� wo-
DIRECTOR OF UTILITY ISERVICES
PREPARED TERRY Be DRUM:
AND STAFFED ENVIROAL SPECIALIST
BY: DEPARTMENT OF UTILITY SERVICES
SUBJECT: REMOVAL OF THE OLD GENERAL DEVELOPMENT/VERO
HIGHLANDS (TWO OFFICE BUILDINGS, ONE (1)
EQUIPMENT BUILDING, FOUNDATION CONCRETE
WALKWAYS, ALL EXISTING CONCRETE STRUCTURES AND
ASPHALT DRIVE
FINAL PAY REQUEST
BACKGROUND
On June 29, 1994, area demolition contractors were contacted for
quotes for the removal of the above -referenced facilities. On
September 6, 1994, the Indian River County °Board of County
Commissioners awarded the above -referenced contract to Jim Wright
Construction, in the amount of $24,400.00. The contractor has
submitted his request for final payment. (See attached agenda item
and minutes).
ANALYSIS
All requirements for the Indian River County Department of Utility
Services have been satisfied. The contractor was previously paid
$21,960.00, leaving a balance of $20440.00 as the final payment.
RECOMMENDATION
The staff of the Department of Utility Services recommends that the
Board of County Commissioners approve the final pay request to Jim
-Wright Construction, Inc., in the amount of $2,440.00.
Commissioner Bird asked about the future use of the site, and
Director Pinto responded that we have no use for it and it will be
declared surplus.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Adams, the Board unanimously
approved the final pay request to Jim Wright
Construction, Inc., in the amount of $2,440,
as recommended by staff.
FINAL PAY REQU$ST
IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF CLERK TO THE BOARD
W
October 25, 1994
BOOK PArA
BOOK 9 3 fAju.66 t",
WEST COUNTY WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT -
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION PERMITTING
DELAY
The Board reviewed memo from Utility Services Director Terry
Pinto and letter from Richard S. Lott of the Department of
Environmental Protection dated October 18, 1994:
DATE: October 24, 1994
TO: JAMES Be CHANDLER
COUNTY ADMINISTRATORS-�
FROM: TERRANCE G. PINT
DIRECTOR OF UTILI .xSERVICES
SUBJECTS WETLAND MITIGATION
Attached is a response from the DEP regarding the Wetland within
the Wetland.
What they are asking is going to cost a considerable amount of
money. This whole ordeal is absurd.-
.4f
bsurd.-
Department of
��..._,.1 Environmental Protection . .....
Central District
Lawton Chiles 3319 Maguire Boulevard, Suite 232 Virginia B. Wetherell
Governor Orlando. Florida 32803-3767 Secretary
October 18, 1994
Mr. Chip Swindell OCD -ERP -94-0103
Ecotech Consultants, Inc.
254 B Plaza Drive
Oviedo, FL 32765
Re: Indian River County WWTP-Wetlands
Indian River County, Florida
Application No. 242405
Dear Mr. Swindell:
In accordance with our previous correspondence of September 14, 1994, the -
Departmen"f-Environmental Protection- (Department) has determined that it will be -
necessary for you to submit and receive approval of a mitigation plan for the 24.6
acres of isolated wetlands at the project site. This plan must be submitted to receive.
a recommendation for issuance of the Management and Storage of Surface Waters
(MSSW) permit from the Department.
94
October 25, 1994
_I
Meetings conducted between Departmental staff and you in addition to those you
in with the staff of the St. Johns River Water Management District have
indicated that you feel mitigation is not necessary for the following reasons:
1. The existing wetlands contain exotic and nuisance species which you claim will
be removed prior to incorporation of their incorporation within the treatment
system.
2. The existing wetlands are currently acting as a treatment system to purify the
reused water applied to the sod farm.
3. The wetland areas will be enhanced by the maintained water levels within their
treatment cells.
In lieu of mitigation, it will be incumbent upon you to fid substantiate your claims
with field data and submit the following information for the Department's
consideration:
1. An Inventory of each wetlands' vegetation and their approximate percentages
(without the nuisance and exotic • species).
2. A scaled map with survey information showing the relationship between each
wetland area and any surface drainage feature that would act to convey the
reused water to the wetland.
3. Water quality testing at locations upgradient and downgradient of the wetland
areas to determine the extent, if any, that the wetlands are functioning as
purifying agents. Water quality testing should include but may not be limited
to total nitrogen and phosphorous.
4. Establishment. of the hydroperlod of each wetland area. Water levels and
Indicators should be referenced to the National Geodetic Vertical Datum.
Periods of Inundation should also be noted.
5. A study addressing the overall hydrology of each wetland. In addition, the
Impacts by (1) current land use and (2) their proposed incorporation within the
wetland treatment system should also be addressed.
6. An explanation addressing the sustainability of the existing wetlands with and
without the effluent of the treatment plant.
7. According to sheet 3 of the construction plans, only two wetland areas
(cypress domes) are iftoposed to be incorporated within the treatment cells.
If this is not correct, please indicate. What are the boundary limits of the
wetlands that will not be affected since the treatment cell bottoms will be
excavated below grade?
B. What is the proposed planting spacing on the treatment cells' side slopes and
bottom? Will vegetation be planted within the wetland areas? If so, then what
type of vegetation will be planted?
95
BOOK PAGE. 66
October 25, 1994
�`° A
BOOK 3 PONE 6641
Please note that only upon submittal of the above information will the Department
reevaluate its commitment to requiring a mitigation plan. Also note that it is the
practice of the Department to require mitigation prior to issuance of a MSSW permit.
Communicate by correspondence your intentions regarding these matters to the
Department no later than December 11, 1994. An omission of your response within
this time frame will result in a recommendation for denial of the application.
Sincerely,
Richard S. Lott, P.G., P.E.
Engineering Support
Environmental Resource Program
Director Pinto explained that at the lith hour in the
permitting process for our West County Wastewater Treatment Plant
the department which issues-stormwater management permits threw a
red flag up. Director Pinto indicated on enlarged aerial
photographs and maps the location of the treatment plant, the
percolation ponds and the sod farm. We have irrigated the sod farm
with effluent and will transform the sod farm into wetlands. He
pointed out the existing wetlands which will be enhanced in the
process of construction of the treatment plant. The Department of
Environmental Protection (DEP) is demanding that we mitigate the
existing wetlands, but we will not destroy the existing wetlands;
in fact, we will enhance the existing wetlands and create 130 acres
of wetlands. The wetlands exist because we irrigate it with
effluent. The stormwater management people are delaying the
permitting because they cannot find a rule that says the wetlands
we create as part of our wastewater treatment facility can be used
for mitigation. Therefore we must come up with a mitigation plan
for the existing 24 acres. The wastewater treatment plant is under
construction, so this delay will be expensive. It is absurd to
demand that we mitigate the wetlands. They should applaud us
because we will create 130 acres of pristine wetlands.
Commissioner Bird felt that it also is absurd that we will not
receive credit for that.130 acres as mitigation. He pointed out
that we have talked about drawing the line with mandates from State
and Federal agencies and we ought to draw the line on this issue.
The other Commissioners agreed, and Commissioner Bird asked
-what would be the most effective way to appeal that decision.
Attorney Vitunac advised that the first thing to do is to
advise the Director of DEP that we are going to appeal it under a
Chapter 120 challenge. Their demand is so obviously absurd that
there is a good possibility the Director would overrule his own
October 25, 1994
M
96
M
M
I
staff. Attorney Vitunac assured the Board that his office is ready
to proceed to the Chapter 120 challenge, but there is a_p_ossibility
of delay in the construction. -
Steve Moler. of Masteller and Moler clarified that the MSSW-
permit is normally issued by St. Johns River Water Management
District, but that decision is deferred to DEP on a wastewater
project. Mr. Moler pointed out that there is a rule that the DEP
has 30 days to respond and comment upon an application. They
responded to our application months ago and it is only as of
September 14, 1994 that they have a concern about the mitigation of
the existing wetlands on the site. They have not accepted our
response. They may not understand their own rules, that when our
application is complete - and it certainly is complete and has been
complete for a long time - they are bound to review the project and
give us all of their comments in 30 days. They did that many
months ago. There may be a legal question whether they have the
right at this time to ask us for this information. That may be the
fastest way to get this thing unlocked.
Chairman Tiepin pointed= out that we need to get an audience
with someone at the top.
Commissioner Adams wanted to be sure that whatever action we
take does not delay the project. She volunteered to make phone
calls to see if we can reach the right parties.
Chairman Tippin concluded that the consensus of the Board was
to proceed with trying to make the right contacts before we begin
the.legal challenge.
Commissioner -Bird agreed, but stressed that we should not be
bullied by a time table on this project to roll over and accept
something from DEP that we know or feel strongly is totally wrong.
They.get away with that a lot because people are concerned about a
delay and they roll over and play dead, but this situation is too
far reaching and we must go to the wall on this issue.
Chairman Tippin recapped that the Board members agreed that
Commissioner Adams would make the phone calls while the County
Attorney researches the methods to approach things legally.
Commissioner Bird clarified that there are two issues: we
will not mitigate wetlands that we are going to enhance, and we
want credit for the amount of _upland property that we are
converting into wetland.
BOOK
97 t71 FtIGE
October 25, 1994
ANNUAL APPOINTMENTS TO TREASURE COAST REGIONAL
PLANNING COUNCIL
The Board reviewed the following letter from the Treasure
Coast Regional Planning Council dated October 10, 1994 and letter
from Sebastian City Clerk dated October 17, 1994:
October 10, 1994 WON
The Honorable John W. Tippin, Chairman
Indian River County
Board of Commissioners
1840 25th Street, Suite N-158
Vero Beach, FL 32960
Subject: Annual Appointment of Council Members, cou
Dear Chairman Tippin:
In accordance with Council's Rules of OrgarWiNbLeal- the
December meeting is designated as the Annual Meeting, at
which time the appointment of all members and alternates is
to occur. It is therefore requested that the Board of
County Commissioners take the necessary action to appoint
members and alternates for the upcoming year. In the case
of Indian River County, three members and three alternates
need to be appointed (two county, --one municipal). It should
be noted that all alternates must be elected officials.
Additionally, the. bylaws do not specifically indicate that
municipal appointments must be either appointed or approved
by the County. Each county is assigned the number of
appointments and the method for making the appointments is
left to the discretion and cooperation of the local
governments in the area.
Finally, it would be appreciated if the County would notify
the Council of the appointments, including mailing addresses
and telephone numbers, as soon as possible, so that the
agenda packet for the December meeting can be provided in a
timely fashion. ;
Sincerely,
Zael J. ha, AICP.
Acting Executive Director
98
October 25, 1994
U
City of Sebastian -
-- 1225 MAIN STREET o SEBASTIAN, FLORIDA 32958 _ --
TELEPHONE (407) 589-5330 o FAX(407)589-5570
October 17, 1994
The Honorable John W. Tippin, Chairman
Indian River County
Board of Commissioners
1840 25th Street
Suite N-158
Vero Beach, FL 32960
RE: Vice Mayor Carolyn Corum - Membership on Treasure Coast
Regional Planning Council
Dear Chairman Tippin:
Vice Mayor Carolyn Corum was appointed to the Treasure Coast
Regional Planning Council in October 1993 for a two year term.
Her.appointment was reconfirmed on April 6, 1994 subsequent to
the election of Mayor Arthur Firtion. She will continue as
Sebastian's representative.
Correspondence for Vice Mayor,Corum can be mailed to the City
Hall address.
If you -have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Sincerely,
Kathryn M. O'Halloran, CMC/AAE
City Clerk
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Macht, the Board unanimously
appointed Chairman Tippin and Commissioner
Adams to the Treasure Coast Regional Planning
Council as the County representatives, with
Commissioners Eggert and Bird as alternates;
and appointed Town of Orchid Mayor Ted Leonsis
as the Municipal member and Sebastian Vice
Mayor Carolyn Corum as the Municipal
alternate.
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY LEGISLATIVE DELEGATIO MEETING
The Board reviewed letter from Honorable Charles W. Sembler II
dated October 3, 1994:
BOOK 06th
99
October 25, 1994
r
3
3
TO. All Concerted
FROM Charles W. Sembler H
SUBJECT: Indian River County Legislative Delegation
DATE. October 3, 1994
BOOT( b3 PA.GL 656
The Legislative Delegation of Indian River Cotunty will hold its annual
meeting and public hearing on December 7, 1994, beginning at 8:30 a.my in
Indian River County Administration Building - Commission Chambers, 1840
251h Street, Vero Beach, FL 32960.
Tlie purpose of lice delegation ineeting, prior to lite co venting of the
regular session of lite Florida Legislature, is to consider the introduction of
Special Acts relating to Indian River Coutly, and to allow local residents an . .
opportunity to voice their opinions on various issues to the delegation.
Anyone wishbtg to have a Special Act for Indian River County
introduced should have the Act drafted and delivered to my office at 1053
20th Place - City Halo before November 10, 1994. A statement by an
attorney, that lite purpose of the Act cannot be accomplished by a local
ordinance or rule, is required with each proposed Special Act, along with two
copies of proof of publication.
If you have any questions regarding the meeting, or wish to be on the
agenda to address the delegation, please contact my Legislative Assistant
Dawn Smith or my Legislative Secretary Carol Gerow in nny District office,
phone number 778-5077.
Chairman Tippin announced that the Treasure Coast Council of
Governments endorsed four items in the Legislative Delegation
package: Item 1, legislative review of administrative rule-making;
Item 2, some type of homestead exemption reform; Item 3, master
plan protection for public infrastructure investment; and Item 4,
partial year ad valorem assessment.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Macht, SECONDED by
Commissioner Eggert, the Board unanimously endorsed
the four items in the legislative package as listed
above.
Commissioner Eggert requested the addition of another item to
the list regarding a State self-insurance fund to provide insurance
to. non -prof it corporations and civic agencies who provide services
-to transportation disadvantaged. She felt we could do a lot more
with our school buses, for example, during the day and on weekends
if we could get proper insurance for them. Insurance coverage is
available for the small van -type vehicles but it --would be helpful -
to be able to get coverage on the larger buses.
October 25, 1994
100
ON.'MOTION by Commissioner _Eggert,._SECONDED by
Commissioner Bird,. the Board unanimously endorsed. -an
- addition to the legislative package regarding State
self-insurance to provide coverage on larger
vehicles (school buses) when used by agencies that
provide services to transportation disadvantaged.
INMATION TO TREASURE COAST COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS
ANNUAL DINNER
Chairman Tippin announced that the Annual Dinner of Treasure
Coast Council of Governments was scheduled at 7:00 p.m., Wednesday,
November 2, with social hour at 6:30, at the Pelican Yacht Club.
NEW COURTHOUSE OPENING DATE
The Board reviewed memo dated October 21, 1994:
MEMtORANDUM
TO: Courthouse Advisory Committee Members
FROM: Kenneth R. Macht, Chairman
DATE: October 21, 1994
SUBJECT: New Courthouse Move -in Date
At the meeting on Thursday, October 20, 1994, the members
expressed concern. about the very tight schedule between the
contractor completion date and the present scheduled move -in
date. In looking at all that is involved with the move, and
allowing time for the new furnishings to "off gas", I feel there
will not be sufficient time to get everything done and be ready
.for -operation on November 28, 1994.
Based on this analysis, it is my intention to recommend to the
Board of County Commissioners that the move -in be rescheduled for
December 27, 1994 through December 31, 1994, with the new opening
date of the courthouse scheduled for Tuesday, January 3, 1995.
This being the case, the special meeting for Monday, October 25,
1994 is cancelled.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Adams, SECONDED by
Commissioner Macht, the Board unanimously
rescheduled the opening of the New Courthouse to
January 3, 1995.
101 BOOK
October 25, 1994
11
BOOK W pmu 668
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY ORGANIZATIONAL INFORMATION
BOOKLET
The Board reviewed memo from Executive Aide Alice White dated
October 21, 1994:
- - - -
- - - -
TO:
- - - -
- - - -
Board
-
-
of
- - - -
- - - -
County
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - --- - - - -
Commissioners
FROM:
Alice
E.
White,
Executive Aide
DATE: October 21, 1994
SUBJECT: Printing of Organizational Information Booklet
We. have had an excellent response to the information booklet. We
are now in our third printing. One of the Welcome Wagon ladies
called me and asked if she and the other two Welcome Wagon ladies
could each have 50 copies to give out to people moving into our
area.
I have been having the copies made in our mailroom, however, with
the amount of copies needed, our mailroom copier will not be able
to keep up with the demand.
I have called 4 local printing companies to obtain quotes for
printing 500 copies of the booklet. This will be in the same
format as we are currently using, i.e., plain bond paper, double
sided, and stapled. The quotes areas follows:
Action Printers
567-4377.
Printed
$645.50
Xeroxed
495.00
ABC Quick Printers
562-0624
Printed
559.50
+ tax
No quote for
Xeroxing because
that is
too large a
quantity for
her machine.
Sir Speedy
569-1226
Xeroxed
300.00
Stevens Printing
563-0863
Printed
380.00
Xeroxed
256.50
I feel that Xeroxing would be sufficient for our needs, and
Stevens Printing has the lowest price of $256.50. I have
sufficient money in account 001-101-511-034.72 to cover this
amount.
I respectfully request the Board to approve having the booklets
xeroxed -by Stevens Printing.
ON MOTION by -Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Adams-, the Board unanimously
approved reprinting of the Organizational
Information' Booklet by Stevens Printing at a.
cost of $256.50.
102
October 25, 1994
J
There being no further business,- on Motion duly -made; seconded
and carried, the,Board adjourned at 11:31 a.m.
103 BOOK 93 PAGE (36 9'
October 25, 1994
ATTEST:
to i A
eet�
�# G
J. artdhr:'�ler, ''
W. Tippin, hairma
=N
t
A:.
Minutes �Q�
/9
approved on / JL l�
103 BOOK 93 PAGE (36 9'
October 25, 1994