HomeMy WebLinkAbout11/21/1995� MINUTE9'XTTACHE1J"
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
A G E N D A
TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 21,1995
9:00 A.M. - COUNTY COMMISSION CHAMBER
County Administration Building
1840 25th Street
Vero Beach, Florida
Kenneth R. Macht, Chairman (District 3)
Fran B. Adams, Vice Chairman (District 1)
Richard N. Bird (District 5)
Carolyn K. Eggert (District 2)
John W. Tippin (District 4)
• 111015111-1110M
James E. Chandler, County Administrator
Charles P. Vitunac, County Attorney
Jeffrey K. Barton, Clerk to the Board
2. INVOCATION Rev. Larry Bowen, Central Assembly
3. PL.EDC=F OF Ai.i.F,GIAiyrr - Chas. P. Vitunac
1� r1. .11 ►.1 .y rr u
1. Add Item 5-B, Proclamation: McKee Botanical
Gardens Week.
Z. Add Item 13-A, computer hard drive requirements.
3. Add Item 10, discussion of South Beach obstacles.
Presentation of Proclamation in Recognition of All
Providers in the WE CAPE PRO PULM
Regular Meeting of October 24, 1995
dlmm1 X11
A. Request for Signature on Section 8 Annual
Contributions Contract A 3409V
(memorandum dated November 14, 1995)
B. Miscellaneous Budget Amendment 005
(memorandum dated November 14, 1995)
C. Request for Board Approval of Partial Release
of a Conservation Easement at Indian River Club
(memorandum dated November 3, 1995)
P
D. Resignation of Frederick R. Bedford from the
I.R.C. Affordable Housing Committee
(letter dated November 7, 1995)
E. Award Bid #6022 / Sundowner's S/D Water
Assessment Project
(memorandum dated November 7, 1995)
1► Y Il 11Y 1►: 1 �� N
None
9:05 A.M. 9. PUBLIC 11FMS
1. St. Augustine of Canterbury Episcopal
Church Request for Special Exception Use
Approval for an Expansion to a Place of
Worship
(memorandum dated November 13, 1995)
2. Ben F. Bailey, III, Request to Amend the
Comprehensive Plan to Redesignate Approxi-
mately 18.4 Acres from L-2 to M-1, and to
Rezone that 18.4 Acres from A-1 to RM -8
(memorandum dated November 9, 1995)
3. County Initiated Request to Amend the Traffic
Circulation Element and the Capital Improve-
ments Element of the Comprehensive Plan
(memorandum dated November 14, 1995)
4. Wabasso Corridor Task Force's Request to
Approve the Wabasso Corridor Plan
(memorandum dated November 14, 1995)
5. AN ORDINANCE OF INDIAN RIVER
COUNTY, FLORIDA, UPDATING THE
STANDARD TECHNICAL CODES TO
REFLECT THE LATEST EDITIONS
6. AN ORDINANCE OF INDIAN RIVER
COUNTY, FLORIDA,. ESTABLISHING
CRITERIA FOR DETERMINING THE
STATUS OF EMPLOYEE - INDEPENDENT
CONTRACTORS
1 ==
None
I ! 1aIMAKI 1 u I lei fa 0.xv.
,w26r44wVDI.
1 ; 11►� I ►Y = u : Y Y ; `,
A. Community Development
Consideration and Approval of a Consultant for
Preparation of a CDBG Neighborhood Revitali-
zation Grant Application
(memorandum dated November 15, 1995)
B. Emereency Services
None
Approval of Memorandum of Understanding
Establishing Adjunct County Extension Agent
with University of Florida for Florida Yards &
Neighborhood (FYN) Program
(memorandum dated November 15, 1995)
D. Leisure Services
None
E. Office of Management and nd et
None
F. Personnel
None
G. Public Works
1. Resident Inspection Services for Various
Capital Projects
(memorandum dated November 14, 1995)
2. Advanced Right -of -Way Acquisition -
Cumberland Farms Store - NE Corner of
Oslo Road and 27th Avenue
(memorandum dated November 14,19-9- 5)
H. UdUties
1. 45th Street Water Service Project -
Resolutions I and II
(memorandum dated November 1, 1995)
2. Sebastian Water Project, Phase I
(memorandum dated November 14, 1995)
3. 58th Ave. Water Main, Ph. I, - Change
Order No. 1 and Final Pay Request
(memorandum dated November 15, 1995)
• • AY Y► 11 1 ; ►I
None
13. COMMSSIONERS COMMISSIONERSITFMS
A. Chairman Kenneth R_ Macht
B. Vice Chairman Fran B Adams
E. CommissionerJohn W Ti nn'
PPM
14. SPECIAL DISTRICTS
A. F,merge Service District
None
B. Solid Wa to Mspos 1 D' trict
Reject Bid #5099 / Tub Grinder
(memorandum dated November 8, 1995)
C. Environmental Control Board
None
15. ADJOURNMENT
Anyone who may wish to appeal any decision which may be made at this meeting will
need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made which includes the testimony
and evidence upon which the appeal will be based.
Anyone who needs a special accommodation for this meeting may contact the County's
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Coordinator at 567-8000 x408 at least 48 hours in
advance of meeting.
- M
November 21, 1995
The Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County,
Florida, met in Regular Session at the County Commission Chambers,
1840 25th Street, Vero Beach, Florida, on Tuesday, November 21,
1995, at 9:00 a.m. Present were Kenneth R. Macht, Chairman; Fran
B. Adams, Vice Chairman; Richard N. Bird; Carolyn K. Eggert; and
John W. Tippin. Also present were James E. Chandler, County
Administrator; Charles P. Vitunac, County Attorney; and P. J.
Jones, Deputy Clerk.
Chairman Macht called the meeting to order and County Attorney
Vitunac led the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag.
ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA
Chairman Macht requested two additions to today's Agenda:
1. Item 5-B, Proclamation recognizing the week of
November 26 to December 2, 1995, as McKee
Botanical Gardens Week.
2. Item 13-A, computer hard drive requirements.
Administrator Chandler requested the addition of Item 10,
discussion of South Beach obstacles.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by
Commissioner Adams, the Board unanimously added the
above items to the Agenda.
PROCLAMATIONS AND PRESENTATIONS
Chairman Macht presented the following Proclamation to Dr.
Dennis Saver, Chairman of the Indian River County Medical Society,
BOOK 96 Pr:E 6;a
NOVEMBER 21, 1995 1
BOOK 96 PAGF6(J5
with the comment that the Medical Society is providing a much
needed service and is a great benefit to the County:
PROCLAMATION
WHEREAS, in 1991 under the leadership of the Indian River
County Medical Society and a coalition of the H.R.S. Indian River
County Public Health Unit, Indian River Memorial Hospital Taxing
District and Indian River Memorial Hospital established the WE
CARE Program in Indian River County; and
WHEREAS, the WE CARE Program is designed to network with
volunteer physicians and other providers to provide medical
services to indigent citizens, and there are over 100
participating private physicians in the program providing primary
and specialty care; and
WHEREAS, the WE CARE Program has a two -fold purpose to
provide treatment to patients who might not otherwise receive it,
and to alleviate the impact on hospital emergency rooms of
patients using emergency rooms for basic medical treatment; and
WHEREAS, it is remarkable to demonstrate that voluntary
community financial support has been leveraged into health care
services donated by private physicians to the County's indigent
population.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT PROCLAIMED THAT THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, Florida does unanimously
recognize and congratulate all providers in the
WE CARE PROGRAM
for their outstanding support, dedication and commitment to
improve the health of indigent citizens of Indian River County.
Dated this 21 day of November, 1995.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
K nneth R. Macht, Chairma
NOVEMBER 21, 1995 2
s o
Chairman Macht presented the following Proclamation to Dan
Culbert, Indian River County Agricultural Extension Agent:
PROCLAMATION
WHEREAS, McKee Botanical Gardens will observe the week of November 26 to December
2, 1995, as McKee Botanical Gardens Week in recognition of the purchase and preservation of this
Indian River County legacy; and
WHEREAS, through the overwhelming support of the members of the community of Vero
Beach and Indian River County in donating over $2 million to privately purchase lands formerly
known as McKee Jungle Gardens, now called McKee Botanical Gardens; and
WHEREAS, to benefit the community, the Indian River Land Trust and the Trust for Public
Land will finalize the purchase on December 1, 1995; and
WHEREAS, the original McKee Jungle Gardens, established in 193Y by two of Indian River
County's early settlers, industrialist Arthur McKee a`nd pioneer developer Waldo Sexton, abounds
in the natural history of Indian River County; and
WHEREAS, for over 40 years, until its closing in 1976, McKee Jungle Gardens provided the
community and its marry visitors the opportunity to experience the rich, natural heritage of Florida's
Indian River County; and
WHEREAS, the Indian River Land Trust will soon begin restoration of the new McKee
Botanical Gardens to once again offer many educational, recreational and cultural opportunities for
the members of the community and its visitors, now and in years to come:
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT PROCLAIMED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA that the week of November 26 to
December 2, 1995 be recognized as
MC KEE BOTANICAL GARDENS WEEK
in Indian River County, and the Board urges all citizens to give recognition to the time and effort that
has gone into developing the McKee Botanical Gardens.
Dated this 21 day of November, 1995.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
enneth R. ach4Chairman*
APPROVAL OF AI MUTES
The Chairman asked if there were any corrections or additions
to the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of October 24, 1995. There
were none.
BOOK P,gcE 0J6
NOVEMBER 21, 1995 3
BOOK 96 MAN
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Adams, the Board unanimously approved
the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of October 24,
1995, as written.
CONSENT AGENDA
A. Request for Signature on Section 8 Annual Contributions Contract A
3409V
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of November 14, 1995:
T TO: The Honorable Members of the
Board of County Goad ssioners
TfROEXH: H. T. Dean, Director
Dept. of General Servi
James E. Chandler
County Administrator
orator
DATE: November 14, 1995 FILE:
SUBJECT: I.R.C. F1. - Dept. of Gen. Servs.
Agenda Item
Request for Signature on Section 8
p,nnual, Contributions ons Contract
A 3409V (voucher program)
FROM: Lamle F. B. Gamble REFERENCES:
Ecutive Director
I.R.C. Housing Authority
It is recommended that the data presented be given formal consideration by the
County Commission.
DESCRIPTICN AND CCM17ICN:
The Department of Housing and Urban Development has forwarded an original and two
copies of the Annual Contributions Contract WC) which has been amended to reflect the
renewal of Voucher Project 007.
ALTERNATIVE AND ANALYSIS:
The documentation required by HUD for their final approval and execution of the
contracts is submitted for consideration and approval of the Board of County Commissioners.
(1) One original and two copies of the Consolidated Annual Contributions Contract,
Rental Certificate Program and Rental Voucher Program. HUD requests that when executing
these amended AUCs, please be sure to include the name, official title and date of
execution. Original signatures are required on all copies of the Contract and no change
in its foamat is permitted.
(2) HUD foam 50071, Certification for Contracts, Grants, Loans and Cooperative Agreements.
Complete the Certification and sign, including the name, official title and date of
execution.
(3) HUD Stance Form (SF) -LLL, Disclosure of Lobbying Activities. Complete the form and
sign, including the name, official title and date of execution.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Adams, the Board unanimously approved
the Consolidated Annual Contributions Contract and
forms for submittal to the Jacksonville Office of
HUD, as recommended by staff.
CONTRACT IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE
CLERK TO THE BOARD
NOVEMBER 21, 1995 4
B. Miscellaneous Budget Amendment 005
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of November 14, 1995:
TO: Members of the Board
of County Commissioners
DATE: November 14, 1995
SUBJECT: MISCELLANEOUS BUDGET AMENDMENT 005
CONSENT AGENDA
FROM: Joseph A Baird
OMB Director
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
The attached budget amendment is to appropriate funding for the following:
1. The State of Florida, Department of Labor, has charged Indian River County for
Unemployment Compensation payments to former employees. A budget
amendment is required to reflect these payments.
2. Judge's travel as approved by the Board of County Commissioners on October
24, 1995
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners approve the attached budget amendment
005.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Adams, the Board unanimously approved
Budget Amendment 005, as recommended by staff.
TO- ?Members of the Board BUDGET AMENDMENT:
of County Commissioners
FROM: JosephA B November 14- 1995
OMB Director
Entry
Number
FundsMepartment/Account Name
Account Number
Increase
Decrease
1.
EXPENSE
GENERAL FUND/Property Appraiser
Unemployment Compensation
001-500-513-012.15
$2,701
$0
EXPENSE
GENERAL FUND/
Reserve for Contingency
001-199-581-099.91
$0
$2,701
EXPENSE
-
S. W.D.D./RecychrWUnemployment
Compensation
411-255-534-012.15
$2,329
$0
S.WD.D./LandfiWCash Forward -Sept. 30
411-217-534-099.92
SO
$2,329
EXPENSE
TRANSPORTATION FUND/
Road and Bridge/Unemployment Comp.
111-214-541-012.15
$15
$0
TRANSPORTATION FUND/
Reserve for Contingency
111-199-581-099.91
$0
$15
EXPENSE
UTILITIES/Water
Unemployment Compensation
471-219-536-012.15
$821
$0
UTILITIES/Water
Cash Forward
471-219-536-099.92
$0
$821
NOVEMBER 21, 1995 5
BOOK 96 �E
P4 rj
BOOK �J
C. Approval of Partial Release of Conservation Easement
at Indian River Club
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of November 3, 1995:
TO: James E. Chandler
County Administrator
HEAD CONCURRENCE:
le
i\VYGi r. C• • i�Gi� YiiLy ,
Community Develops
THROUGH: Roland M. DeBlois,?; CP
Chief, Environmental Planning
FROM: Charles W. Heath
_ Code Enforcement Officer
DATE: November 3, 1995
SUBJECT: Request for Board Approval of Partial Release of a
Conservation Easement at Indian River Club
It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal
consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at its regular
meeting of November 21, 1995 meeting.
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS:
The County has been petitioned by Bell South Telecommunications,
with concurrence from the landowner, Indian River Club, Inc., for
the release of a 57.6 square foot portion of a dedicated county
conservation easement. The subject conservation easement, on land
associated with the Indian River Club on Highland Drive SW, was
established to satisfy county native upland setaside requirements.
The reason for the release request is that a telephone equipment
module was inadvertently installed in a portion of the dedicated
easement to service the property.
NOVEMBER 21, 1995 6
EXPENSE
UTILITIES/General
Unemployment Compensation
471-235-536-012.15
$1,856
$0
UTILITIES/Water
Cash Forward
471-219-536-099.92
$0
$1,856
2.
EXPENSE
GENERAL FUND/Circuit Court/Travel
001-901-516-034.02
$400
$0
GENERAL FUND/Circuit Court/Dues and
Membership
001-901-516-035.42
$1,500
$0
GENERAL FUND/Circuit Court/Tuition and
Registration Fees
001-901-516-035.43
$400
$0
GENERAL FUND/County Court/Travel
001-902-516-034.02
$1,850
$0
GENERAL FUND/County Court/Dues and
Membership
001-902-516-035.42
$750
$0
GENERAL FUND/County Court/Tuition and
Registration Fees
001-902-516-035.43
$505
$0
REVENUE
GENERAL FUND/Reserve for Contin encu
001-199-581-099.91 1
$0
$5,405
C. Approval of Partial Release of Conservation Easement
at Indian River Club
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of November 3, 1995:
TO: James E. Chandler
County Administrator
HEAD CONCURRENCE:
le
i\VYGi r. C• • i�Gi� YiiLy ,
Community Develops
THROUGH: Roland M. DeBlois,?; CP
Chief, Environmental Planning
FROM: Charles W. Heath
_ Code Enforcement Officer
DATE: November 3, 1995
SUBJECT: Request for Board Approval of Partial Release of a
Conservation Easement at Indian River Club
It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal
consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at its regular
meeting of November 21, 1995 meeting.
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS:
The County has been petitioned by Bell South Telecommunications,
with concurrence from the landowner, Indian River Club, Inc., for
the release of a 57.6 square foot portion of a dedicated county
conservation easement. The subject conservation easement, on land
associated with the Indian River Club on Highland Drive SW, was
established to satisfy county native upland setaside requirements.
The reason for the release request is that a telephone equipment
module was inadvertently installed in a portion of the dedicated
easement to service the property.
NOVEMBER 21, 1995 6
� s �
The current zoning classification of the subject property is RS -6,
Single -Family Residential District. The Land Use Designation is L-
2, allowing up to six (6) units per acre.
ALTERNATIVES -AND ANALYSIS:
The request has been reviewed by Bell South, Florida Power & Light,
the area -serving cable company, the County Utilities Department,
the County Engineering and Road & Bridge Divisions, and the County
Planning Division. Based on their reviews, it is staff's
determination that the release would have no adverse impact to the
subject property. Planning staff has determined that -the proposed
easement release will not affect Indian River Club's satisfaction
of minimum requirements for native upland conservation, since the
original easement included more area than the minimum required 15%
set-aside.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Board, through adoption of the attached
resolution, release the referenced 57.6 square foot portion of the
dedicated conservation easement (as more particularly described in
the resolution).
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Adams, the Board unanimously adopted
Resolution 95-143 releasing the easement described
therein to Indian River Club, Inc.
RESOLUTION NO. 95-143
A RESOLUTION OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
WHEREAS, Indian River County has an easement as described
below; and
WHEREAS, the retention of a portion of that easement serves no
public purposes,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of County
Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida that:
This release of easement is executed by Indian River County, a
political subdivision of the State of Florida, whose mailing
address is 1840 25th Street, Vero Beach, Florida 32960, Grantor, to
Indian River Club, Inc. c/o Robert B. Swift successors, in
interest, heirs and assigns, whose mailing address is 2055 S. U.S.
Highway #1, Vero Beach, Florida 32962, Grantee, as follow: Vero
Indian River County does hereby abandon all right, title, and
interest that it may have in that portion of an ingress and egress
easement described as follows:
release of a 57.6 square foot portion of a dedicated
conservation easement, being more particularly described as
follows: beginning at the southwesterly corner of said
conservation easement Tract "D", proceed N. 08 degrees 39
minutes 24 seconds W. along the westerly line of said
Conservation Tract "D", a distance of 8.62 feet; thence N. 77
degrees 45 minutes 29 seconds E. distance of 6.60 feet; thence
S. 08 degrees 39 minutes 24 seconds E. parallel to said
westerly line a distance of 8.86 feet to the northerly right
BOOK 96 pa"r f I n
NOVEMBER 21, 1995 7
BOOK 96 PAE 611
RESOLUTION NO. 95-143
of -way of Highland Drive, said point lying on the arc of a
curve concave northerly, having a radius of 538.25 feet;
thence proceed southwesterly along the arc of said curve and
right of way line through a central angle of 00 degrees 42.
minutes of 06 seconds a distance of 6.59 feet (Chord bearing
S. 79 degrees 53 minutes 17 seconds W. a distance of 6.59
feet) to a point of beginning, as recorded in Plat Book 14,
Pages 48 and 48A through 48F, of the Public Records of Indian
River County, Florida.
THIS RESOLUTION was moved for adoption by Commissioner Eggert
and adopted on the 21
vote:
, seconded by Commissioner Adams ,
day of November
Commissioner
Commissioner
Commissioner
Commissioner
Commissioner
, 1995, by the following
Kenneth
R. Mac_ht
Aye
Fran B.
Adams
A e�
John W.
Tippin
Aye
Carolyn
Eggert
Aye
Richard
N. Bird
Aye
The Chairman declared the resolution duly passed and adopted
this 21 day of November , 1995.
BOARD OF COUNTY, COMMISSIONERS
OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY,
FLORI
By
IVA,
Kennet R. Macht
Chairman
Attest By
Jdf4rdy K. Barton
Cler p
�' <
STATE OF FLORIDA )
COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER )
I HEREBY CERTIFY, that on this day, before me, an officer duly
authorized in the State and County aforesaid, to take
acknowledgements, personally appeared Kenneth R. Macht and Jeffrey
K. Barton well know to me to be the Chairman of the Board of County
Commissioners and Clerk, respectively, of Indian River County, a
political subdivision of the State of Florida, and they
acknowledged executing the same.
WITNESS my hand and official seal in the County and State last
IIS
aforesaid thiscVo)� day of �9�Ut�v,� �'L , 1995.
(::EI/
Notary Pu 1 es
I SIGN / MA36812 EXPIRES
abnwy 25,1999
-N
v "' 'ROY FAIR NSUPAIM M.
My Commission.Expires:
PATRIMA L JIVER
' GUMMUM % CDM12 EXPIRES
Fahm-sp 0- 1989
='tel TNpYFA#1/6VpjjCE;pL
NOVEMBER 21, 1995
M
s.
M
M
-1
D. Resignation of Frederick R. Bedford
I.R.C. Affordable Housing Committee
The Board reviewed a letter of November 7, 1995:
FREDERICK R. BEDFORD
��212223?4� 2026 15th Street
Vero Beach, Florida 32960
407-569-0517
�3
November 7, 1995
Honorable Carolyn Eggert
Board of County Commissioners
1840 25th Street
Vero Beach, FL 32960-
Dear
2960
Dear Mrs. Eggert,
I t is with much regret that I find i t necessary to resign from the
Indian River County Affordable Housing Committee. Due to work
conditions and financial reasons I am unable to take the time off that is
required to stay on the committee.
I wish t'o thank you for the opportunity to serve and to get to know
you and our county better.
Sincerely,
Frederick R. Bedford
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Adams, the Board unanimously accepted,
with regret, the resignation of Frederick R. Bedford
from the Indian River County Affordable Housing
Committee.
'BOOKF^F
NOVEMBER 21, 1995 9
BOOK 96 F'.Ac 613
E. Bid #6022 - Sundowner's SID Water Assessment Project
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of November 7, 1995:
TO: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
THRU: James E. Chandler, County Adm nistrator
H.T. "Sonny" Dean, Director November 7, 1995
General Services
FROM: Fran Boynton Powell, Purchasing Manager
SUBJ: Award Bid #6022/Sundowner's Subdivision Water
Assessment Project/Utilities Department
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
Bid Opening Date: October 25, 1995
Advertising Dates: October 4, 11, 1995
Advertisement Mailed to: Twenty Two (22) Vendors
Replies: Five (5) Vendors
Statement of "No Bids" -0-
VENDOR BID TOTAL CORRECTED TOTAL
Treasure Coast Contracting $33,875.00
Vero Beach, FL
Driveways, Inc $36,474.39
Titusville, FL
Timothy Rose Contracting $38,898.50 $35,898.50
Ft Pierce, FL
Florida Design $45,000.00
Lake Park, FL
JoBear, Inc $54,516.00
Palm Bay, FL
TOTAL AMOUNT OF BID $33,875.00
SOURCE OF FUNDS Utilities Assessment Fund
473-000-169-271.00
ESTIMATED BUDGET $37,372.00
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the bid be awarded to Treasure Coast
Constractinc as the lowest, most responsive and
responsible bidder meeting specifications as set forth
in the Invitation to Bid.
In addition, staff requests Board approval of the attached
Agreement as to form, when all requirements are met and
approved by the County Attorney.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Adams,' the Board. unanimously awarded
Bid #6022 to Treasure Coast Contracting in the
amount of $33,875, as recommended by staff.
CONTRACT WILL BE ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE
CLERK TO THE BOARD WHEN EXECUTED AND RECEIVED
NOVEMBER 21, 1995
ST. AUGUSTINE OF CANTERBURY EPISCOPAL CHURCH REQUEST
FOR SPECIAL EXCEPTION USE APPROVAL FOR EXPANSION TO A
_PLACE OF WORSHIP -
VERO BEACH PRESS -JOURNAL
Published Daily
Vero Beach, Indian River County, Florida
COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER: STATE OF FLORIDA
Before the undersigned authority personallyappeared J. J. Schumann, Jr. who on oath
says that he is Business Manager of the Vero Beach Press -Journal, a daily newspaper put liIhed
at�Vero
/Beach in Indian River County, Florida; that the attached copy of advertisement, being
a /fie &ii
in the matter of
AJG
In the Court, was pWy
fished in said newspaper in the issues of AW"...
a7111? /71f
Affiant further says that the said Vero Beach Press -Journal Is a newspaper published at
Vero Beach, in said Indian River County, Flortda, 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
advertieetepnt for publication in the said newspaper.
Sworntaandsubaeribedbejwem9this , aZ day of& A.D. 19
( InesaaMenag
n' 1 • nay r.--isw, Lap Jww 29.1997
tf—t- CC300572
1 SA.B^ARA r1 SPRAGIIF.
-RS-3
r
.a 9 Subject
Wisf
Site
a. '.I a '
r. a ,a l •� a � Mr
NDTtB� of PitBLIC IffAR04G
Notbe of titarrtg to car=1:ff special ex•
cep"m use approval for an to an existing
far peas .
5 43rd
Av iv S WG-ari 18, Torrid p' 33 and •Range 39.
see the above map for the bcaftL
A pubic hearing at which patties in iaerem and
-111 r 1 shal have an opportunityto be heard willbe held by the Board of Gommniffioners of
81011 01111111130111 Of 11111 CoAty Admink4dl1n Suld-
ing, located at 1840 25th Street, Vero Beach, Flor-
ida on Tuajtiday, November 21, 1995 at 9:05 a.m.
k ie who may wish to appeal arty tfecbion
which mhay be made at Bis meeting ori need iD en-
sue that a ver0arin record of the 9 - - , iia gs is
made whish the app�I b ba8ed y end evidence- upon
ANYONE WHO NEEDS A SPECIAL ACCOMMODA-
TION FOR TNS MEETING MUST CONTACT THE
COUNTY'S AMERICANS WITH DSAS UM ACT
(ADA) COORDINATOR AT 5874MW EXT. 223 AT
LEAST 48 HOuRs IN ADVANm OF MEETm
BOARD OF COUNTY CM&ISSIONIM
BY -s Kanelh R. LWd, Chairman
OcL 27, 1995 1248405
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of November 13, 1995:
TO: James E. Chandler
County Administrator
=ON HEAD CONC NCE:
0
Robert M. R t AIC
Community D.ev lop en rector
THROUGH: Stan Boling, AICP
Planning Director
FROM: Eric Blad/le
Staff Planner, Current Development
DATE: November 13, 1995
SUBJECT: St. Augustine of Canterbury Episcopal Church Request for
Special Exception Use Approval for an Expansion to a
Place of Worship
SP-MI-95-11-42/IRC #95060114-002
It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal
consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at its regular
meeting of November 21, 1995.
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS:
Edward Willoughby, P.E. has submitted an application for minor site
plan approval and special exception use approval on behalf of the
St. Augustine of Canterbury Episcopal Church to expand an existing
place of worship at 475 43rd Avenue. The proposed expansion
consists of a 1,468 square foot building addition. Since the site
Is located within an RS -3 zoning district and the proposal would
expand the existing building area by more than 10%, special
exception use approval must be granted for the expansion. BOOK 96 P�vGE 6.14
NOVEMBER 21, 1995 11
BOOK 96 PnGE 615
At its regular meeting of October 26, 1995, the Planning and Zoning
Commission voted to recommend that the Board of County
Commissioners grant the special exception use request (see
attachment #4).
The Board of County Commissioners is now to consider and approve,
approve with conditions, or deny the special exception use request.
Pursuant to Section 971.05 of the LDRs, the Board of County
Commissioners is to consider the appropriateness of the requested
use for the subject site and surrounding area. The County may
attach any conditions and safeguards necessary to mitigate impacts
and to ensure compatibility of the use with the surrounding area.
Staff has reviewed the submitted proposal and has granted minor
site plan approval subject to the granting of special exception use
approval. Therefore, the minor site plan approval will become
effective when the Board of County Commissioners grants special
exception use approval.
ANALYSIS:
1. Zoning Classification: RS -3, Single Family Residential (up to
3 units per acre)
2. Land Use Designation: Low Density -1 (up to 3 units per acre)
3. Surrounding Land Use and Zoning:
North: Residential/RS-3
South: Residential and Government (Forestry Div.)/RS-
.3
East: 43rd Avenue and Residential/RS-6
West: Residential/RS-3
4. Total Site Area: 243,065 sq. ft. or 5.58 acres
5. Building Area: 8,524 sq. ft. existing
1,468 sq. ft. building addition
9,992 sq. ft. total
6. Total New Impervious Surface: 1,468 sq. ft. net increase
7. Open Space: Required:"40.0%
Provided: 74.1%
8. Traffic Circulation: Traffic circulation on the site will not
require any modifications to accommodate the addition to the
church. The existing access to 43rd Avenue and on-site
traffic circulation plan have been approved by the County
Traffic Engineer.
9. Off -Street Parking: Parking requirements for the existing
place of worship and the proposed addition are satisfied by
existing parking areas. The addition to the church will
provide a parish hall annex, meeting rooms, and storage areas,
uses which are considered accessory to the church and which do
not increase the amount of parking required on the site.
14. Special Exception General Review Criteria: In its review of
this application, staff has made the following findings in
regard to the general review criteria for special exception
uses found in LDR section 971.05(7) and (9);
1. Ingress/egress and traffic safety have been adequately
addressed in the site's access, parking lot, and building
access layout. All county codes relating to these issues
are satisfied.
2. Off-street parking and loading areas have been adequately
provided for the existing facility and proposed addition.
3. Utilities in the form of public water have been
adequately provided, and the site will continue to be
served by the existing on-site septic system.
4. Screening and buffering have been adequately provided by
an existing type "C" buffer along the perimeter of the -
site.
5. Required yards and open space have been accommodated by
the proposed design.
NOVEMBER 21, 1995 12
M
M
_I
6. Consistency with the comprehensive plan and LDR's: as
described in this report, the proposed use, intensity,
and site plan design are in accordance with the
comprehensive plan and LDRs.
7. Compatibility with surrounding uses: The project's
intensity, location, and screening are adequate to ensure
compatibility with surrounding uses.
8. Public health, safety, and welfare: No adverse impacts on
public health, safety, and welfare are anticipated, since
the project design meets all utility. services,
environmental health, traffic engineering and drainage
engineering requirements.
9. Orderly development: The project promotes orderly
development by being designed to properly fit into the
area roadway, utilities, and drainage network and by
being compatible with surrounding uses.
15. Specific Land Use Criteria: The following specific land use
criteria apply:
a. No building or structure shall be located closer than
thirty (30) feet to any property line abutting a
residential use or residentially designated property;
b. Access shall be from a major thoroughfare unless
otherwise approved by the public works department;
C. Any accessory residential use, day care facility or
school upon the premises shall provide such additional
lot area as required for such use by this section and
shall further be subject to all conditions set forth by
the reviewing procedures and standards for that
particular use. Accessory residential uses may include
convents, monasteries,- rectories or parsonages as
required by these regulations;
d• Type "C" screening shall be provided along all property
boundaries where the facility is located adjacent to a
single-family residentially designated property. Type
"D" screening shall be provided alongall property
boundaries when the facility is locatep
adjacent to to
multiple -family residentially designated property.
All of the above specific land use criteria have been
satisfied by this site plan application.
RECOMMENDATION:
Based on the analysis performed, staff recommends that the Board of
County Commissioners grant special exception use approval for the
requested expansion.
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.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Tippin, the Board unanimously granted
special exception use approval for the expansion of
St. Augustine of Canterbury Episcopal Church,
pursuant to staff's recommendations.
BOOK ss wt61s
NOVEMBER 21, 1995 13
BOOK 96 PAGE 617
BEN F. BAILEY III REQUEST TO AMEND COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
TO REDESIGNATE APPROXIMATELY 18.4 ACRES FROM L-2 TO M-1
AND TO REZONE THAT 18.4 ACRES FROM A-1 TO RM -8
NOTICE
OF
CHANGE OF LAND
USE AND
CHANGE
OF
COMPREHENSIVE
PLAN TEXT
The Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County,
Florida, 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, November 21, 1995, at
9:05 a.m. in the County Commission Chambers of the County Ad-
ministration Building, located at 1840 25th Street, Vero Beach,
Florida. At this public hearing the Board of County Commission-
ers will consider authorizing the transmittal of these amendments
to the state Department of Community Affairs for their review.
The proposed amendments are included in the proposed ordi-
nance entitled:
AN ORDINANCE OF INDIAN RIVER
COUNTY, FLORIDA, AMENDING THE
TEXT OF .THE TRAFFIC CIRCULATION EL-
EMENT AND THE CAPITAL IM-
PROVEMENTS ELEMENT OF THE
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN; AND AMEND-
ING THE FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT BY
CHANGING THE LAND USE DESIG-
NATION FOR +/-18.4 ACRES LOCATED
AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF 58th
AVENUE AND 26th STREET, FROM L-2 TO
M-1; AND PROVIDING CODIFICATION,
SEVERABILITY AND EFFECTIVE DATE.
Interested parties may appear and be heard at the public
hearing regarding the approval of these proposed Comprehen-
sive Plan Amendments.
The plan amendment applications may be inspected by the
public at the Community Development Department located on the
second flcor of the County Administration Building located at
1840 25th Str-3et, Vero Beach, Florida, between the hours of
8:30 a..n. and 5:00 p.m. on weekdays. NO FINAL ACTION WILL
BE TAKEN AT THIS MEETING.
Anyone who may wish to appeal any clecisicn which may be:
made at this meeting will need to ensure that a verbatim record
of the proceedings is made which includes the testimony and evi-
dence upon which the appeal will be based.
Anyone who needs a special accommodation for this meeting
must contact the county's Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA)
Coordinator at 567-8000 extension 223 at least 48 hours in ad-
vance of meeting. Indian River County
Board of County Commissioners
By: -s- Kenneth R. Macht, Chairman
NOVEMBER 21, 1995
14
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of November 9, 1995:
TO: James E. Chandler
County Administrator
rt
THROUGH: Sasan Rohani, AICPW *Orr.
Chief, Long -Ran a Planning
FROM: John Wachtel
Senior Planner, Long -Range Planning
DATE: November 9, 1995
RE: Ben F. Bailey, III, request to amend the comprehensive
plan to redesignate approximately 18.4 acres from L-2 to
M-1, and to rezone that 18.4 acres from A-1 to RM -8
PLAN AMENDMENT NUMBER: LUDA 95-07-0103
It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal
consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their regular
meeting of November 21, 1995.
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
This is a request to change the land use designation of
approximately 18.4 acres from L-2, Low -Density Residential -2 (up to
6 units/acre) to M-1, Medium -Density Residential -1 (up to 8 units/
acre), and to rezone that property from A-1, Agricultural District
(up to 1 unit/5 acres) to RM -8, Multiple -Family Residential
District (up to 8 units/acre). Located at the southeast corner of
26th Street and 58th Avenue, the subject property is owned by Ben
F. Bailey, III. The purpose of this request is to secure the land
use designation 'and zoning necessary to develop the site at a
higher residential density.
On October 12, 1995, the Planning and Zoning Commission -voted 7-0
recommend that the Board of County Commissioners transmit the
proposed land use amendment to the State Department of Community
Affairs (DCA) for their review. The Board of County Commissioners
is now to decide whether or not the subject request is to be
transmitted to DCA for their review.
Existing Land Use Pattern
Consisting of an abandoned grove, the subject property is zoned A-
1. Land abutting the site on the east is zoned RS -6, Single -Family
Residential District (up to 6 units/acre) and consists of single-
family subdivisions. The Ryanwood shopping center borders the site
on the south. That shopping center is zoned CG, General Commercial
District. To the west of the site, across 58th Avenue, land is
zoned RS -6, and is developed with a church and a single-family
subdivision.
BOOK 9 PAGE 6�
NOVEMBER 21, 1995 15
_I
BOOK 96 PAGE 619
In this area of the county, 26th Street is the boundary between the
city of Vero Beach and unincorporated Indian River County.
Consequently, the property to the north of the subject property,
across 26th Street, is within the Vero Beach city limits. That
property is zoned R-lA, Single -Family Residential District, on the
city's zoning map. The density of that property is governed by the
land use designation, which in this case allows up to 5 units/acre.
Currently, that land is heavily wooded and undeveloped.
Future Land Use Pattern
The subject property and properties to the east are designated L-2
on the county future land use map. The L-2 designation permits
residential uses with densities up to 6 units/acre. Land abutting
the subject property on the south, is designated C/I, Commercial/
Industrial on the county future land use map. The C/I designation
permits various commercial and industrial zoning districts. West
of the site, land is designated M-1 on the county future land use
map. The M-1 designation permits residential uses with densities
�^ up to 8 units/acre. The land north of the subject property in the
City of Verd Beach is designated RL, Residential Low, on the City's
future land use map. The RL designation permits residential uses
with densities up to 5 units/acre.
Environment
Being a site that has been cleared for agriculture, the subject
property is not designated as environmentally important or
environmentally sensitive by the comprehensive plan. No wetlands
or native upland plant communities exist on site. According to
Flood Insurance Rating Maps, the subject property does not contain
any flood hazard areas.
Utilities and'Services
The site is within the Urban Service Area of the county.
Wastewater service is available to the site from the West Regional
Wastewater Treatment Plant, while potable water service is
available to*the site from the South County Reverse Osmosis Plant.
Transportation System
The property's west boundary abuts 58th Avenue which is classified
as an urban principal arterial road on the future roadway
thoroughfare plan map. This segment of 58th Avenue is a two-lane
paved road with approximately 50 feet of existing public road
right-of-way. This portion of 58th Avenue is programmed for
expansion to four lanes and 120 feet of public road right-of-way by
2010.
The property's north boundary abuts 26th Street which is classified
as a collector road on the future roadway thoroughfare plan map and
is paved east of 58th Avenue. This segment of 26th Street is 'a 2 -
lane road with approximately 30 feet of public road right-of-way.
This portion of 26th Street is programmed for expansion to 80 feet
of public road right-of-way by 2010.
ANALYSIS
In this section, an analysis of the reasonableness of the
application will be presented. Specifically, this section will
include:
• an analysis of the proposed amendment's impact on public
facilities;
• an analysis of the proposed amendment's impact on the county's
residential allocation ratio;
• an analysis of the proposed amendment's consistency with thq
county's comprehensive plan;
NOVEMBER 21, 1995 16
an analysis of the proposed amendment's compatibility with the
surrounding area; and
an analysis of the proposed amendment's potential impact on
environmental quality.
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, Draifiage 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 land use amendment requests', conditional concurrency
review is required.
Conditional concurrency review examines the available capacity of
each facility with respect to a proposed project. Since land use
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 residential land use amendment requests, the most intense use
(according to the County's LDRs) is the maximum number of units
that could be built on the site, given the size of the property and
the maximum density under the proposed land use designation. The
site information used for the concurrency analysis is:as follows:
1. Size of Area to be Redesignated:
118.4 acres
2. Existing Land Use Designation: L= 2, Low -Density
Residential -2 (up to 6
units/acre)
3. Proposed Land Use Designation: M-1, Medium -Density
Residential -1 (up to 8
units/acre)
4. Most Intense Use of Subject
Property under Existing Land
Use Designation:
5. Most Intense Use of Subject
Property under Proposed Land
Use Designation:
- Transportation
110 single-family units
147 single-family units
A review of the traffic impacts that would result from the
development of the maximum number of units allowed on the subject
property under the proposed land use designation indicates that the
existing level of service "D" or better on impacted roadways would
not be lowered. The site information used for determining traffic
is as follows:
Existing Land Use Designation
1. Residential Use Identified in 5th Edition ITE Manual:
Single -Family _
BOOK 96 P�q.�F 6�0
NOVEMBER 21, 1995 1
BOOK 96 FAGE 62.11
2. For Single -Family Units in 5th Edition ITE Manual:
a. Average Weekday Trip Ends: 10.1/unit
b. P.M. Peak Hour Trip Ends: 1.01/unit
c. Inbound (P.M. Peak Hour): 65%
i. Westbound (P.M. Peak Hour): 80%
ii. Eastbound (P.M. Peak Hour): 20%
d. Outbound (P.M. Peak Hour): 35%
i. Westbound (P.M. Peak Hour): 20%
ii. Eastbound (P.M. Peak Hour): 80%
3. Peak Direction of 26th Street, from 43rd Avenue to 58th
Avenue: Westbound
4. Formula for Determining Number of Peak Hour/Peak Season/Peak
Direction Trips Generated: Number of Units X P.M. Peak Hour
Rate X Inbound P.M. Percentage X Inbound -Westbound Percentage
(110 X 1.01 X .65 X .80 = 58)
5. Formula for Determining Number of Average Weekday Trips
Generated: Number of Units X Average Weekday Rate
(110 X 10.1 = 11111)
Proposed Land Use Designation
1. Residential Use Identified in 5th Edition ITE Manual:
Single -Family
2. For Single -Family Units in 5th Edition ITE Manual:
a. Average Weekda,,
b. P.M. Peak Hour
C. Inbound (P.M.
i. Westbound
ii. Eastbound
d. Outbound (P.M.
i. Westbound
ii. Eastbound
Y Trip Ends: 10.1/unit
Trip Ends: 1.01/unit
Peak Hour).: 65%
(P.M. Peak Hour): 80%
(P.M. Peak Hour): 20%
Peak Hour): 35%
(P.M. Peak Hour): 20%
(P.M. Peak Hour): 80%
3. Peak Direction of 26th Street, from 43rd Avenue to 58th
Avenue: Westbound
4. Formula for Determining Number of Peak Hour/Peak Season/Peak
Direction Trips Generated: Number of Units X P.M. Peak Hour
Rate X Inbound P.M. Percentage X Inbound -Westbound Percentage
(147 X 1.01 X .65 X .80 = 77)
(trip distribution based on a Modified Gravity Model)
5. Formula for Determining Number of Average Weekday Trips
Generated: Number of Units X Average Weekday Rate
(147 X 10.1 = 1,485)
6. Traffic Capacity on this segment of 26th Street, at a Level of
Service "D": 630 peak hour/peak season/peak direction trips
7. Existing Traffic volume on this segment of 26th Street:
173 peak hour/peak season/peak direction trips
The number of Average Weekday Trip Ends associated with the most
intense use of the subject property under the existing land use
designation is 1,111. This was determined by multiplying the 110
units (most intense use) by ITE's single-family residential factor
Of 10.1 Average Daily Trip Ends/unit. '
The number of Average Weekday Trip Ends associated with the most
intense use of the subject property under the proposed land use
designation is 1,485. This was determined by multiplying the 147
units (most intense use), by ITE's single-family residential factor
of 10.1 Average Daily Trip Ends/unit.
NOVEMBER 21, 1995
LI
18
E_
Since the county's transportation level of service is based on peak
hour/peak season/peak direction characteristics, the transportation
concurrency analysis addresses project traffic occurring in the
peak hour and affecting the peak direction of impacted roadways.
According to ITE, the proposed use generates more volume in the
p.m. peak hour than in the a.m. peak hour. Therefore, the p -.m.
peak hour was used in the transportation concurrency analysis. The
peak direction during the p.m. peak hour on 26th Street is
westbound.
Given those conditions, the number of peak hour/peak season/peak
direction trips that would be generated by the most intense use of
the subject property under the existing land use designation was
calculated to be 58. This was determined by multiplying the total
number of units allowed (110) under the existing land use
designation by ITE's factor of 1.01 p.m. peak hour trips/unit, to
determine the total number of trips generated. Of these trips, 65%
(72) will be inbound and 35% (39) will be outbound. Of the inbound
trips, 80% or 58 will be westbound.
To determine the number of peak hour/peak season/peak direction
trips that would be generated by the .most intense use of the
subject property under the proposed land use designation, the total
number of units allowed under the proposed amendment (147) was
multiplied by ITE's factor of 1.01 p.m. peak hour trips/unit to
determine the total number of trips generated (148). Of these
trips, 65% (96) will be inbound and 35% (52) will be outbound. Of
the inbound trips, 80% or 77 will be westbound. Therefore, the
most intense use of the subject property under the proposed land
use designation would generate 19 (77 - 58 = 19) more peak
hour/peak season/peak direction trips than the 58 that would be
generated by the most intense use of the subject property under the
existing land use designation.
Using a modified gravity model and a hand assignment, the peak
hour/peak season/peak direction trips generated by the proposed use
were then assigned to impacted roads on the network. Impacted
roads are defined in section 910.09(4)(b)3 of the county's LDRs as
roadway segments which receive five percent (5%) or more of the
project traffic or fifty (50) or more of the project trips,
whichever is less.
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 26th Street adjacent to
this site is 630 trips (peak hour/peak season/peak direction) at
Level of Service (LOS) "D", while the existing traffic volume on
this segment of 26th Street is 173 trips (peak hour/peak
season/peak direction). The additional 77 peak hour/peak
season/peak direction trips created by the most intense use of the
subject property under the proposed amendment would increase the
total peak hour/peak season/peak direction trips for this segment
of 26th Street to approximately 250.
Based on the above analysis, staff determined that 26th Street and
all other impacted roads can accommodate the additional trips
without decreasing their existing levels of service.
The table below identifies each of the impacted roadway segments
associated with the proposed land use designation. As indicated in
this table, there is sufficient capacity in all of the segments to
accommodate the projected traffic associated with the request.
BOOK 96 N�;E 62.0`
NOVEMBER 21, 1995 19
A
_I
BOOK 96 PnE 623
TRAFFIC CONCURRENCY DETERMINATION
Impacted'Road Segments
(peak hour/peak season/peak direction)
Segment
Roadway
Segment Road From To LOS "D"
1920E
1920W
1925E
1925W
1930E
1930W
1935E
1935W
1940E
1940W
1945E
1945W
1950E
1950W
2470N
2470S
2925N
2925S
2930N
29308
2935N
2935S
2940N
29405
302ON
3020S
3025N
3025S
303ON
3030S
4720E
41-20W
4730E
4730W
S.R. 60
S.R. 60
S.R. 60
S.R. 60
S.R. 60
S.R. 60
S.R. 60
S.R. 60
S.R. 60
S.R. 60
S.R. 60
S.R. 60
S.R. 60
S.R. 60
27th Avenue
27th Avenue
43rd Avenue
43rd Avenue
43rd Avenue
43rd Avenue
43rd Avenue
43rd Avenue
43rd Avenue
43rd Avenue
58th Avenue
58th Avenue
58th Avenue
58th Avenue
58th Avenue
58th Avenue
26th Street
26th Street
26th Street
26th Street
82nd Avenue
82nd Avenue
66th Avenue
66th Avenue
58th Avenue
58th Avenue
43rd Avenue
43rd Avenue
27th Avenue
27th Avenue
20th Avenue
20th Avenue
Old Dixie Highway
Old Dixie Highway
16th Street
16th Street
12th Street
12th Street
16th Street
16th Street
S.R. 60
S.R. 60
26th Street
26th Street
12th Street
12th Street
16th Street
16th Street
S.R. 60
S.R. 60
66th Avenue
66th Avenue
58th Avenue
58th Avenue
66th Avenue
2,210
66th Avenue
2,210
58th Avenue
2,650
58th Avenue
2,650
43rd Avenue
2,650
43rd Avenue
2,650
27th Avenue
2,650
27th Avenue
2,650
20th Avenue
2,330
20th Avenue
2,330
Old Dixie Highway
2,328
Old Dixie Highway
2,328
10th Avenue
2,328
10th Avenue
2,328
S.R. 60
830
S.R. 60
830
16th Street
830
16th Street
830
S.R. 60
830
S.R. 60
830
26th Street
830
26th Street
830
41st Street
690
41st Street
690
16th Street
690
16th Street
690
S.R. 60
1,770
S.R. 60
1,770
41st Street
1,770
41st Street
1,770
58th Avenue
630
58th Avenue
630
43rd Avenue
630
43rd Avenue
630
Roadway
Existing
Existing
Demand
Vested
Total
Available
Positive
Segment
Volume
Volume
Segment
Demand
Segment
Project
Concurrenc•r
Capacity
Demand
Determination
1920E
1045
426
1471
739
5
1920W
971
391
1362
848
3
Y
1925E
1925W
945
411
1356
1294
10
Y
Y
1930E
991
985
396
700
1387
1263
5
Y
1930W
1147
681
1685
1828
965
822
13
24
Y
1935E
1102
457
1559
1091
13
Y
Y
1935W
1940E
1156
435
1591
1059
24
Y
1940W
791
896
345
331
1136
1194
8
Y
1945E
919 _
308
1227
1227
1103
1101
14
5
Y
1945W
1950E
708
294
1002
1326
10
Y
Y
1950W
885
742
239
232
1124
1204
3
Y
2470N
225
36
974
261
1354
569
5
5
Y
2470S
428
41
469
361
3
Y
Y
2925N
667
30
697
133
5
Y
29255
505
28
533
297
3
Y
2930N
29305
667
67
734
96
10
Y
2935N
505
340
67
114
572
258
5
Y
2935S
413
116
454
529
376
301
14
8
Y
2940N
416
52
468
222
3
Y
Y
2940S
302ON
285
191
53
33B
352
5
Y
3020S
138
53
54
244
192
446
498
5
Y
3025N
3025S
423
240
663
1107
3
10
Y
Y
3030N -
416
538
238
147
654
1116
5
Y
3030S
388
161
685
549
1085
1221
34
96
Y
4720E
4720W
87
173
8
95
535
10
Y
Y
4730E
87
7
63
200
150
450
480
5
41
Y
4730W
-173
52
225
405
77
Y
Y
NOVEMBER 21, 1995 20
- Water
With the proposed land use designation, the subject property could
accommodate 147 residential units, resulting in water consumption
at a rate of 147 Equivalent Residential Units (ERU), or 36,750
gallons/day. This is based upon a level of service of 250
gallons/ERU/day. The subject property is presently served by.the
South County Reverse Osmosis Plant which currently has a remaining
capacity of approximately 2,100,000 gallons/day and can accommodate
the additional demand generated by the proposed amendment. When
the North County Reverse Osmosis Plant is complete, it will serve
the subject, property. This plant, which is currently being
designed, will have a capacity of approximately 2,000,000
gallons/day and will be able to accommodate the additional demand
generated by the proposed amendment.
- Wastewater
Based upon the most intense use allowed under the proposed
amendment, development of the property will have a wastewater
generation rate of approximately 147 Equivalent Residential Units
(ERU), or 36,750 gallons/day. This is based upon the level of
service standard of 250 gallons/ERU/day. County wastewater lines
extend to the site from the West Regional Wastewater Treatment
Plant, which currently has a remaining capacity of more than
800,000 gallons/day and can accommodate the additional wastewater
generated by the proposed amendment.
- Solid Waste
Solid waste service includes pick-up by private operators and
disposal at the county landfill. The county's adopted level of
service standard for landfill capacity is 2.37 cubic yards/person/
year. With the county's average of approximately 2.3 persons/unit,
a 147 unit residential development would be anticipated to house
approximately 338 people (2.3 X 147). For the subject request to
meet the county's adopted level of service standard of 2.37 cubic
yards/person/year, the landfill must have enough capacity to
accommodate approximately 801 (338 X 2.37) cubic yards/year.
A review of the solid waste capacity for the active segment of the
county landfill indicates the availability of more than 895,000
cubic yards. The active segment of the landfill has a 2 year
capacity, and the landfill has expansion capacity beyond 2010.
Based on the analysis, staff determined that the county landfill
can accommodate the additional solid waste generated by the site
under the proposed zoning district.
- 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. Since
the site is located within the M-1 Drainage Basin and the Indian
River Farms Water Control District (IRFWCD), development on the
property will be prohibited from discharging any runoff in excess
of two inches in a twenty-four 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 property does not lie within a
floodplain. However, both the on-site retention and discharge
standards apply. With the most intense use of this site under the
proposed amendment, the maximum area of impervious surface would be
approximately 240,451 square feet, or 5.52 acres. The maximum
runoff volume, based on that amount of impervious surface and the
25 year/24 hour design storm, and given the IRFWCD two inch
discharge requirement, would be approximately 569,736 cubic feet.
NOVEMBER 21, 1995
21
BOOK 96
Baof 96 prE 625
In order to maintain the county's adopted level of service, the
applicant would be required to retain approximately 436,152 cubic
feet of runoff on-site. With the soil characteristics of the
subject property, it is estimated that the pre -development runoff
rate is 96.05 cubic feet/second.
Based upon staff's analysis, the drainage level of service standard
would be met 'by limiting off-site discharge to the IRFWCD's maximum
discharge rate of two inches in twenty-four hours, and requiring
retention of the 436,152 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
A review of county recreation facilities and the projected demand
that would result from the most intense development that could
occur on the property under the proposed amendment indicates that
the adopted levels of service would be maintained. The table below
illustrates the additional park demand associated with the proposed
development of the property and the existing surplus acreage by
park type. LOS
Project
(Acres per Demand Surplus
Park Time 1000 population) Acres Acreage
Urban District 5.0 1.69 180.818
Community (south) 1.25 0.42 8.054
Beach 1.5 0.51 64.645
River 1.5 0.51 25.642
Based upon the analysis conducted, staff has determined that all
concurrency -mandated facilities, including drainage, roads, solid
waste, recreation, water, and wastewater have adequate capacity to
accommodate the most intense use of the subject property under the
proposed amendment. Therefore, the concurrency test has been
satisfied for the subject request.
Impact on the Residential Allocation Ratio
Of particular importance to this request is the impact of the land
use change on the county's Residential Allocation Ratio (RAR). A
RAR is the measure of total residential units allowed under the
land use plan compared to the'number of residential units expected
to be needed through the plan's planning horizon, based on
population projections.
In 1990, when the comprehensive plan was adopted, it allowed over
119,000 units. In this case, the proposed amendment would increase
the maximum number of residential units allowed on the site by 37.
That increase would have an insignificant impact on the county's
RAR.
More than off -setting the 37 unit increase that would occur with
the proposed amendment is the reduction in build -out units that has
resulted from land use plan amendment approvals since plan
adoption. Since plan adoption, several land use amendments
involving residentially designated land within the urban service
area have been approved. The effect of these amendments has been
a net decrease of 1,169 units in the county's build -out projection.
The following table depicts the information used to determine the
change in the number of units. Since the C/I, RC, and C-1
designations are not intended for residential uses, land use
amendments redesignating land from residential to C/I, RC, or C-1
reduce the number of units allowed. Similarly, land use amendments
redesignating land from one type of residential to a lower density
residential reduce the number of units allowed.
NOVEMBER 21, 1995 22
In contrast, amendments redesignating land from C/I, RC, or C-1 to
residential, or from one type of residential to a higher density
residential, increase the number of units allowed. Staff estimates
that 25% of land designated for residential uses is used for
infrastructure such as roads and stormwater retention. Therefore,
the net developable acreage is 75% of the total acreage.
LAND USE AMENDNENTS RESULTING IN A NET CHANGE IN # OF UNITS
AMEl81.
L-1
3/1
BUT
MAX.
8/1
UNITS/
MAX.
NET CHANGE
NAME FROM
UNITS/AC.
ACRES
ACRES
UNITS
TO
ACRE
UNITS
IN UNITS
Feldman
Ag -1
1/5
Windsor
C/I
0 -
Bob. Assoc.
L-2
6/1
Oslo Park C-2
1/40
233.00
174.75
4
C-1
0
0
-4
M-2
10/1
65.00
48.75
487
C-1
0
0
-487
Tarby M-1
8/1
130.30
97.73
781
RC
0
0
-781
Rhodes R
1/1
159.00
119.25
119
L-1
3/1
357
+238
Brewer
L-1
3/1
K8R groves
M-2
8/1
McRae M-2
C/I
0
Korine
L-1
3/1
Smith
L-2
6/1
Koerner
M-1
8/1
Feldman
Ag -1
1/5
Windsor
C/I
0 -
Bob. Assoc.
L-2
6/1
Bob. Assoc.
M-1
8/1
6.40
8.40
8.40
4.80 14
6.30
6.30
15.00 11.25
1.86 1.40
0.31 0.23
40.00 30.00
15.33 11.50
4.00
4.00
Ames L-1
3/1
20.00
Rockwell L-2
6/1
0.32
McRae M-2
10/1
6.80
Oslo Plaza L-2
TOTAL
6/1
4.63
3.00
3.00
15.00
0.24
5.10
3.62
50
0
33
8
1
6
0
18
24
45
1
51
21
AO -1 1/5
C/I 0
L-2 ''6/1
C/I 0
C/I 0
C/I 0
R
L-2
1/1
6/1
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
37
0
0
0
30
69
0
0
0
0
0
0
-1
+24
+69
-18
-24
-45
-1
-51
-21
-1169
Because the comprehensive plan allowed over 119,000 units when it
was adopted, the 37 unit increase associated with the proposed
amendment would have a negligible impact on the county's RAR, even
if land use amendments had not lowered the number of units allowed
by the plan. When considering the 11169 unit reduction in build-
out projections resulting from land use amendments, it is obvious
that the reduction more than compensates for the additional 37
units associated with this request. For these reasons, the
proposed amendment's impact on the county's RAR is insignificant.
Consistency with Comprehensive Plan
Land use amendment requests are reviewed for consistency with all
policies of the comprehensive plan. As per section 800.07(1) of
the LDRs, the "comprehensive plan may only be amended in such a way
as to preserve the internal consistency of the plan pursuant to
Section 163.3177(2) F.S." Amendments must also show consistency
with the overall designation of land uses as depicted on the Future
Land Use Map, which includes agricultural, residential,
recreational, conservation, and commercial and industrial land uses
and their densities.
The goals, objectives and policies are the most important parts of
the comprehensive plan. Policies are statements in the plan which
identify actions which the county will take in order to direct the
community's development. As courses of action committed to by the
county, policies provide the basis for all county land development
BOOK 96 PvUR26
NOVEMBER 21, 1995 23
BOOK' 96 PAH 627
related decisions --including plan amendment decisions. While all
comprehensive plan objectives and policies are important, some have
more applicability than others in reviewing plan amendment
requests. Of particular applicability for this request are the
following objectives and policies.
- Future Land Use Element Policy 13.3
In evaluating a land use amendment request, the most important
consideration is Future Land Use Element Policy 13.3. This policy
requires that one of three criteria be met in order to approve a
land use amendment request. These -criter A -are:
• a mistake in the approved plan;
an oversight in the approved plan; or
• a substantial change in circumstances affecting the subject
property.
Based on its analysis, staff feels that the proposed land use
amendment meets policy 13.3's third criterion.
The subject property is located adjacent to the S.R. 60 and 58th
Avenue Commercial/Industrial Node. On July 19, 1994, the Board of
County Commissioners approved a land use amendment that enlarged
that node by 130.3 acres. That land use amendment was associated
with the Indian- River Mall Development of Regional Impact (DRI) for
a regional shopping center consisting of approximately 1.5 million
square feet of retail space. A Development Order for that DRI was
also approved on July 19, 1994. On June 8, 1995, approximately
1.275 million square feet of that shopping center received site
plan approval from.the county.
The Indian River Mall land use amendment and development approvals
directly affect land surrounding the node in 2 ways, both related
to housing. First, the Indian River Mall will make the node one of
the county's largest employment centers, thus generating a
substantial increase in the" need for moderately -priced nearby
housing.
Additionally, the Indian River Mall land use amendment resulted in
the loss of 130.3 acres of M-1 designated land. Thus, that
amendment not only helped create additional demand for medium -
density housing, but it also reduced the amount of land designated
for that use.
Since these actions constitute a change in circumstances, the third
criterion of Future Land Use Element Policy 13.3 has been met, and
the proposed amendment is consistent with Future Land Use Element
Policy 13.3.
- Future Land Use Element Objective 1
Future Land Use Element Objective 1 states that the county will
have a compact land use pattern which reduces urban sprawl. By
increasing the density of land currently within the urban service
area, as opposed to expanding the urban service area, the county
can efficiently support growth without creating urban sprawl or
sacrificing compactness. For these reasons, the proposed amendment
is consistent with Future Land Use Element Objective 1.
- Future Land Use Element Policy 1.13
Future Land Use Element Policy 1.13 states.that the M-1, Medium -
Density Residential -1 land use designation is intended for areas
which are suitable for urban scale development and intensities, and
are within the urban service area.
The following factors demonstrate that the site is suitable for
urban scale development and intensities:
1. The site is located within the urban service area..
NOVEMBER 21, 1995 24
s � �
2. Potable water and sanitary sewer service are available to the
site.
3. The location of the site, at the intersection of 2 major roads
with other major roads nearby, indicates that the
transportation demands of urban scale development on the site
can be met. '
4. The site abuts a major commercial/industrial node.
5. The site is across the street from land currently designated
M-1.
Since the site is suitable for urban scale development and
intensities, the proposed amendment is consistent with Future Land
Use Element Policy 1.13.
- Future Land Use Element Objective 4
Future Land Use Element Objective 4 states that the county will
reduce the number and length of trips on county roads by
implementing a land use pattern which places residential areas near
commercial and employment areas.
The site is located near several employment centers including the
Vero Beach Municipal Airport, Dogertown, and the S.R. 60/58th
Avenue-Commercial/Industrial Node. Since the S.R. 60/58th Avenue
Commercial/ Industrial Node. is one of the county's fastest
developing nodes, it will soon become one of the county's largest
employment centers. Most people who will work in that node will
live in moderately -priced medium -density housing. The proposed
amendment places land designated for medium -density residential
uses adjacent to that node. Therefore, the proposed amendment will
increase the opportunity for people who work in the node to live
near their job, thus reducing the length of their trips to and from
work. For this reason, the proposed amendment implements Future
Land Use Element Objective 4.
- Future Land Use Element Policy 4.1
Future Land Use Element Policy 4.1 states that land use categories
shall be designated in a manner which concentrates urban uses,
thereby discouraging urban sprawl.
By increasing the density of land currently within the urban
service area, as opposed to expanding the urban service area, the
Proposed amendment concentrates growth in the area designated for
urban uses. For this reason, the proposed amendment is consistent
with Future Land Use Element Policy 4.1.
- Future Land Use Element Policies 2.5 and 4.4
Future Land Use Element Policies 2.5 and 4.4 state that the county
will encourage and direct growth into the urban service area and
areas near urban centers. Since the proposed amendment would allow
and encourage more development on the subject property, and the
subject property is within the urban service area and near an urban
center, the request implements Future Land Use Element Policies 2.5
and 4.4.
- Economic Development Element Policies 8.1 and 8.5
Economic Development Element Policies 8.1 and 8.5 address the use
of incentives, including increased densities, to reduce the cost
per housing unit and to encourage the provision of affordable
housing. By allowing increased density on the subject property,
the request would implement Economic Development Element Policies
8.1 and 8.5.
NOVEMBER 21, 1995 25 BOOK 96 FAH. 620
_I
BOOK 96 PACE 629
- Mass Transit Element Policy 1.2
Mass Transit Element Policy 1.2_ states that the county will,
through the future land use element, provide higher densities along
major transportation corridors in order to facilitate future mass
transit provision. Since the proposed amendment will increase the
allowed density along and near several major transportation
corridors, this request is consistent with Mass Transit Element
Policy 1.2.
As part of its consistency analysis, staff compared the proposed
request to all the objectives and policies in the plan and found no
conflicts. Therefore, staff's position is that the proposed
amendment is consistent with the comprehensive plan.
Compatibility with the Surrounding Area
Staff's position is that granting the request to redesignate the
subject property to M-1 and to rezone it to RM -8 would result in
development which is appropriate for the site and that such
development would be compatible with surrounding areas. Because
the area is located near an'urban center of the county, with
convenient access to employment and shopping, the area is
particularly suited for medium -density multiple -family development.
Since land -to the west is designated M-1, the request is for the
continuation of an existing land use designation pattern.
The primary impacts of development on the site would be on the
abutting single-family zoned area to the east. The western portion
of that area, containing the partially developed Walkers Glen West
subdivision, is presently in the platting process. While
considering the impacts of multiple -family development, staff
considered that the site plan approval process can somewhat
mitigate those impacts on adjacent single-family lots. Through
required separation and buffers, county LDRs can often lessen the
impacts of development.
In this case, single-family zoned lots east of the subject property
would likely abut the subject property with their front or rear
yards which would be required to be a minimum of 20 feet wide. The
approved preliminary plat for Walkers Glen West shows only 2 lots
abutting the subject property. Both of those lots contain a 20
foot wide drainage easement along their border with the subject
property. Additionally, the preliminary plat depicts a 6 foot high
fence located 20 feet east of the subject property along the entire
length of the subdivision. Finally, both lots are at least 90 feet
wide, which allows the option of siting the buildings further from
the subject property.
Under the requested RM -8 zoning district, development on the
subject property would be required to provide a landscaped buffer
yard that is at least 10 feet wide along the property's eastern
border. Additionally, building coverage for multiple -family
development on the site would be restricted to a maximum of 25% of
the lot, while a minimum of 40% of the site must be open, or green,
space. Finally, LDR chapter 926 requires perimeter landscaping, as
well as landscaping of parking lots, and open space.
For these reasons, staff feels the requested land use designation
and zoning district would be compatible with the surrounding area.
Potential Impact on Environmental Quality
Environmental impacts of residential development on the_ subject
property would be the same under either the existing or the
proposed land use designation. The site has been cleared, and
contains no environmentally important land, such as wetlands or
NOVEMBER 21, 1995 26
uplands. Therefore, development of the site is anticipated to have
little or no impact on environmental quality. For this reason, no
adverse environmental impacts associated with this request are
anticipated.
CONCLUSION
Based on the analysis, staff has determined that the requested land
use designation and zoning district are compatible with surrounding
areas, consistent with the comprehensive plan, meet all concurrency
criteria, will have no negative impacts on environmental quality,
and meet all applicable land use designation amendment and rezoning
criteria. The data and analysis demonstrate that the proposed
amendment will have an insignificant impact on the county's RAR.
Most importantly, the subject property is located in an area deemed
suited for medium -density multiple -family residential uses. For
these reasons, staff supports"the request.
RECOMMENDATION
Based on the analysis, staff and the Planning and Zoning Commission
recommend that the Board of County Commissioners transmit this
land use amendment to DCA and request DCA and all reviewing
agencies to conduct a full review of the amendment.
Community Development Director Robert Keating reviewed the
Comp Plan amendment process, advising that this is the first public
hearing before the Board of County Commissioners on this land use
amendment request. If the Board approves the transmittal of this
application to the Department of Community Affairs (DCA) in
Tallahassee for their 90 -day review, a second and final public
hearing will be scheduled to consider any comments made by the DCA
and whether to adopt an ordinance amending the Comp Plan by
redesignating the land use. If the Board denies the transmittal of
an application to the DCA, the application process will come to an
end.
The Chairman opened the public hearing and asked if anyone
wished to be heard in this matter.
Attorney Bruce Barkett of 756 Beachland Boulevard,
representing the applicant, advised that he is here to answer any
questions the Commissioners might have.
The Chairman asked if anyone else wished to be heard in this
matter. There being none, he closed the public hearing.
dD K n r f
NOVEMBER 21, 1995 27
wK 96
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Tippin, the Board unanimously adopted
Resolution 95-144, approving the transmittal of a
proposed amendment to the Indian River County
Comprehensive Plan to the State of Florida
Department of Community Affairs for their review.
RESOLUTION NO. 95-144
A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN
RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, APPROVING THE TRANSMITTAL OF A PROPOSED
AMENDMENT TO THE INDIAN RIVER COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TO THE
STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS FOR THEIR
REVIEW.
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners adopted the Indian
River County Comprehensive Plan on February 13, 1990, and
WHEREAS, the county received comprehensive plan amendment
applications during its July 1995 amendment submittal window, and
WHEREAS, the Local Planning Agency held a public hearing on
this comprehensive plan amendment request on October 12•, 1995 after
due public notice, and
WHEREAS, the Local Planning Agency voted 7 to 0 to recommend
that the Board of County Commissioners transmit the comprehensive
plan amendment listed below; and
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River
County held a Transmittal Public Hearing on November 21, 1995,
after advertising pursuant to F.S. 163.3184(15)(b)(1), and
WHEREAS, The Board of County Commissioners announced at the
transmittal public hearing its intention to hold and advertise a
final public hearing at the adoption stage of the plan amendments.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA THAT:
1. The above recitals are ratified in their entirety.
2. The following proposed amendment is approved for
transmittal to the State of Florida Department of
Community Affairs for written comment:
Request to amend the Future Land Use Map of the
Comprehensive Plan from L-2, Low -Density
Residential -2 (up to 6 units/acre)-to M-1; Medium -
Density Residential -1 (up to 8 units/acre) for
±18.4 acres located at the southeast corner of 26th
Street and 58th Avenue.
NOVEMBER 21, 1995 28
1W
M.
RESOLUTION NO. 95- 144
The forgoing Resolution was offered by Commissioner
Eggert. and seconded by Commissioner lippin and upon
being put to a vote the vote was as follows:
Chairman Kenneth R. Macht Aye
Vice -Chairman Fran B. Adams Aye
Commissioner Richard N. Bird _Aye
Commissioner Carolyn K. Eggert AXe
Commissioner John W. Tippin Aye
The Chairman thereupon declared the resolution duly passed and
adopted at a public hearing held this 21st day of November 1995.
BOARD OFLINTY COMMISSIONERS
INDIAN RAR COUNT FLORIDA
BY:
ATTEST:
1 r JefTTV1yBarton, Cle
'J 1
AN.
COUNTY INITIATED REQUEST TO AMEND TRAFFIC CIRCULATION
ELEMENT AND CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS ELEMENT OF
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
NOTICE
OF
CHANGE OF LAND
USE "'AND
CHANGE
OF
COMPREHENSIVE
PLAN
TEXT
The Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County,
Florida, 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. Apublic hearing on
the proposal will be held on Tuesday, November 21, 1995, at
9:05 a.m, in the County Commission Chambers of the County Ad-
ministration Building, located at 1840 25th Street, Vero Beach,
Florida. At this public hearing the Board of County Commission-
ers will consider authorizing the transmittal of these amendments
to the state Department of Community Affairs for their review.
The proposed amendments are included in the proposed ordi-
nance entitled:. AN ORDINANCE OF INDIAN RIVER
COUNTY, FLORIDA, AMENDING THE
TEXT OF THE TRAFFIC CIRCULATION EL-
EMENT AND THE CAPITAL IM-
PROVEMENTS ELEMENT OF THE
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN; AND AMEND-
ING THE FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT BY
CHANGING THE LAND USE DESIG-
NATION FOR +/-18.4 ACRES LOCATED
AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF 58th
AVENUE AND 26th STREET, FROM L-2 TO
M-1; AND PROVIDING CODIFICATION,
SEVERABILITY AND EFFECTIVE DATE.
NOVEMBER 21, 1995 29 BOOK 96 F,,rE 6.3
BOOK
Interested parties may appear and be heard at the public
hearing regarding the approval of these proposed Comprehen-
sive Plan Amendments.
The plan amendment applications may be inspected by the
public at the Community Development Department located on the
second floor of the County Administration Building located at
1840 25th Street, Vero Beach, Florida., between the hours of
8:30 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. on weekdays. NQ FINAL ACTION WILL
BE TAKEN AT THIS MEETING.
Anyone who 'may wish toappeal any decision which may be
made at this meeting will need to ensure that a verbatim record
of the proceedings is made which includes the testimony and evi-
ddnce upon which the appeal will be based.
Anyone who needs a special accommodation for this meeting
must contact the county's Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA)
Coordinator at 567-8000 extension 223 at least 48 hours in ad-
vance of meeting.
Indian River County
Board of County Commissioners
By: -s- Kenneth R. Macht, Chairman
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of November 14, 1995:
96 F.,E633
TO: James E. Chandler
County Administrator
D HEAD CONCURRENCE
obert M.-"'XedftnCfpk1CjT
Community Develop ent Di PC or
THROUGH: Sasan Rohani, AICP S - %z .
Chief, Long-Rangp Planning
FROM: John Wachtel,
Staff Planner, Long -Range Planning
DATE: November 14, 1995
RE: COUNTY INITIATED REQUEST TO AMEND THE TRAFFIC CIRCULATION
ELEMENT AND THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS ELEMENT OF THE
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.
PLAN AMENDMENT NUMBER: CPTA 95-07-0133
It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal
consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their regular
meeting of November 21, 1995.
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
On February 13, 1990, Indian River County adopted its comprehensive
plan. As required by state law, all development activities must be
consistent with the comprehensive plan, and all county activities
must conform to plan policies. Occasionally, the plan must be
updated to reflect the latest and best available information and to
address changed conditions. Additionally, the plan must
periodically be reviewed and revised in- order to reflect the
community's changing needs and desires, as well as changes to state
law and requirements. For those reasons, the county has initiated
this amendment.
Recently, staff determined that two elements of the plan need to be
revised. The affected elements are the Traffic Circulation Element
and the Capital Improvements Element.
NOVEMBER 21, 1995
30
The proposed additions and deletions to, the plan are shown on
attachment 2. In this attachment, deletions are indicated by
strike throughs, while additions are shown as underlined. Maps and
Tables are labeled as either existing or proposed.
On October 26, 1995, the Planning and Zoning Commission voted 4-1
to recommend that the Board of County Commissioners transmit the
proposed amendment,_with one modification, to the State Department
of Community Affairs (DCA) for their review. The modification
recommended by the Planning and Zoning Commission involves the
proposed changes to the Capital Improvements Element. While the
proposed amendment would have allowed up to a three year period
between the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy (CO) for a
development project and the construction of roads needed to serve
that development, the Planning and Zoning Commission felt that the
three year "lag" period was too long and that a one year "lag"
period was more reasonable.
The Board of County Commissioners is now to decide whether or not
the subject request is to be transmitted to DCA for their review.
DESCRIPTION OF THE AMENDMENTS BY ELEMENT
In this section, the proposed amendments to each plan element will
be discussed. The purpose is to identify the various portions of
the plan needing amendment and to present justification for the
amendment requests—
Traffic
equests—
Traffic Circulation Element
Since the 1990 adoption of the current comprehensive plan, Vero
Beach and the densely developed area surrounding it have been
designated "urban" by the Census, and a Metropolitan Planning
Organization (MPO) has been established. Consisting of
representatives from each local government in the county, the MPO
is the primary transportation planning agency for the county.
On June 14, 1995, after substantial public participation, the MPO
adopted a 2020 Long Range Transportation Plan. That plan is based
on the latest and best available data.
While working on the transportation element of the county's
Evaluation and Appraisal Report (EAR), county staff discovered
several minor inconsistencies between the MPO plan and the county
comprehensive plan. Consistency between these plans facilitates
their implementation and administration. Additionally, state and
federal regulations require such consistency. To ensure
consistency between the comprehensive plan and the MPO plan, this
amendment request was initiated.
The Traffic Circulation Element amendment consists of adding new
Table 4.7.4, which consists of improvements scheduled for 1996-2010
in the MPO plan, and new Policy 1.5 which adopts Table 4-.7.4 and
gives that table priority where it conflicts with other tables in
the element. In the future, all tables in the Traffic Circulation
Element will be updated and revised. This will be done in
conjunction with plan amendments associated with the county's
comprehensive plan Evaluation and Appraisal Report.
The proposed amendment to the Traffic Circulation Element will also
update Figure 4.5.2, the Existing Roadway Functional Classification
Map, and Figure 4.13.2, the Future Roadway Functional
Classification Map. The proposed amendments to these maps involve
changing the functional classification of the portion of S.R. 60
between I-95 and 100th Avenue from Rural Principal Arterial to
Urban Principal Arterial. This change will reflect the urbanized
area designation established after the 1990 census.
Capital Improvements Element
One of the principal components of the Local Government
Comprehensive Planning and Land Development Regulation Act of 1985
was a requirement that each local government in the state include
a concurrency management plan as part of its capital improvements
element. As enacted, the state planning law defined concurrency
strictly, essentially requiring that adequate facilities (for
potable water, sanitary sewer, solid waste, drainage, parks, and
roads) be available concurrent with the impacts of new development.
Recently, however, the legislature amended the concurrency law,
providing local governments more flexibility in implementing the
NOVEMBER 21, 1995 31 bm 96 PA1,JE 634
BOOK 9 6 PA:JE 635
concurrency requirement. This proposed amendment to the capital
improvements element would allow the county to apply the state's
more flexible concurrency regulations.
Although six types of facilities are subject to the state's
concurrency mandate, the major focus is on transportation.
Statewide, it has been the lack of adequate roads which has delayed
or eliminated development projects. This has occurred not only
because of the cost of building new roads or widening existing
roads, but also because of the long lag time between identification
of a roadway level -of -service problem and completing a major
roadway improvement.project.
For these reasons, the legislature recently modified several
provisions of the state concurrency law. Among those changes, the
most significant was a modification of when a roadway improvement
would have to be in place in order to consider the capacity
provided by the improvement available to accommodate the demands of
new development. Previously, state law required that a roadway
improvement necessary to serve a development project either be in
place or be under construction prior to issuance of a development
order for a project needing that improvement.
Besides those transportation concurrency provisions, state law also
allowed issuance of a development permit for a project, where
roadways impacted by the project would not maintain adequate
service levels, as long as the needed roadway improvements were
guaranteed by an enforceable developer's agreement or an executed
contract to be under construction within one year of development
order approval, or were included within the first three years of
the local government's or FDOT's five year capital improvements
program with the condition that minimum level of service standards
for the roadways be maintained. As amended, the state concurrency
law now allows local governments to approve development projects
where existing roads are inadequate to accommodate additional
development, but necessary roadway improvements will be under
construction within three years of issuance of a certificate of
occupancy for the project.
The major difference between state law as it was before and as it
is now is that previously a local government could approve a
development project where adequate roads to serve the project were
not in place at the time of development order approval if the local
government had requirements in place to ensure that adequate roads
would be in* place to accommodate the project's impacts. Under
present state law, a local government may approve a development
project, where adequate roads to serve the project do not exist,
even if the needed roadways will not be under construction until
three years after issuance of the development project's certificate
of occupancy --with no requirement to maintain minimum acceptable
levels of service.
To take maximum advantage of the more flexible state concurrency
law, the county must amend the concurrency management plan
component of its capital improvements element. The principal
changes involve modifying the timeframe for commencing construction
of a needed roadway facility to be constructed pursuant to a
binding contract or a developer's agreement from one year after
development order approval to three years after issuance of a
certificate of occupancy for the project. In addition, the
provision to allow issuance of development orders for projects
needing roadway improvements reflected in the county's capital
improvements plan must be modified.
The modification of the portion of the Capital Improvements Element
which allows roadway improvements within the county's capital
improvement program to be considered in determining roadway
capacity available for development projects involves several
components. These are that the improvement must be in place or
under construction not more than three years from issuance of a
certificate of occupancy for a development project needing the
improvement; that the capital improvements element include the
improvement's estimated date of commencement of actual construction
and the estimated date of completion; and that the Capital
Improvements Element include a requirement that, if this allowance
is used to meet the.concurrency requirement for a project, -then a
comprehensive plan amendment will be required if any roadway
improvement project needed to maintain levels of service is
deferred, delayed, or eliminated.
NOVEMBER 21, 1995 32
M
M
To use these provisions to approve a development project where
existing roadways are not adequate to accommodate the impacts of a
project but where a roadway improvement that would accommodate the
project's demand is in the county's or FDOT's capital improvement
program, the needed roadway must be identified in the capital
improvements element with specific start and completion dates.
Recognizing that certain roadways are approaching capacity but are
programmed for improvements,' staff has prepared Table 13.24. That
table lists several roadway improvement projects along with their
start and completion dates. In adopting Table 13.24 as an
amendment to the capital improvements element, the county will
allow development projects that might be denied because of level -
of -service deficiencies with the roadways shown in Table 13.24 to
be approved based upon the county's commitment to make the required
improvements in the referenced timeframes.
To implement the proposed changes, the Capital Improvements Element
amendment must update the text of the Capital Improvements Element
to reflect changes in state law. That update includes new table
13.24 which gives the estimated date of commencement of actual
construction and the estimated date of project completion for
priority transportation projects.
The Capital Improvements Element amendment includes new policy 5.13
which specifically adopts table 13.24. The amendment also includes
changes to tables 13.8, 13.18 and 13.23 .to maintain the -internal
consistency of the element.
ANALYSIS
Following a discussion of the consistency of the proposed
amendments with the comprehensive plan, this section will present
an analysis of the reasonableness of each of the proposed
amendments.
CONSISTENCY WITH THE 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."
The goals, objectives and policies are the most important parts of
the comprehensive plan. Policies are statements in the plan which
identify the actions which the county will take in order to direct
the community's development. As courses of action committed to by
the county, policies provide the basis for all county land
development related decisions --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 to these proposed amendments are the
following policies and objectives.
Future Land Use Element Policy 13.3
In evaluating any comprehensive plan amendment request, the most
important consideration is Future Land Use Element Policy 13.3.
This policy requires that at least one of three criteria be met in
order to approve a comprehensive plan amendment. These criteria
are:
a mistake in the approved plan;
an oversight in the approved plan; or
a substantial change in circumstances.
Based on its analysis, staff believes that the proposed amendments
meet the third criterion.
- Traffic Circulation Element
When the comprehensive plan was adopted, the county did not have an
MPO. Since that time, an MPO has been established, and that MPO
has adopted a 2020 Long Range Transportation Plan that is based on
the latest and best available data. The establishment of an Indian
River County MPO, and the development of the MPO's 2020 Long Range
Transportation Plan, constitute a substantial change in
circumstances. For that reason, the proposed amendment meets
Future Land Use Element Policy 13.3's third criterion and is
consistent with Future Land Use Element Policy 13.3.
NOVEMBER 21, 1995 33 BOOK 96 pA,E 6"6
Boa 96 pv. 'z 637
The third criterion of Future Land Use Element Policy 13.3 also
applies to the changes to Figures 4.5.2 and 4.13.2. These changes
update the functional classification from Rural Principal Arterial
to Urban Principal Arterial for S.R. 60 between I-95 and 100th
Avenue.
After the 1990 Census, the boundary of the county's urbanized area
expanded west along S.R. 60 from I-95 to 100th Avenue. The
expansion of the urbanized area constitutes a substantial change in
circumstances. For that reason, the proposed amendment meets
Future Land Use Element Policy 13.3's third criterion and is
consistent with Future Land Use Element Policy 13.3.
- Capital Improvements Element
State law determines the conditions under which programmed
improvements to a roadway may be considered when assessing the
roadway's capacity. Since plan adoption, state law regarding this
issue has been changed. That revision to state law constitutes a
substantial change in circumstances. For that reason, the proposed
amendment meets Future Land Use Element Policy 13.3's third
criterion and is consistent with Future Land Use Element Policy
13.3.
Consistency with Other Comprehensive Plan Policies and Objectives
While Future Land Use Element Policy 13.3 is of special relevance
to all comprehensive plan amendments, other objectives and policies
are also applicable.
- Transportation Element
Transportation Element Policy 8.1 specifically states that the
county recognizes that the county will be designated "urban" and
that an MPO will be established. Policy 8.1 also states that the
county will work for a coordinated transition to MPO status.
Additionally, Economic Development Element Objective 9 states that
the county will facilitate coordination and cooperation among
governmental jurisdiction and agencies. By eliminating
inconsistencies between the comprehensive plan and the MPO plan,
the proposed amendment implements Transportation Element Policy 8.1
and Economic Development Element Objective 9.
- Capital Improvements Element
The proposed amendment increases the county's flexibility for
determining when facility infrastructure capacity can be considered
available. For that reason, the proposed amendment is consistent
with several plan policies that require the maintenance of minimum
LOS. Those policies include Capital Improvements Element Objective
3 and Policy 3.5, and Traffic Circulation Element Policies 1.1 and
2.1.
While the referenced objectives and policies, including Future Land
Use Element Policy 13.3, are particularly applicable to this
request, other comprehensive plan policies and objectives also have
relevance. For that reason, staff evaluated the subject request
for consistency with all plan policies and objectives. Based upon
that analysis, staff determined that the proposed changes to the
Traffic Circulation and Capital Improvements Elements are
consistent with the comprehensive plan.
ANALYSIS OF REASONABLENESS OF PROPOSED AMENDMENTS
Traffic Circulation Element
The proposed changes to the Traffic Circulation Element will
incorporate the latest and best available data into the
comprehensive plan. They will also cause the plan to more
accurately reflect current conditions and programmed improvements.
The proposed amendments ensure that the ccqunty plan will be
consistent with the MPO's long range plan. Since all state and
federal highway improvement expenditures must be approved by the
affected MPO, the MPO is the county's primary transportation
planning agency. By giving priority, when conflicts occur, to new
table 4.7.4, which is consistent with the MPO plan, the new Policy
1.5 will ensure that the comprehensive plan is consistent with the
MPO plan. With the adoption of the EAR recommended comprehensive
plan amendments, all of the tables in the transportation element
will be consistent with each other and with the MPO plan.
NOVEMBER 21, 1995 34
Capital Improvements Element
The proposed capital improvements element amendment would have a
number of implications for the county. While the added concurrency
provisions would provide the county more flexibility in approving
development projects where adequate road capacity to accommodate
the impacts of new development projects does not presently exist,
the result would be more congestion and roadways operating below
minimum acceptable levels -of -service. Consequently, adoption of
this amendment and Application of the flexible concurrency
provisions could adversely affect quality of life in the county.
As structured, the more flexible state concurrency law reflects a
philosophy that inadequate levels -of -service (in terms of traffic,
this means more congestion) are.acceptable for a short period of
time (essentially three years) as long as improvements needed to
meet service level standards are committed and will be constructed
within three years of project certificate of occupancy. By
adopting these more flexible standards, the county would be
accepting a tradeoff. As a result, the county could allow
development projects to be approved and constructed even though
adequate roadway capacity to serve those projects does not exist,
with the tradeoff being that the public would experience congestion
on affected roadways.
Besides the level-of-service/congestion issue associated with the
proposed capital improvements element amendment, there is another
important issue which must be considered. That issue relates to
the county's liability in case programmed improvements are delayed
or eliminated.
As indicated in the proposed amendment wording, the county must
commit to timeframes for beginning and completing roadway
improvements identified in the capital improvements program if the
capacity to be produced by those improvements is to be considered
available in approving new development projects which otherwise
would not meet concurrency requirements. Another condition for
applying the capacity from future road improvements to new
development projects is that the county must commit to submitting
a comprehensive plan amendment if any of the programmed improvement
projects needed to accommodate the impacts of new development
projects are delayed, deferred, or eliminated.
This last condition imposes potential liability on the county if
for some reason, either financial, legal, technical, or other, the
county cannot start or complete a project on time. Because that
condition requires a comprehensive plan amendment in the case of
project delay, deferral or elimination, the state then would be
involved in the process. In its review of an amendment to delay,
defer or eliminate an improvement project needed to serve
development projects that have already been approved and may
already have been constructed, the state could potentially require
the county to rescind development orders, withhold certificates of
occupancy, construct alternative roadway improvements, or take
other action. Since the county will approve development orders
based upon its commitment to make roadway improvements, the county
must be prepared to meet its commitments or incur unknown
consequences.
Although the state's concurrency law has been changed to allow more
flexibility in implementing concurrency, the county is not
obligated to adopt these provisions. By retaining its current
requirements, however, the county will probably soon be in a
position where it must deny development project applications
because of roadway level -of -service problems. Adopting the
proposed amendment will allow the county to approve such projects,
but at a cost. The cost will be more, but temporary, traffic
congestion on some roads, and added financial risk to the county if
programmed projects are not started or completed on time.
For the reasons identified above, the Planning and Zoning
Commission voted to recommend that the Board of County
Commissioners not take full advantage of the state's more flexible
concurrency requirements. Recognizing that allowing roadways to
operate below minimum acceptable levels of service.for more than
three years would adversely affect the quality of life in the
county, the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended that the
three year concurrency allowance be changed to one year.
Given those considerations, it is staff's position that adopting
the Planning and Zoning Commission's recommendation will be
sufficient. While the Planning and Zoning Commission's
NOVEMBER 21, 1995 35 BOOK 96 P4E 6.38
BOOK 96 PAGE 639
recommendation gives the county less concurrency flexibility, this
alternative will ensure that any traffic congestion and quality of
life impacts will be of shorter duration. At the same time,
development projects can be approved, and growth will not be
restricted. And over a longer timeframe, level -of -service
standards will be adequate.
CONCLUSION
The proposed amendments will enhance the plan by updating the
Traffic Circulation and Capital Improvement Elements to reflect new
conditions and information, as well as changes to state law. The
analysis also demonstrates that these amendments will maintain the
plan's internal consistency. For these reasons, staff supports the
adoption of the proposed amendments.
RECOMMENDATION
Based on the analysis, staff recommends that the Board of County
Commissioners transmit the proposed amendments to the State
Department of Community Affairs for their review.
Community Development Director Robert Keating reviewed the
Comp Plan amendment process, advising that this is the first public
hearing before the Board of County Commissioners on this land use
amendment request. If the Board approves the transmittal of this
application to the Department of Community Affairs (DCA) in
Tallahassee for their 90 -day review, a second and final public
hearing will be scheduled to consider any comments made by the DCA
and whether to adopt an ordinance amending the Comp Plan by
redesignating the land use. If the Board denies the transmittal of
an application to the DCA, the application process will come to an
end. This is a text amendment to the Comp Plan to assist in
designating CR -510 and CR -512 as arterial instead of collector
roads. The County now has some flexibility for planning capital
improvements and a portion of the amendment would provide that the
capital improvements completion date can be as long as 3 years
after issuance of the certificate of occupancy. The Planning &
Zoning Commission felt 3 years was too long and recommended using
1 year. Staff's recommendation at this time is also that not more
than 1 year be allowed after issuance of the certificate of
occupancy for commencement of construction.
Commissioner Eggert felt the County should know prior to
issuance of a certificate of occupancy whether or not the road
could be built. She wondered whether DCA could force the County to
build the roads, and Director Keating did not know the extent of
their powers.
County Attorney Vitunac emphasized that if the County does not
carry through on construction of the roads, the burden should not
revert to the developer.
Commissioner Adams agreed that these projects normally fall
behind schedule because of unexpected delays and felt that it was
NOVEMBER 21, 1995 36
important that neither the County nor the developer be penalized.
Potential development in Indian River County may generate 1,500
cars per day when after 1 .year the road system will still only
handle 700.
Director Keating felt that future development was one reason
for the action; however, normally facilities should be in place
prior to approval of a project. He believed that the State is now
making allowances for unavoidable delays which occur.
Commissioner Adams stated that it generally takes more than 1
year just to plan these capital improvement projects and believed
the 1 year period creates a real potential for log jams.
Commissioner Tippin was concerned about flexibility and felt
that a 2 year period might give more leeway without DCA getting
involved.
Commissioner Eggert agreed but felt that 3 years would be too
much.
The Chairman opened the public hearing and asked if anyone
wished to be heard in this matter.
George Moody of 4990 65th Street questioned the change and
wondered why, if you do not have the facilities, you would not just
refuse to build the projects.
The Chairman asked if anyone else wished to be heard in this
matter. There being none, he closed the public hearing.
Under discussion, Commissioner Eggert felt that 2 years might
be too much leeway and preferred 1 year.
Commissioner Tippin suggested a compromise of "up to 2 years".
ON MOTION by Commissioner Tippin, SECONDED by
Commissioner Eggert, the Board unanimously adopted
Resolution 95-145 approving the transmittal of a
proposed amendment to the Indian River County
Comprehensive Plan to the State of Florida
Department of Community Affairs for their review;
with an amendment to the level of concurrency being
changed to "up to 2 years".
NOVEMBER 21, 1995 37 BOOK 96 P,,t,F 640
BOOK . 96 F.,,:E 64-1
RESOLUTION NO. 95-145
A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN
RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, APPROVING THE TRANSMITTAL OF A PROPOSED
AMENDMENT TO THE INDIAN RIVER COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TO THE
STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS FOR THEIR
REVIEW.
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners adopted the Indian
River County Comprehensive Plan on February 13, 1990, and
WHEREAS, the county received comprehensive plan amendment
applications during its July, 1995 amendment submittal window, and
WHEREAS, the Local Planning Agency held a public hearing on
this comprehensive plan amendment request on October 26, 1995 after
due public notice, and
WHEREAS, the Local Planning Agency made a recommendation to
the Board of County Commissioners regarding the transmittal of the
comprehensive plan amendment listed below to the State of Florida
Department of Community Affairs; and
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River
County held a Transmittal Public Hearing on November 21, 1995,
after advertising pursuant to F.S. 163.3184(15)(b)(1), and
WHEREAS, The Board of County Commissioners announced at the
transmittal public hearing its intention to hold and advertise a
final public hearing at the adoption stage of the plan amendment.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA THAT:
1. The above recitals are ratified in their entirety.
2. The following proposed amendment is approved for
transmittal to the State of Florida Department of
Community Affairs for written comment:
Request to amend the Capital Improvements Element
and the Traffic Circulation Element of the
Comprehensive Plan.
The forgoing Resolution was offered by Commissioner
TiDDin and seconded by Commissioner Eggert and upon
being put to a vote the vote was as follows:
Chairman Kenneth R. Macht Ave
Vice -Chairman Fran B. Adams Ave
Commissioner Richard N. Bird Ave
Commissioner Carolyn K. Eggert Aye
Commissioner John W. Tippin Aye
The Chairman thereupon declared the resolution duly passed and
adopted at a public hearing held this 21st day of November 1995.
BOARD OF CCOMMISSIONERS
INDIAN R R C FLORIDA
BY: ,
nneth R. c t, hai n
ATTEST:
SaV_.jZ�Z,�**)
n - Je E Barton, Clerk
b.e .
NOVEMBER 21, 1995 38
WABASSO CORRIDOR TASK FORCE'S REQUEST TO APPROVE
WABASSO CORRIDOR PLAN
VERO BEACH PRESS -JOURNAL
Published Daily
Vero Beach, Indian River County, Florida
COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER: STATE OF FLORIDA
Before the undersigned authority personally appeared J. J. Schumann, Jr. who on oath
says that he is Business Manager of the Vero Beach Press -journal, a daily newspaper published
at Vero Beach in Indian River County, Florida: that the attached copy of advertisement, being
a /)
in the matter ofv�"Le Vote,
In the /�/Court, was pub-
(-41
ub•
C
lished in said newspaper in the issues of,--
Affiant further says that the said Vero Beach Press -journal is a newspaper published at
Nero Beach, in said Indian River County. Florida, and that the said newspaper has heretofore
been continuously published in said Indian River County. Florida, each daily and has been
entered as second class mail matter at the post office in Vero Beach, in said Indian River Coun•
ty. Florida, for a period of one year next preceding the first publication of the attached copy of
advertisement: and affiant further says that he has neither paid nor promised any person, firm
or corporation any discount, rebate. commission or refund for the purpose of securing this
advertisement for publication in the said newspaper. C/�,,�` /// .rte
nrllWbscribed before me this day oVAOI�• 19 ®
O •�'i•NO1�� 4 'L (Business Manage"
'• r Nn a°?"7n`^rrr. : m n•.r°r.AnA r. rrnAG1II N07ARY P11R11G
t .
_t ',� ,� �'� 1' .• • I.mm•r.•.p,•• IIUIMw• (.C1txM,7? pr
n,da-q BARBARA SPNAGI•r
OF ON TIE
of TIE wABAseO ooRlnooA RM
w"ab°>�ao to of
oollebar ale a
A pubic tlsasaion 1d be hob by ale fioald of
callalraslenels d Ydm RW colady, Fla►
klaale c�lra,raabn al.ngbe�fatga l
RIM
1848 vem Beads, Flalltfism. Tueadeft.
Ntnlelr" 21, et8.-%a.M.
Copies ®1 aro plan may be q! If from ale YIdM
FOW Catttmsrry Developowd• P&M-l�D
umdarL litcaled all to seoond floor al ate coursy
NOVEMBER 21, 1995 39
IhMl1p hosted to 18:0 25a1 fibset.
ccq*ls of f,,a pilin w7l sho be avttllebte et me meet-
Myone who needs a apodal a000mmoddari far
ars must aoldat I the couay's Nnertm
Act lig pie Ceardridw �. �noe a
BowdofnnNhll hlld 160/49
Nov. Ii, 1885
bom 96 F�su 642
BOOK 96 FA".F 643
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of November 14, 1995:
TO:
James E. Chandler
County Administrator
PAR NT BEAD CONCURRENCE
L4Wbert 14._ ating A
Community Developmen31"rec
THROUGH:
Sasan Rohani, AICD S .n ,
Chief, Long -Range Planning
FROM:
John Wachte]W
Staff Planner, Long -Range Planning
DATE:
November 14, 1995
RE: WABASSO CORRIDOR TASK FORCE'S REQUEST TO
APPROVE THE WABASSO'CORRIDOR PLAN
It is requested that, the data herein presented be given formal
consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their regular
meeting of November 21, 1995.
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
On May 2, 1995, the Board of County Commissioners established a
Wabasso Corridor Plan Task Force to work with planning staff to
develop a corridor plan for the Wabasso area. A copy of that plan
is attached.
The Board of County Commissioners is now to consider and act on the
plan. With respect to this matter, the Board may adopt the plan as
presented, amend the plan, or reject the plan.
If the Board formally adopts the plan, all specific aspects of the
plan will be formally in effect. Also, as a follow-up to plan
adoption, the regulatory aspects of the plan will be incorporated
within the county's land development regulations (LDRs) through an
LDR amendment. As with any LDR amendment, a corridor -related LDR
amendment would be reviewed by the Planning and Zoning Commission
prior to final action by the Board.
Background
Development of the Wabasso Corridor Plan was initiated by people in
the Wabasso area. Recognizing that growth pressures (e.g.
population increases, Disney's residential resort, and the R&R
Groves land use amendment) were increasing in Wabasso, several
Wabasso property owners approached planning staff in July, 1994,
regarding the development of a corridor plan that would protect and
enhance the appearance of US 1 and CR 510 in the Wabasso area.
Together, planning staff and Wabasso property owners approached the
Board of County Commissioners with this request. On August 23,
1994, the Board directed planning staff to work with members of the
Wabasso community and prepare a Wabasso Corridor Plan.
In an effort to prepare the corridor plan, three -community meetim"
were held. While the first two meetings were successful in
identifying community concerns and community desires, the third
meeting was unsuccessful. At that meeting, a small group of people
opposed to the corridor planning effort prevented discussion and
disrupted the meeting. At that point, efforts to work on the plan
through a community -wide meeting format stalled.
Undeterred, a group of Wabasso landowners circulated petitions
within the community and demonstrated support for continuation of
the corridor planning process. On May 2, 1995, in response to this
indication of support, the Board of County Commissioners appointed
a 15 member Wabasso Corridor Plan Task Force to work with planning
staff to develop a corridor plan.
The task force held ten public meetings from May, 1995 through
November 1995, including a field trip to a planned corridor in the
city of Port Orange. At various times, these meetings were
attended by interested parties. From the time that an initial plan
was formulated by the Task Force, staff has applied the "pending
ordinance doctrine" to new development proposals in an effort to
ensure that new development would generally comply with the intent
of the proposed plan.
NOVEMBER 21, 1995 40
On -September 20, 1995, the Wabasso'Corridor Plan was presented to
the public at a public meeting. A majority of the public comments
were positive and supportive of the pla*:: A copy of the summary of
public comments regarding the draft Wabasso Corridor Plan is
attached (see attachment #1).
Pn-October 26, 1995, the Planning and Zoning Commission considered
tAe Wabasso Corridor Plan at a public meeting. At that meeting,
the Planning and Zoning Commission voted 5-0 to recommend that the
Eoard of'County Commissioners formally adopt the Wabasso Corridor
Plan.
he Plafthing and Zoning Commission, however, did ask the task force
.o recolsider the plan's prohibition of certain uses, particularly
a proposed prohibition on the display, sales, and rentals of boats.
lior that reason, the task force met again on November 8, 1995.
At the November 8th meeting, task force members discussed several
Psues, including the corridor plan's prohibition of sales and
rentals'�'of boats and automobiles. Based upon staff's position
ghat, when such activities take place indoors, those activities are
considered general retail sales and, therefore, would be allowed
even under the prohibition proposed in the Corridor Plan, the task
force voted to retain the corridor plan's prohibition of outdoor
.,.ales ands" display of automobiles and boats in the Corridor Plan
area.
Plan Description
*Corridor Plan Boundaries
The corridor's planning boundaries extend along CR 510 from 66th
h.Yenue to -SR A1A, and along US 1 from 81st Street to 95th Street.
Planning area boundaries at the CR 510/66th Avenue and CR 510/AlA
rntersections include properties at all four corners of those
intersections.
The US 1 Corridor currently contains a mix of commercial uses,
single- and multiple -family residential uses, citrus groves and
Vacant land. Land along CR 510 between 66th Avenue and 58th Avenue
contains mostly residential uses. The exception is a 5.28 acre
commerdial`area on the south side of CR 510. Between the Florida
East Coast Railroad Tracks and 58th Avenue, land along CR 510 is
presently characterized by heavy commercial and light industrial
development. Between 46th Avenue and SR AlA, residential land uses
dominate.
•Private Sector Responsibilities
The plan~" outlines both private sector and public sector
responsibilities that must be fulfilled to achieve the plan's
vision statement. Private sector responsibilities focus on new,
nQn-res$d6ntial development that must comply with special
regulations. Within the plan area, both countywide regulations and
special regulations. would apply. Where there is a difference
between= -the countywide LDRs and the special regulations, the
special regulations would prevail.
The special regulations would apply only to new non-residential
development. All existing development would be "grandfathered in",
or exempt --from the special regulations. The plan also contains a
set of vifliintary architectural guidelines. The special regulations
primarily pertain to the following:
Signs. The plan reduces the maximum height limit for new signs
from 30"feet to 10 feet, andeliminates visible sign poles by
rpquiring,monument-style signs, or landscaping around poles. As a
tradeoff for reducing sign height, the plan also allows those signs
to be located closer to roadways by reducing the required front
yard setback of such signs from 5 feet to 1 foot. The only
rgductiorr in the size of the actual sign copy area proposed would
apply to larger, multi -tenant sites (e.g. shopping centers), where
signs that are normally allowed to be 150 square feet and 200
square feet in area would be limited to 120 square feet and 160
square feet, respectively.
Roofs. The plan requires all new buildings to have a sloped roof
on all sides, or a recognizable architectural style that uses flat
roofs. This regulation is intended to avoid a stark, "box -like"
building appearance.
Landscaping. The plan requires some landscaped buffers and
fo ndation plantings that are not now required by the LDRs.
Er�-anced landscaping along CR 510 and -US 1 is an essential part of
these requirements. There are also requirements for additional
u9derstory trees along local roads and in buffers required between
non-residential and residential uses. Landscaping materials are
r%"fired to follow a theme which emphasizes native plants.
C fors. The plan requires earth -tone and pastel colored buildings.
Bght, garish building colors are prohibited, although accent
cc
ors are allowed.
NOVEMBER 21, 1995 41 Bou 96 F -a-;► 644
$qloK 96 r:,fr 645
Uses. The plan prohibits some uses which, by their nature and
appearance, are often unenclosed, unaesthetic and inappropriate
within an aesthetically enhanced plan area. Prohibited uses
include:
• automobile/motorized vehicles display, sales, or rentals;
• mobile home display, sales, or rentals;
• boat display, sales, or rentals;
• drive-in theaters;
• recycling centers;
• transmission towers;
• flea markets;
• transient merchant uses; and
• temporary sales events that require temporary use permits and
are conducted outside of enclosed buildings.
The plan also mandates that some allowable uses meet certain
building orientation and screening requirements.
•Public Sector Responsibilities
For the Wabasso Corridor Plan to be successful, Indian River County
must participate in corridor development. Accordingly, the plan
calls for the county to take several actions within the corridor
area. These actions generally pertain to the provision and
maintenance of infrastructure, facilitation of traffic flow, code
enforcement, and the appearance and use of public property.
ANALYSIS
After consulting with members of the development community, staff
determined that the only requirements of the plan that would
increase development costs were the enhanced landscaping
requirements. Those costs, however, were only a small percentage
of overall site development costs for new development projects.
Generally, the provisions of the plan would protect and enhance the
character and attractiveness of Wabasso. Through landscaping and
building design, the plan would visually define Wabasso by ensuring
that new development would' not result in stark, "box -like"
buildings and by providing for a well landscaped roadway corridor
in the Wabasso area.
Two landscaping provisions included in the plan do not directly
apply to the US 1 or CR 510 frontages of sites. These provisions
would require extra understory trees along a non-residential
development site's local road frontage and along any buffer strip
required between a non-residential development site and an adjacent
residential area. Because these provisions' would enhance
appearance and buffering, staff is generally supportive of such
efforts. However, it is also staff's opinion that these
enhancements have countywide implications and should be considered
for any non-residential/residential buffer strip and for any local
road in a commercial (not necessarily industrial) area.
Staff agrees with the task force that some uses have
characteristics that make them inherently inconsistent with the
plan's vision statement. Generally, large facilities that include
outdoor storage and sales, such as boat and car dealerships, are
difficult to shield with landscaping. The task force did consider
that several of the plan's prohibited uses could take place
indoors. In that case, the uses would be considered general retail
and would be allowed.
Planning staff supports the Wabasso Corridor Plan. Implementation
of the plan will, for little additional cost, work to enhance the
attractiveness of, visually define, and protect the special
character of the Wabasso area.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff and the Planning and Zoning Commission recommend that the
Board of County Commissioners formally adopt the Wabasso Corridor
Plan.
Tom Lowe, 9080 US #1, planning director of the Wabasso
Corridor Task Force, advised that the Plan encompasses the
development and preservation of green areas. The Task Force held
NOVEMBER 21, 1995 42
M M M
3 public meetings in the fall of 1994 and used the Port Orange
corridor plan as a framework. He expressed the Task Force's thanks
for the opportunity to develop the Plan.
Commissioner Eggert questioned the "prohibited uses" on page
152 of the backup and wanted to be sure bulk display and showrooms
were not prohibited.
Director Boling confirmed that was correct.
Commissioner Eggert then suggested it would be useful to
insert "outdoor" in front of the prohibited use
"automobile/motorized vehicle display, sales or rentals".
Commissioner Bird questioned staff's conclusion that the only
increased development costs were enhanced landscaping requirements,
and Director Boling responded that the information available was
that the development community did not see any significant
difference in designing.
Commissioner Bird then questioned the location of Port Orange
and Director Boling advised that it is a suburb of Daytona.
Commissioner Bird wanted to know if the new development
regulations will be effective in older areas, and Director Boling
advised that staff is recommending decreased setbacks in older
established areas. The Port Orange Plan requires a 50 foot buffer
setback which staff is not recommending.
Chairman Macht felt the monument signs are no guarantee of
aesthetics and are as ugly as home-made soap. He wondered whether
the aesthetic requirements could be increased and how much control,
short of architectural review, would remain on signs.
Director Boling advised that the only controls would be in
landscaping but voluntary compliance could be sought.
The Chairman opened the public hearing and asked if anyone
wished to be heard in this matter.
Brian Berklew of 1029 Easter Lily Lane, a commercial real
estate broker, felt that there are a few points which need to be
fine-tuned. He felt that the front buffers consisting of a 4 foot
opaque barrier would hide a sign in a shopping center from
occupants of a car and felt that 3 feet would allow someone in a
car to recognize the structure. He also felt the increased
landscaping requirements, rather than a proposed $700 additional
cost, for a 1 acre site, 200' x 2001, would increase the cost by
$4200. As a developer, he felt that additional cost could be
absorbed. The next objection he had referred to the roofing
requirements on Page 15 of the Plan. He felt it would not be
necessary to wrap the entire building but only the facade and a
NOVEMBER 21, 1995
43
Boa 96 PrAcE 646
BOOK OP NA E 64 7
little on the edges which would give a good appearance. He
believed that wrapping the roof all the way around the building is
just an additional cost which is not entirely necessary. He also
sent a copy of the "voluntary guidelines" on Page 27 of the Plan to
the Brevard County planning staff for their comments and one of
their suggestions was that a clarification should be made as to
what is voluntary and what is not.
Chairman Macht questioned Mr. Berklew's observation about the
height of the hedges, and Commissioner Eggert commented that she
has never been aware of a problem with people seeing over a 4 foot
hedge.
Director Keating commented that the recommendation is to
cluster the trees so that signs are not completely hidden.
Nancy offut of the Realtors Association of Indian River County
advised her organization favors proper planning with enforcement of
existing ordinances. She is aware that the citizens in Wabasso are
interested in improving their community but wanted everyone not to
lose sight of an owner's right to use his or her property. She
felt that style, color and design are personal to each of us and
the offensive will be rejected. She felt the Plan is very well
intended but suggested its adoption would add additional,
unnecessary criteria in the County and urged the Commissioners to
reject the Plan.
Mrs. Wooley of 9350 North US #1 presented some photographs of
Wabasso and asked the Commissioners to notice the well -manicured
lawns and well-maintained homes. She mentioned the abandoned gas
station which she felt was a dangerment but was encouraged that her
griping had gotten rid of the pile of dirt left there. She felt
that if the Task Force is allowed to enforce the Plan, we will have
another McKee Jungle Garden. She mentioned that a complaint had
been filed with the Sheriff's department that a boat was found
abandoned in the driveway of Rock City Nursery. She believed that
if the bushes are allowed to grow and are not maintained, the
tourists would not be able to see the shopping centers. Mrs.
Wooley was not against the Corridor Plan and expressed her love for
beautiful trees but felt that a lot more planning should be done.
Toni Robinson of 1491 Treasure Cove Lane, past president of
the Indian River Land Trust, commended the Task Force. She felt
that people come to Indian River County because of the high quality
of life and believed the Plan would enhance this quality of life.
She -expressed her concern about boat and jet ski rentals and her
belief that they are a potential threat. She encouraged the
Commissioners to adopt the Plan.
NOVEMBER 21, 1995 44
Mr.- Wooley of 9350 N US #1 felt there should be less
government intervention and pointed out that the current zoning
laws cannot be enforced.
George Moody of 4990. 65th Street believed the Plan is
unconstitutional and stated that if it passes, he will hire a
lawyer, probably on contingency, and pursue the matter. He
anticipated that he might lose the battle but still the war would
be fought. He felt that planners like to puff their resumes and
possibly would be offered more money someplace else; in which case
they would be gone but the citizens would still be here.
Lomax Gwathmey of 23 Seahorse Lane read a letter from The
Civic Association of Vero Beach and Indian River County supporting
the Plan.
Jeffrey Farrow of 1951 Sandpiper Road, representing Windsor
and Orchid Island Properties, expressed his support for the Plan.
Stacy Miller of 1250 34th Avenue, questioned the Plan's
wording regarding boat, car and jet ski sales, and Director Keating
advised that staff would revise the wording' to make -the intent
clear.
Ms. Miller felt the landscaping is great and hoped Wabasso
would be able to do the same thing as Port Orange.
Ruth Myers of 1990 Sand Dollar, Wabasso, felt that commercial
development in Port Orange had no problems with the opaque buffers,
and, without getting into philosophical or political rights, she
wanted to comment that Disney World and Port Orange businesses
operate very successfully under these guidelines without
diminishing the quality of life.
Silas Axtel of 1440 Fern Park, representing the Sea Oaks
community, stated that he is in favor of the Plan and cautioned
that Wabasso can look like Port Orange or like Fort Pierce.
Tom Lowe stated again that Port Orange had no trouble with the
landscaping requirements and the Shell station pictured for the
Board was the most successful in the State of Florida. He also
corrected Mrs. Wooley's comment that a boat had been found and
reported to the Sheriff's department and stated that it was a
"bullet" found by his son, not a boat.
Bob Bruce, president of North Beach Civic Association, read a
letter in support of the Plan and commented that first impressions
are very important.
Heidi Gorsuch of Wabasso emphasized that an enormous amount of
time had been spent on the Plan and urged the County Commissioners
to preserve Wabasso and accept the recommendations of the Task
Force. She felt it is a reasonable overall plan and that increased
attention to aesthetics will attract businesses and increase
BOOK96 �i3f64�
NOVEMBER 21, 1995 45
Boor 96 pArF649
property values. She believed that many of the costs mentioned are
relatively low-end costs with long-term benefits and that the
improved property values will benefit all Wabasso property owners.
Paul Nace of Coralstone Condominium Association endorsed the
Plan but expressed his concern about maintenance of the landscaping
buffers.
Reith Pelan of 601 21st Street, the site planner, commented
that he works a lot with large corporate clients who take every
opportunity to build cost effectively. He cited Treasure Coast
Plaza which is not very pretty from the rear and felt that shopping
centers typically abut a residential area from the rear which is
the area that needs attention. He urged the Commissioners to adopt
the Plan and said that he was happy to have been a part of it.
Steve Lewis, a member of the Task Force, asked Director
Keating to clarify the intention with regard to indoor sales for
boats, and Director Keating emphasized that indoor retail sales are
recommended and in general use. He felt it would be helpful to
everyone if staff could clarify the language.
The Chairman asked if anyone else wished to be heard in this
matter. There being none, he closed the public hearing.
Under discussion, Commissioners Adams and Eggert expressed
their concern that some of the language needs to be revised.
Commissioner Tippin felt it is always a problem when
government gets involved in aesthetics and commented that everyone
should realize how individualized aesthetics are. He further
commented that we should realize how many girls wouldn't have had
a date, or fellows too, if we all had to agree what is handsome.
He felt that Port Orange started from scratch and he noted that no
pictures of redevelopment in Port Orange were shown.
Commissioner Bird appreciated the work that went into this but
felt that if he were someone who already owned a piece of property
or lived on the beach and only drove through the area occasionally,
he also would want it to look like a rose garden. He felt that the
Board had not received an accurate picture in that we have not
received any comments from people who own existing property on the
Corridor. He believed the Plan exceeds the ordinances currently on
the books that made Indian River County the special place that it
is and that those ordinances are adequate 'to see it remains a
special place. He did not want to see government make additional
restrictions. He believed it would be fine when you start from
scratch in a newly developing area, but this Plan goes too far and
is unnecessary.
NOVEMBER 21, 1995 46
Commissioner Adams thought it is a wonderful opportunity and
that the kinks can be worked out. She suggested that the County
try to implement it, maybe during a trial period to see how it
works.
Commissioner Bird pointed out that Disney is now in operation
and he does not see a boom. He felt any growth will be because of
residential development and that the commercial area will develop
and have a prosperous future under the existing ordinances.
Chairman Macht asked the Commissioners to remember this is a
small area with an element of fragility and that the citizens of
the County have a bigger stake in this. He inquired whether there
was any latitude for a PD element in the Plan, and Director Keating
advised that any developer could take that direction but did not
believe it could be made mandatory.
Commissioner Eggert felt that if the Plan is adopted at this
time and is not working within a few years, it can be adjusted
periodically.
Chairman Macht welcomed Mayor Firtion of Sebastian.
Mayor Art Firtion of the City of Sebastian believed that the
Plan would be a dangerous thing for him to get involved in and
issued an open invitation to the Commissioners and citizens to a
December 9, 1995 Planning and zoning Seminar with a gentleman from
Tallahassee. He has been told the seminar would help the citizens
of Sebastian and felt it might assist everyone else.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Adams, the Board, by a 3-2 vote
(Commissioners Tippin and Bird dissenting) adopted
Resolution 95-146 adopting the Wabasso Corridor
Plan, as presented and amended to add "voluntary" in
bold type to all architectural guidelines and adding
"outdoor" before "auto and boat" display.
COPY OF AMENDED WABASSO CORRIDOR PLAN WILL BE ON FILE
IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD WHEN
REVISED AND RECEIVED
BOOK 96 F.�f.65Q
NOVEMBER 21, 1995 4
BOOK
RESOLUTION NO. 95- 146
A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN
RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, ADOPTING THE WABASSO CORRIDOR PLAN.
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners established a
Wabasso Corridor Plan Task Force on May 2, 1995, and
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners authorized that
task force to develop a corridor plan for the Wabasso area, and
WHEREAS, after producing and distributing a Draft Plan, the
task force took public comment on that Draft Plan at a public
meeting on September 20, 1995, and
WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission considered the
Wabasso Corridor Plan at a public meeting on October 26, 1995, and
WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission voted 5 to 0 to
recommend that the Board of County Commissioners adopt the Wabasso
Corridor Plan, with the added proviso that businesses that can
conform to the Wabasso Corridor Plan be allowed to operate,
including, at least, boat display, sales, and rentals ; and
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River
County considered the Wabasso Corridor Plan at a public meeting on
November 21, 1995.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA THAT:
1. The above recitals are ratified in their entirety.
2. The Wabasso Corridor Plan is approved and shall
guide development within the Corridor Plan
boundaries, pending the adoption of an ordinance
codifying the provisions of the Corridor Plan.
The forgoing Resolution was offered by Commissioner
Eggert and seconded by Commissioner Adams and upon
being put to a vote the vote was as follows:
Chairman Kenneth R. Macht Ave
Vice -Chairman Fran B. Adams Ave
Commissioner Richard N. Bird Nay
Commissioner Carolyn K. Eggert Ave
Commissioner John W. Tippin Nay
The Chairman thereupon declared the resolution duly passed and
adopted at a public hearing held this 21st day of November 1995.
ATTEST:
e K. rton, Clerk
NOVEMBER 21, 1995
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
INDIAN R R COUNTY, FLORIDA
BY:
e neth R. ac , Chai n_
48
96 FNJE 651
ORDINANCE UPDATING THE STANDARD TECHNICAL CODES TO
REFLECT THE LATEST EDITIONS
VERO BEACH PRESS -JOURNAL
Published Daily
Vero Mach. Indian River County. Florida
COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER STATE OF FLORIDA
Before 11th unmrsigned mthMdy panonauy appeared J. J. Schumann. Jr. who on oath
Gaye that he is Burmese afanaper of the Vero Beach PrmsJoufrtai. a "" newspaper W W ad
at Vero Beach M Indian finer County. Flonow that the &ti d" copy of adwtlaement, tromp
M the matter of
M the CaML was pus
fished M alk mrapaper in tiro issue, of .�' ' ' 4ML
Af1iard kWW rayl the the laid Vero Beach Pre W=nai is a hewalaapM pubushm at
Vero Basch. M SAW IMLn Rhror Cotmfy. FMnda. and arot the ask r wspapv has her Minn
been continuously publhlrad M Bald Indian RhM County. Fiction, each daily and has own
enured b teoarr0 class meq mattMM the pmt Mfka M Vtl0 BMldtn, M alk Irndlan W MCOUn
ty. FMridn, for • perMd of orro ypr neat , ' - I np theli M ptoU=bo n of one attechodcan of
a* MthemMnk Mid aiBMnt further says thal he hes naltlw paid nor ptamlaa . any pwm. fbm
or eerporation any discount, rom e. cwrurtlsetern or mfund for We purpose M saaoMp lids
adverU=mwd for puWMalpn In the said rrorapaper.
C_AuWMWad befomthis�day to
a�'•D10T .sa°. .70(Business mwmo"
1y1.
•t�•• X91; Ct i rW':WA C .WnAa11E. NOTMN PUB{ .
i L r woe ccdomna ,.
fL1BygA t: 4PaAfalE
TheBoard of NTICE
MW
rw"ua6 her
soy -rm of a
Dhad,lad ter
yC�ooN lbr_imN_bu 2f, 1995. 0 b held at the YldT sRiver
lay,
Me
be for
ardrlsne Derided Beu�rgt 1840 251h Slyset,
IB�amed .
AN OR09VNNCE OF M31AN RIVER CM&
TY, FLORVA. UPDATING THE STAND-
ARD TECHNICAL CODES To REFLECT
THE LATEST ED(TMW ppm at ft rt np ,
skid be hemd with spem to ft proposed orep
IrortoI Copies of thheeand proper irks we avalF
able
Ma I&ni oNioe ? g a m 1 mpAw
eoeFdof
Bo cl mmisetonse. 1940 25th Street. Vero
Anyale who may wish to appeal any dedsbrl whish
may be made at this meetig will need to seas
tlrot a verbetin re r m of the proeaed W is "rode.
is � 10011y Wild evidence Lipm which
Myons who needs a speoisf 11100m iodatim for
wtm
Ext
ft =Isost 48 hula o collide Of 91e Iadilwift at 4ile�st
Nov. 9. 1995 iZ50B88
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of November 13, 1995:
TO: Board of County Commissioners
FROM: Terrence P. O'Brien - Assistant County Attorney'-V'PO
DATE: November 13, 1995
SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING - NOVEMBER 21, 1995
UPDATING THE STANDARD TECHNICAL CODE
On October 17, 1995 the Board of County Commissioners authorized
advertisement of the attached orduJanee. The ordinance updates the
Standard Technical Codes of the Indian River County Building Codes by
deleting the 1991 edition and the adding the 1994 edition as required by
law.
Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval of the ordinance.
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.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Adams, SECONDED by
Commissioner Eggert, the Board unanimously adopted
Ordinance No. 95-31 updating the Standard Technical
Codes to reflect the latest editions.
NOVEMBER 21, 1995
49
BOOP( 96 FArE 652
BooK96 PA,E 653
ORDINANCE 95-31
AN ORDINANCE OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY,
FLORIDA, UPDATING THE STANDARD
TECHNICAL CODES TO REFLECT THE LATEST
EDITIONS.
WHEREAS, Indian River County has adopted standard
technical codes for its building codes; and
WHEREAS, these technical codes are updated and new
additions issued from time to time pursuant to Section 553.73, F.S. ;
and
WHEREAS, the current required updated codes are set forth
herein,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, that:
SECTION 1. AMENDMENT SECTION 401.01.
Section 401.01 is hereby partially amended to reflect deletion
of the 1991 editions and the addition of the new editions of the
standard technical codes as follows:
Standard Building Code (SBC), 1994 Edition'
Standard Plumbing Code (SPC), 1994 Edition
Standard Mechanical Code (SMC), 1994 Edition
Standard Gas Code (SGC), 1994 Edition
'Including the engineering design criteria contained in Section
1606 and excluding Chapter 11, "Accessibility for People with
Physical Disabilities" and Appendix E, "Energy Conservation".
Section 1606 of the Standard Building Code shall be the minimum
wind load criteria used for the design of all one and two family
dwellings. Compliance with the engineering design criteria con-
tained in Section 1606 may be achieved by using the Southern
Building Code Congress International, Inc., Standard SSTD 10-93
for Hurricane Resistant Residential Construction.
SECTION 2. REPEAL.
Those portions of the Indian River County Code superseded
or in conflict with the provisions herein adopted, in particular Chapter
401, are hereby repealed.
SECTION 3. SEVERABILITY.
If any section, or any sentence, paragraph, phrase, or word
of this ordinance is for any reason held to be unconstitutional,
inoperative, or void, such holding shall not affect the remaining
Portions of this ordinance, and it shall be construed to have been the
legislative intent to pass the ordinance without such unconstitutional,
Invalid or inoperative part.
SECTION 4. EFFECTIVE DATE.
A certified copy of this ordinance, as enacted, shall be' filed
by the Clerk with the Office of the Secretary of State of the State of
Florida within ten days after enactment, and this ordinance shall take
effect upon filing with the Secretary of State.
Approved and adopted by the Board of County Commissioners
of Indian River County, Florida, on this 21 day of November , 1995.
NOVEMBER 21, 1995 50
ORDINANCE No. 95-31
This ordinance was advertised in the Vero Beach
Press -Journal on the 9 day of November , 1995, for a public
hearing to be held on the 21 day of November 1995, at which time
It was moved for adoption by Commissioner Adams , seconded by
Commissioner Eggert , and adopted by the following vote:
Chairman Kenneth R. Macht Aye
Vice Chairman Fran B. Adams Aye
Commissioner Richard N. Bird Aye
Commissioner Carolyn K. Eggert Aye
Commissioner John B. Tippin Aye
The Chairman thereupon declared the ordinance duly passed
and adopted this 21 day of N o v e m b e,r 1995.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSION
Attest: INDIAN YWER COUNTY, FLORIDA
0/1
_, :.✓ By /
ppJeff 'K. Bartdn, Clerk /Kenneth R. Mfichf, C rman
Effective date: lv� ordinance became effective upon filing with the
Department of State which took place on day of ,
1995.
ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING CRITERIA FOR DETERMIlNTING STATUS
OF EMPLOYEE -INDEPENDENT CONTRACTORS
VMO !EACH VRESWOUmAL
P"HsMd Oder
VW60 1 . he n ft" County. FHeelda
COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER ESTATE OF FLORIDA
Before on Undermined aahorfty perseeaNy appeaie0 J. J. BdamWaf. Jr. erne an eaM
up that he IS Bine 1er Of ON Vero 0 i+nss.lafaral, e0tly naWMW plsealad
at Vero Beach in hpWn Rher County, Fkwkk Nat pre a14Nfed eepF a INIM SIMM&M. hoop
a 1/i4fist/i
In the d/Lyy,Af "7Cour1/ V�w Duh. p
Nslaa in sold ea.gpapa a the feats a Veto
ft -1
Mine
Wd Inddn huthow amp
at o eW Yaro Beach Ptass.Jonmtl Ie a newapap- p bBahed a
Yaro B
�+ a aiF Pdt�d In S Irl " RkW C Na . F Sold reach 0 has hewtaa n
Con Va BeachkWkhL in ea OfNIand las been
erNarad as aaeand class and instars Nis post af11m M Yore BaaoR InaaW ItN4n Raror Conn
ty.R0WA,ferapa I aorayearneat peaadblpVathatgdrNeatbneftheaRacadeopya
adwetbsaawC oN aHfaid taalw says tlw W tae nailher paid na proasead any parser, firm
W mrpaatien ant' eMrntad. Mate. ammnbaioer ar reftmd lar Ufe pmpsse a aeapefn this
atlwrtbeaanl for pubNntbn fn the said newspaper.
_n! (tEl 'aaOmiWd baoro me flee day of
v' NCijq.sot I 1
_`, '• . , %�`•. Business Neave„
��: 'S'e •3,��E+a4 : C' - r •^n:nr.r-nn..,.a ............e..A
a .'a :� CC •,7j •m: ,..f,. trrrw..nsa.e(•P Jews. tear
. • • rertnanae sn+arars
Y:
- . .--
.�poa� a
rg' :hdMn
� far 8�S aJa . = TT11ae�a y.'
f, tfl93r et! at b trim t1Nir
' 1lltdlg. 1810 251h
b be h8tr11et.
Of dlectaft
II =&+N be fa
1NAPlCE,1 , �p j PoP�ud
H�gau_ . ft dt�ew.etw
ToFIL -- r1r. CONIAAr-
We" at " ,MWINVAAa
bares f t0 Q! �a� ROS
M" ...•1•.ua bpyy of M a�
hhDua olboa�1°af ft C& 10 "Board of
COM1118doners. 1840 25th sheat, vero
may be maw at O:B II =IVA riled to BIIIB!
of the FWM*W is Raft.
1111appeal b based. tfAiil
Ary" Hilo Reeds a qmwft
a000aerndeyp� far
rill �"` " Me C 'at SU40M .
ExL 408 at best 48 haus U adlralos a rls maw
N�Dplr. 8,199s 1250589
BOCK 96 PnE 65
NOVEMBER 21, 1995 51
Bou 96 Pv1JF655
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of November 13, 1995:
TO: Board of County Commissioners
FROM: Terrence P. O'Brien - Assistant County Attornerf o
DATE: November 13, 1995
SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING - NOVEMBER 21, 1995
PROPOSED ORDINANCE DETERMINING EMPLOYEE AND
INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR STATUS
On October 17, 1995 the Board of County Commissioners authorized
advertisement of the attached ordinance. The ordinance provides for
the establishment of criteria for determining the status of employees and
Independent contractors.
Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of the ordinance.
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.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Adams, SECONDED by
Commissioner Eggert, the Board unanimously adopted
Ordinance No. 95-32 establishing criteria for
determining the status of employee - independent
contractors.
ORDINANCE 95- 32
AN ORDINANCE OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY,
FLORIDA, ESTABLISHING CRITERIA FOR-
DETERMINING
08DETERBrIINING THE STATUS OF EMPLOYEE -
INDEPENDENT CONTRACTORS.
WHEREAS, Chapter 489, F.S., authorizes • the County to issue
citations for violations of the contracting statutes; and
WHEREAS, the County has enacted ordinances implementing this
statutory authority; and
WHEREAS, the validity of citations issued depends on whether the
person is an employee or independent contractor; and
WHEREAS, the distinction between an employee and independent
contractor is difficult to recognize; and
WHEREAS, it is in the public interest to establish criteria so that
the status of a person may be accurately determined,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, that:
SECTION 1. AMENDMENT.
Section 400.031 is added to Chapter 400 of -the code to read as
follows:
Section 400.031. Emnlovee-Inder)endent contractor.
A person working on a job site shall be deemed to be an
independent contractor unless it is shown that the person
receives compensation from and is under the supervision and
control of an employer who regularly deducts the F.I.C.A.
and withholding tax and provides workers' compensation, all
as prescribed by law. In addition, it must be shown that a
NOVEMBER 21, 1995 52
M
ORDINANCE 95-32
Federal Form I-9 has been- executed by the employee and
employer prior to the person having started work for the
employer.
SECTION Z. SEVERABILITY.
If any section, or any sentence, paragraph, phrase, or word of
this ordinance is for any reason held to be unconstitutional,
inoperative, or void, such holding shall not affect the remaining
portions of this ordinance, and it shall be construed to have been the
legislative intent to pass the ordinance without such unconstitutional,
invalid or. inoperative part.
SECTION 3. EFFECTIVE DATE.
A certified copy of this ordinance, as enacted, shall be filed by
the Clerk with the Office of the Secretary of State of the State of
Florida within ten days after enactment, and this ordinance shall take
effect upon filing with the Secretary of State.
Approved and adopted by the Board of County Commissioners of,
Indian River County, Florida, on this 21 day of November, 1995.
This ordinance was advertised in the Vero Beach Press -Journal on
the 9 -day of November 1995, for a public hearing to be held on
the 21 day of November , 1995, at which time it was moved for
adoption by Commissioner Adams , seconded by Commissioner
Eggert , and adopted by the following vote:
Chairman Kenneth R. Macht Aye
Vice Chairman Fran B. Adams Aye
Commissioner Richard N. Bird Aye
Commissioner Carolyn K. Eggert Aye
Commissioner John B. Tippin Aye
The Chairman thereupon declared the ordinance duly passed and
adopted this 21 day of November 1995.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSION
Attest: INDIAN R'VER COUNTY, FLORIDA
,��-- By
Jeff Barton lerk Kenneth R. cht, Chairman
U
Effective date: This ordinance became effective upon filing with the
Department of State which took place on day of ,
1995.
BOOK 96 PAIL X56
NOVEMBER 21, 1995 53
BOOK , 96 W 65
SOUTH BEACH AREA OBSTACLES
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of November 17, 1995:
TO: Jim Chandler, County Administrator v
FROM: Doug Wright, Director `•:�. !
Emergency Services
DATE: November 17, 1995
SUBJECT: Beach Obstacles - South Beach Area
On October 20, 1995, 1 received a call from Mr. Bill Tucker
representing Environmental Science and Engineering from Jacksonville,
Florida, who is a contractor associated with the US Army Corps of
Engineers in the project entitled "Removal of Selected Beach
Barriers" in Indian River County. Mr. Tucker informed me that bid
documents had been prepared and he felt the project would be going to
bid in the near future.
On November 9, 1995, I received a copy of a memo from Indian River
County Coastal Engineer Don Donaldson informing that he had recently
talked with Richard Bonner of the US Army Corps of Engineers
regarding the beach project. The memo stated that since this was a
Department of Defense funded project, the Jacksonville District of
the Corps of Engineers had prepared the necessary plans and was
prepared to issue a Notice for Bid on the project when the Army
Headquarters pulled the funding. Mr. Bonner suggested that the
County contact certain individuals at the USACOE Headquarters in
Washington, DC, to make a request for funding of the local project.
He indicated he felt that given the recent cuts to USACOE budget and
other federal programs, it would be difficult to obtain funding for
small projects like ours without local involvement.
I arranged for contact with both Mr. Tucker and the USACOE Project
Manager Robert Bridgers on November 16, 1995. 1 was informed that
Mr. Bridgers had been reassigned to another division and that all
environmental restoration and ordnance removal projects had been
suspended for an undetermined period of time. He stated no projects
were imminent and Congress had only approved funding for the civil
portion of the USACOE. Both Mr. Tucker and Mr. Bridgers were
informed of the recent serious injury from objects on the beach and
the potential for additional injuries to citizens and visitors in
this area. Both felt communications from local officials to
congressional representatives and the USACOE Headquarters would be
beneficial in obtaining funding for the beach project.
I recommend that you urge the Board to forward correspondence to
anyone and everyone that may be able to assist in securing funding
for this work to be accomplished.
County Administrator Chandler asked the Board to support
direct contact with legislative representatives and the Army Corps
of Engineers regarding the problem and explained that he would like
to draft a letter enclosing some photographs.
Commissioner Bird commented that the magnitude of the problem
has increased with beach erosion.
Administrator Chandler stated that more and more obstacles are
being found and that a couple of weeks ago a physician had
contacted the County about an injury.
MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Adams, that the Board agree to contact
the United States legislative. representatives and
Colonel Terry Jones of the US Army Corps of
Engineers in an effort to secure funding for the
beach project.
NOVEMBER 21, 1995 54
Under discussion, Commissioner Bird commented that the federal
government has polluted the area creating an environmental hazard
and now is saying "sorry, our funds dried up". The same government
is insisting that the County clean up the Griffin Landfill problem
and threatening that, if the job is not done correctly, it could
cost the County millions of dollars. He felt that the County
should tell the federal government that our funds have also dried
up.
THE CHAIRMAN CALLED THE QUESTION and the motion
passed unanimously.
CONSULTANT FOR PREPARATION OF CDBG NEIGHBORHOOD
REVITALIZATION GRANT APPLICATION
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of November 15, 1995:
TO: James E. Chandler
County Administrator
D ION BEAD CONCURRENCE:
DATE: November 15, 1995
Robert M._Reatin , AICJV
Community Development ii�rector
FROM: Sasan Rohani, AICP S •!L -
Chief, Long -Range Planning
RE: Consideration and Approval of a Consultant for
Preparation of a CDBG Neighborhood Revitalization Grant
Application
It is requested that the data herein presented be,given formal
consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their regular
meeting of November 21, 1995.
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
Last year, residents of both the Colored School Subdivision and the
unplatted Whitfield Subdivision approached county officials
regarding infrastructure improvements in those areas. At that
time, residents of those subdivisions indicated that road paving
was their major concern. Because those two neighborhoods contain
a high percentage of very low and low income residents, staff
determined that a Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) in the
neighborhood revitalization category was a possible funding source
for the requested infrastructure improvements.
On December 20, 1994, the Board of County Commissioners authorized
public works and community development staff to apply for a CDBG
neighborhood revitalization grant for the Colored School
Subdivision and Whitfield Subdivision target areas. The Board also
authorized staff to initiate the process to select a consultant to
prepare the CDBG application and administer the grant. Finally,
the Board committed budgeted petition paving funds to be used as a
match for the grant.
On February 7, 1995, the Board approved the consultant firm of
Clark, Roumelis and Associates, Inc. to prepare the CDBG
application.
On February 26, 1995, at an advertised public hearing, the Board of
County Commissioners formally chose the neighborhood revitalization
category for the county's CDBG application submittal. Also at that
meeting, the Board reactivated the existing CDBG citizen advisory
committee and established March 21, 1995, as the date for a second
public hearing.
Subsequently, the Board of County Commissioners approved the
following documents which were required as part of the CDBG
application:
96
NOVEMBER
NOVEMBER 21, 1995 55
BOOK 96 PnE 659
• Indian River County Fair Housing Ordinance
• Anti -displacement and relocation plan
• Section 504 compliance_Policy
• Citizen Participation Plan
• Procurement policies and procedures
• Affirmative action policy
• Non-violent civil rights demonstration policy
• Acquisition plan
The Board then approved the proposed CDBG application on March 21,
1995, and submitted a copy of the application to the Florida
Department of Community Affairs.
On August 28, 1995, the Department of Community Affairs published
a list of preliminary scores for the Neighborhood Revitalization
Grant category applications. According to that list, Indian River
County was to receive partial funding. The preliminary list
allocated $596,978.00 to the county, compared to the $750,000.00
requested.
After the preliminary list was published; five jurisdictions that
scored lower than Indian River County appealed their preliminary
scores. These appeals are'currently pending and will not be
resolved until January, 1996. If any one of these jurisdictions is
successful in its appeal, the county will not receive any funding.
Since the CDBG application appeals will not be resolved until
January and because it is possible that one or more of the appeals
will be granted and eliminate the county's preliminary grant award,
DCA has encouraged the county to re -apply for the next funding
cycle. The deadline to submit the application for the next funding
cycle is December 20, 1995.
Analysis
In this past year's CDBG funding cycle, the county's project scored
high for the project impact and scope of work categories; however,
the county scored only 68.42 points out of a possible 250 points in
the communitywide need score category, a category which is based on
the overall per capita income of the county. The communitywide
need score is determined by DCA for all jurisdictions, and the
county has no control over this score.
Because jurisdictions having an open application cannot apply for
another grant, DCA staff believes that the county has a good chance
of obtaining funding in the next funding cycle. Since the county
adopted all required policies, plans, and procedures as part of the
last application, these need not be re -adopted.
In anticipation of submitting an application for CDBG funding in
the upcoming cycle, the county prepared a Request for Proposals to
hire a consultant to prepare the CDBG application and administer
the grant. The county received five proposals.
On November 15, 1995 a consultant selection committee, consisting
of Jim Davis, Public Works Director, Harry Asher, Assistant Utility
Services Director, and Robert M. Keating, Community Development
Director, reviewed the submittals from the five firms and ranked
them as follows:
1. Clark, Roumelis & Associates
2. Fred Fox Enterprises
3. Mittauer & Associates and Jordan & Associates
4. Angie Brewer & Associates
5. Community Redevelopment Association
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners approve the
above prioritization list and authorize staff to begin contract
negotiations with the No. 1 ranked firm, Clark, Roumelis &
Associates.
Staff also recommends that the Board establish December 5, 1995, as
the date for the first public hearing on the CDBG application and
December 12, 1995 as the date for the second public hearing.
NOVEMBER 21, 1995 56
ON MOTION by Commissioner Adams, SECONDED by
Commissioner Eggert, the Board unanimously approved
the prioritized ranking and authorized staff to
begin negotiations. with Clark, Roumelis &
Associates, and set December 5, 1995 as the date for
the first public hearing and December 12, 1995 as
the date for the second public hearing.
MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING ESTABLISHING AD U NCT
COUNTY EXTENSION AGENT WITH UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA FOR
FLORIDA YARDS & NEIGHBORHOOD (F3M PROGRAM
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of November 15,' 1995.-
DATE.
995:
DATE: 15 November 1995
TO: HONORABLE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
THROUGH: H.T. "SONNY" DEAN, DIRECTOR - DEPT. OF GENERAL SERVICE
FROM: DANIEL F. CULBERT, MANAGER - COUNTY EXTENSION SERVICE
SUBJECT: APPROVAL OF MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING HING
ADJUNCT COUNTY EXTENSION AGENT WITH UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA for
FLORIDA YARDS & NEIGHBORHOOD (FYN) PROGRAM
BACKGROUND:
A grant funded public educational effort entitled the Florida Yards & Neighborhood Program
for the Indian River Lagoon was accepted by the Board of County Commissioners on June 19,
1995. This program is designed to teach the public about landscaping practices that will reduce
pollution entering the Indian River Lagoon.
Major responsibility for delivering this program will rest with a multi -county extension agent who
will be based in Indian River County. To provide this eco -system educator with the resources of the
University of Florida's Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, a courtesy appointment as
adjunct extension agent by the University is being requested. Adjunct faculty status requires
approval of the attached memorandum of understanding.
ANALYSIS:
This memorandum, if approved by the County Commission, would provide:
1) access to support by University of Florida Extension specialists,
2) funding for in-service training (at no additional cost to the county),
3) would allow the agent to use the penalty mail privilege (again, at no county cost),
4) would establish the potential for appointment and promotion with the University system if
this program were to be continued by outside funding sources at the end of the agreement.
FUNDING•
Funding of this grant is through Contract # 95W174 entitled " Agreement between Saint John's
Water Management District and Indian River County for the Florida Yards & Neighborhoods
Program for the Indian River Lagoon National Estuary Program".
In-kind contributions expected of Indian River County will be derived from the University of
Florida with adjunct extension agent status. No additional county government funds will be
required.
RECO ATIONS•
County Staff recommends approval of this Memorandum and requests authorization for the
Board Chairman to execute all applicable documents.
BOOK 96 F,,�:E 680
NOVEMBER 21, 1995 5
BOOK 96 pace 661
Dan Culbert, County Agricultural Extension Agent, introduced
Ms. Janice Broda, the new Multi -County Extension Agent, and
explained that the Memorandum of Understanding grants courtesy
faculty status and provides access to University support.
Ms. Broda expressed her pleasure with her new position and the
opportunity to serve the counties involved and hoped she would be
able to work closely with the Commissioners.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Adams, the Board unanimously approved
the Memorandum of Agreement with the University of
Florida Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences,
Cooperative Extension Service, pursuant to
recommendations of staff.
AGREEMENT IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE
CLERK TO THE BOARD
RESIDENT INSPECTION SERVICES FOR VARIOUS CAPITAL
PROTECTS
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of November 14, 1995:
TO: James E. Chandler,
County Administrator
THROUGH: James W. Davis, P.E.,
Public Works Directo
FROM: Terry B. Thompson, P.E.
Capital Projects Manager
SUBJECT: Resident Inspection Services for Various Capital Projects
REF. MEMO: Jack Price to Jim Davis dated Nov. 9, 1995
DATE: November 14, 1995 FILE: RESIDSVC.AGN
Inspection services on Indian River Boulevard Phase IV, Oslo Road
and Old Dixie Highway, and CR510 and SRAlA were provided by retired
FDOT inspector, William Howard.
Public Works has been satisfied with Mr. Howard's services and
would like to continue payrolling him through a temporary service
agency for inspection service on an as needed basis on the
following projects:
Proiect Account Number
South AIA Widening
Wabasso Causeway Boat Ramp
Dale Wimbrow Boat Ramp
37th Street Widening
41st St & 45th St/US 1 to IRB
CR510 & US1 Intersection Improvements
58th Avenue Widening
SR AIA & Winter Beach Road
5th Street SW/20th to 27th Avenue
NOVEMBER 21, 1995
58
101-152-541-067.37
001-210-572-066.39
001-210-572-066.39
•309-215`541-033.13
309-215-541-033.13
101-153-541-067.36
101-158 -541-067.30
101-151-541-066.51
109-214-541-067.49
The Personnel_ Department contacted "At Your Service" and they have
agreed to payroll Mr. Howard for one year at the same billing rate
of $22.69 per hour that was used on the previous projects. This
billing rate includes all social security, worker's compensation,
unemployment insurance, taxes and agency fees. The total fee for
a 52 week period is $47,195.20. The cost of inspection services
will be charged to the appropriate project construction account.
ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS
The Alternatives are as follows:
Alternative No. 1
Authorize staff to employ William Howard through "At Your
Service" at a cost of $22.69/hr for 52 weeks for a total
cost of $47,195.20.
Alternative No. 2
Contract with a consulting firm for inspection services.
RECOI NDATIoms AVID F[TNDING
Staff recommends approval of Alternative No. 1. Funding is from
the project construction accounts listed above.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Adams, SECONDED by
Commissioner Eggert, the Board unanimously approved
the employment of William Howard through "At sYour
Service", pursuant to Alternative No. 1 of staff's
memorandum.
CONTRACT WILL BE ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE
CLERK TO THE BOARD WHEN EXECUTED AND RECEIVED
ADVANCED RIGHT-OF-WAY ACQUISITION - CUMBERLAND FARMS
STORE - NE CORNER OF OSLO ROAD AND 27TH AVENUE
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of November 14, 1995:
TO: James E. Chandler,
County Administrator
FROM: James W. Davis, P.E..
Public Works Director
SUBJECT: Advanced Right -of -Way Acquisition -
Cumberland Farms Store -
NE Corner of Oslo Road and 27th Avenue
REF. LEVER: Steve Henderson to James Davis dated Nov. 13. 1995
DATE: November 14, 1995
In November, 1994, Cumberland Farms Inc. submitted preliminary site plan
drawings to demolish and remove the existing fuel tanks, gas pumps, and
overhead canopy so that new fuel tanks could be constructed to meet State and
Federal Underground Fuel Tank regulations and also to expand the capacity of the
facility. The plan showed expanding the existing convenience store/retail plaza
to the east by removing an existing house and shed on abutting property that
Cumberland Farms owns to the east. Also, a new expanded parking lot. expanded
gas pump island, and related site work was proposed. The proposed plan was
truly an expansion. At that time, the County staff informed the Cumberland
Farms agent that the County Thoroughfare Plan designates both Oslo Road and
27th Avenue as Arterial Routes which require a 13 0' wide right-of-way. There
exists a 60' wide right-of-way along Oslo Road and only 25' of right-of-way east of
BOOK
NOVEMBER 21, 1995 59
96 P,1- 662
BOOK 96 P'Au 663
the centerline of the 27th Avenue roadway. The County staff reviewed the
surrounding area and discovered that vacant undeveloped land exists to the north
of the Cumberland Farms site. Staff proposed a solution whereby the County
would offer to purchase an 84'x 310' (.599 acres) parcel from the 7.8 acre tract
north of Cumberland Farms and exchange It for 60' of additional right-of-way
along Oslo Road and 35' of additional right-of-way along 27th Avenue. Since the
Cumberland Farms site was to be excavated for new underground tanks,
expanded gas pump islands, etc., new construction could be shifted north and
the existing building which is over 20 years old could be replaced with a new
building. Staff was of the opinion that the cost of land acquisition and building
relocation would be as follows:
.599 Acre land acquisition $ 35.940
(based on sales in area of $60.000/acre)
Demolish existing building
3,800 sf X $5/sf $ 19.000
Construction new building
3,800 SF ® $40 $152.000
$206.940
Staff was of the opinion that the above solution would benefit all parties as
follows:
Cumberland Farms would be set back to accommodate a new, expanded roadway
which would result in increased traffic and traffic attraction to the site.
The County would acquire needed right-of-way to expand Oslo Road without
having to pay Increased severance damages.
The Property owner to the north. Martha Carden, would receive a fair price for a
portion of her 7.8 acre site which has been on the market for many years. The
last listing on the property was $275,000 or $35,302 per acre.
RNATIM AND ANALYSI
Staff began last year to negotiate the above program for Board of County
Commission approval. First offers were made to Mrs. Carden to purchase the
south .599 acres of the 7.8 acre parcel. Several County offers were refused and
her latest counter offer was $150,000/acre or $90,000.
In late Sept. 1995, staff met with representatives from Cumberland Farms and
were informed that the cost of relocation would be a maximum of $540,560, but
that this figure was negotiable. Staff has analyzed the request and is of the
opinion that since the fuel tanks, pumps. underground piping, parking lot. canopy
engineeringrefixturing interior of proposed store, refixturing interior of rental
units. landscaping. and drainage was programed by Cumberland Fauns before the
right-of-way issue was proposed, the cost of the items, which totals $268,560,
should not be the responsibility of the County. In addition, since the existing
Cumberland Farms building is over 20 years old, the County should not be
responsible for 1000/6 of the cost of the new building. For the above reasons. the
staff proposed that the County contribution towards the new and expanded
facilities should be $171,000 as previously proposed.
On Nov. 13, 1995. staff received a letter from Attorney Steve Henderson indicating
that Cumberland Farms would accept $375,000 plus the .599 acre parcel to the
north ($90,000 If Mrs. Carden s counter offer is accepted) for a total cost to the
County of $465,000. This would result in a cost of $17.82/square foot or
$776,294/acre.
The following alternatives presented are as follows:
Alternative No. 1
Accept Cumberland Farms Proposal and authorize expending
$465.000 from the Local Option Sales Tax program In the 1998/99
FY, $1,498,400 has been set budgeted for Oslo Road right-of-way
acquisition. Funding would have to be advanced to FY95/96.
Alternative No. 2
Do not acquire the additional Oslo Road and 27th Avenue right-of-
way from the Cumberland Farms site. For less cost than acquiring
the right-of-way, the County could culvert the 20' wide Indian River
Farms Sublateral Canal luted south of the 60' wide Oslo Road
Right-of-way. The cost to culvert 800' of the canal would be
approximately $120,000. There would remain a 40' deficit in right-of-
way, but a five lane curb and gutter roadway could be designed. -
Approval from the Indian River Farms Water Control District would
be needed. This procedure has been used along SR60 east of Kings
Highway. Future widening of 27th Avenue would be from the west.
NOVEMBER 21, 1995 60
RECOMMENDATIONS AND FUNDING
Alternative No. 2 is recommended whereby future culverting of the Indian River
Farms Water Control District Sublateral Canal is accomplished instead of
expending $465,000.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Adams, SECONDED by
Commissioner Eggert, the Board unanimously approved
Alternative No. 2 to include the 20' wide Indian
River Farms Sublateral Canal culvert pursuant to
staff's memorandum.
45TH STREET WATER SERVICE PROTECT
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of November 1, 1995:
DATE: NOVEMBER 1, 1995
TOs JAMES E. CHANDLER
COUNTY ADMINISTRATO
FROMs TERRANCE G. PINT
DIRECTOR OF UT LI SERVICES
PREPARED JAMES D. CHAS
AND STAFFED MANAGER OF NT PROJECTS
BY: DEPARTMENT OF UTILITY SERVICES
SUBJECT: 45TH STREET WATER SERVICE PROJECT
-INDIAN RIVER COUNTY PROJECT NO. UW -94 -13 -DS
WIP NO. 473-000-169-239.00
RESOLUTIONS I AND II
SACRaROUND
On September 6, 1994, the Indian River County Board of County Commissioners
approved proceeding with the proposed project and authorized engineering design
services by the Department of Utility Services staff. (Copy of minutes
attached.)
ANALYSIS
The areas to be served include:
Rings Highlands - 48 platted lots - 56th to 58th Avenues, 45th to 47th Streets.
Cavalier Estates - 126 platted lots — 47th Court to 50th Avenue, 45th to 47th
Streets.
Non -platted Parcels - 60 on the north and south sides of 45th Street and
throughout the project area for a total of 234 lots. Of the non -platted parcels,
16 are undersized, 26 are more than .50 acres and less than 2 acres, and 26 are
2 acres or more.
Ninety-two (92) or 39% of the properties have improvements, including 63
residences, and 29 other, which include mobile homes, salvage yards, dnd retail
stores.
Typical lot sizes in this project average .23 acres. One hundred eighty four or
79% of the lots in this project are substandard or "undersized," according to
Indian River County's Comprehensive Plan and the County Public Health Unit,
Division of Environmental Health, which require that new lots utilizing well and
septic systems. be a minimum of one-half acre. Lots not meeting these minimum
standards are called "undersized lots." Environmental Health Director, Mike
Galanis, advised this project should be a high priority, especially due to the
proximity of the salvage yards, mixed use commercial, and small mobile home
parks. Glenn Schuessler, Assistant Director of Environmental Health, added that
the well water in this area is of poor quality. Attached is a June 22, 1995
memorandum from Glenn Schuessler regarding private well/water sample analysis.
900K 96 Pt�.GE 66
NOVEMBER 219 1995 61
BOOK96 P.v,i 665
Comments regarding the South Gifford Road Landfill precontamination reports by
Brown and Caldwell for the Indian River County Solid Waste Disposal District:
The site is 115 acres, west of 43rd Avenue, between 41st Street and 37th Streets
(directly south of the 45th Street water service project).
Several of the ground water samples near the landfill were found to contain
chlorinated volatile organic compounds, including vinylchloride in concentrations
exceeding State of Florida and Federal Drinking Water Standards. Sampling of
private water supply wells in the vicinity of the site by the Indian River County
Public Health Unit (a unit of the Florida Department of Health and Rehabilitative
Services (HRS) resulted in samples of two wells located north of the site showing
concentrations of trichloroethylene (TCE) in excess of federal maximum
contaminant levels (MCLs) and Florida Drinking Water Standards. Field analytical.
data indicates that the zone where chlorinated volatile organic compounds were
detected appear to be associated primarily with the northern portion ofthe
landfill. The presence of precursor compounds in the ground water suggest that
i...tiifted source of release may still exist within the northern portion of the
landfill.
On August 17, 1995 the State Department or xnvironmental Protection required two
homes at 4115 and 4116 48th Avenue in Palm Gardens subdivision be connected to
County water due to contaminated water wells. In the same subdivision, which is
located approximately 1000 feet south of the project area, the Palm Gardens
Children's Home at 4796 42nd Street, a limited care facility for disabled
children, was required to connect to County water and install fire protection on
March 20, 1995. A special water line was installed for same, utilizing a
developer's agreement.
The attached map displays the area to benefit from the assessment project. The
total estimated project cost is $472,865.26, less a non -assessed Master Plan
water main of $135,950.00. The total estimated cost to be assessed is
$336,915.26. The estimated cost per square foot is $0.0676229. This project is
to be paid through the assessment of property owners along the proposed water
line route. In the interim, financing will be through the use of impact fee
funds. Engineering design services for this project have been completed by the
Department of Utility Services staff.
The staff of the Department of Utility Services recommends that the Board of
County Commissioners approve the attached resolutions and set the public hearing
date.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Adams, SECONDED by
Commissioner Eggert, the Board unanimously adopted
Resolution 95-147 providing for water service to
45th Street.
Providing (First Reso.)
RESOLUTION NO. 95- 7 Q 7
A RESOLUTION OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY,
FLORIDA, PROVIDING FOR WATER SERVICE TO
45th STREET; PROVIDING THE TOTAL ESTIMATED
COST, METHOD OF PAYMENT OF ASSESSMENTS,
NUMBER OF ANNUAL INSTALLMENTS, AND LEGAL
DESCRIPTION OF THE AREA SPECIFICALLY
SERVED.
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River
County has determined that the improvements herein described are
necessary to promote the public welfare of the county and has deter-
mined to defray the cost thereof by special assessments against certain
properties to be serviced by a water main extension to 45th Street,
hereinafter referred to as Project No. UW -94 -13 -DS;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, as follows:
I. The County does hereby determine that a water line shall be
installed to benefit 234 lots on 45th Street, and that the cost
NOVEMBER 21, 1995 62
RESOLUTION NO. 95- 147
thereof shall be specially assessed in accordance with the
provisions of Sections 206.01 through 206.09 of the Code of Indian
River County.
2. The total estimated project assessment cost of the above-described
improvements is shown to be $336,915.26 or $0.0676229 per square
foot to be paid by the property specially benefited as shown on
the assessment plat on file with the Department of Utility Services.
3. A special assessment in the amount of $0.0676229 per square foot
shall be assessed against each of the properties designated on the
assessment plat. This assessment may be raised or lowered by
action of the Board of County Commissioners after the public
hearing, at the same meeting, as required by the referenced
County Code.
4. The special assessments shall be due and payable and may be paid
in full within 90 days after the date of the resolution of the Board
with respect to credits against the special assessments after
completion of the improvements (the "Credit Date") without
interest.
If not paid in full, the special assessments may be paid in ten
equal yearly installments of principal plus interest. If not paid
when due, there shall be added a penalty of 1-1/2% of the
principal not paid when due. The unpaid balance of the special
assessments shall bear interest until paid at a rate to be
determined by the Board of County Commissioners when the project
is completed.
5. There is presently on file with the Department of Utility Services a
plat showing the area to be assessed, plans and specifications, and
an estimate of the cost of the proposed improvements. All of these
are open to inspection by the public at the Department of Utility
Services.
6. An assessment roll with respect to the special assessments shall
promptly be prepared in' connection with the special assessments.
7. Upon the adoption of this resolution, the Indian River County
Utility. Services Department shall cause this resolution (along with
a map showing the areas to be served) to be published at least
one time in the Vero Beach Press Journal before the public hearing
required by Section 206.04.
The - resolution was moved for adoption by Commissioner
Adams , and the motion was seconded by Commissioner Eggert
and, upon being put to a vote, the vote was as follows:
Chairman Kenneth R. Macht Aye
Vice Chairman Fran B. Adams Aye
Commissioner Richard N. Bird Aye
Commissioner Carolyn K. Eggert Aye
Commissioner John W. Tippin Aye
rox 96 PATS
NOVEMBER 21, 1995 63 00
BOOK
Resolution 95-147
The Chairman thereupon declared the resolution duly passed and
adopted this 21 day of November, 1995.
a
�i
Clerk
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
INDIAN CZR.clht RIDA
By let
Kennet
Chairman
ON MOTION by Commissioner Adams, SECONDED by
Commissioner Eggert, the Board unanimously adopted
Resolution 95-148 setting a time and place at which
the owners of properties located on 45th Street and
other interested persons may appear before the Board
of County Commissioners and be heard as to the
propriety and advisability of constructing the water
main extension.
Time and Place (Second Rbso.)
RESOLUTION NO. 95- 148
A RESOLUTION OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY,
FLORIDA, SETTING A TIME AND PLACE AT WHICH,
THE OWNERS OF PROPERTIES LOCATED ON 45th
STREET, AND OTHER INTERESTED PERSONS, MAY
APPEAR BEFORE THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS AND BE HEARD AS TO THE
PROPRIETY AND ADVISABILITY OF CONSTRUCT-
ING THE WATER MAIN EXTENSION, AS TO THE
COST THEREOF, AS TO THE MANNER OF PAY-
MENT THEREFOR, AND AS TO THE AMOUNT
THEREOF TO BE SPECIALLY ASSESSED AGAINST
EACH PROPERTY BENEFITED THEREBY.
96
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River
County has, by Resolution No. 95- 147, 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 hereafter, that a waterline- be installed to serve 234
properties on the north and south sides of 45th Street; and
WHEREAS, it has been determined that the cost to be specially
assessed with respect thereto shall be $0.0676229 per square foot; 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 propriety and advisability of
constructing such water main extension, as to the cost thereof, as to
NOVEMBER 21, 1995 64
M
RESOLUTION 95-148
the manner of payment therefor, and as to the amount thereof to be
assessed against each property benefited thereby,
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,
December 19,
1995, 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
thereto. The area to be improved and the properties to be
specially benefited are more particularly described upon the
assessment plat and the assessment roll with regard to the special
assessments.
2. All persons interested in the construction of said improvements and
the special assessments against the properties to be specially
benefited may review the assessment plat showing the area to be
assessed, the assessment troll, the plans and specifications for said
improvements, and an estimate of the cost thereof at ,the office of
the Department of Utility Services 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 two publications in the Press Journal Newspaper one week
apart. The last publication shall be at least one week prior to the
date of the hearing. The Indian River County Department of
Utility Services 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
Adams , and the motion was seconded by Commissioner F g q P r t ,
and, upon being put to a vote, the vote was as follows:
Chairman Kenneth R. Macht Aye
Vice Chairman Fran B. Adams Aye
Commissioner Richard N. Bird Aye
Commissioner Carolyn K. Eggert Aye
Commissioner John W. Tippin Aye
The Chairman thereupon declared the resolution duly passed and •
adopted this 21 day of November, 1995.
BOARD OF gGUNTY COMMISSIONERS
INDIAN R COUNTY, FLORIDA
Attest: --
.By .
Kenneth R. Mach
f y K. B on, Clerk Chairman
Attachment: ASSESSMENT ROLL
BOOK 96
NOVEMBER 21, 1995 65
BOOK 96 PnE 669
SEBASTIAN WATER PROTECT, PHASE I
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of November 14, 1995:
DATE:
November 14, 1995
TO:
JAMES E. CHANDLER
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
FROM:
TERRANCE G. P
DIRECTOR OF UT VICES
PREPARED
WILLIAM F. MC
AND STAFFED
CAPITAL PROJE INEER
BY:
_DEPARTMENT OF UTILITY SERVICES
SUBJECT: SEBASTIAN WATER PROJECT, PHASE I
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY PROJECT NO. UW -95 -28 -DS
BACKGROUND
On September 29, 1995, Indian River County assumed ownership of the
- Sebastian Utility system. Per the purchase agreement, assessed
water line projects are to be constructed throughout the Sebastian
Highlands area over the next five years. The schedule for Phase I,
which contains approximately 23 miles of water line, is to be
completed in less than eighteen (18) months.
On October 11, 1995, at the City Council meeting, the City of
Sebastian selected Masteller & Moler, Inc., as the Engineer for
these projects and all utility work within the City (See attached
copy of letter and minutes of meeting). The staff of the
Department of Utility Services has completed negotiations with
Masteller & Moler, Inc., for engineering services and is ready to
begin the project. (Please see the attached Work Authorizations
for further details)
ANALYSIS
The preliminary, estimated construction cost is $2,900,000.00 with
the engineering fees as follows:
Design, Permitting, Etc. $137,000.00
Project Inspection $ 42,000.00
Assessment $ 15,400.00
Survey $ 72,500.00
** Contingency 1s__10.000-00
Total $276,900.00
** To be authorized by the Utility Director as needed.
This fee is in line with other recent projects of this size, with
an engineering fee (exclusive of contingency and a8sessment) of
$251,500.00 or 8.62% of the construction cost. Funding for this
project will be from an assessment bond issue.
RECOMMENDATION
The staff of the Department of Utility Services recommends that
the Board of County Commissioners approve this project as
presented.
Commissioner Adams questioned the assessment figure of $15,400
and wondered if staff could not do this portion.
Director Pinto responded that staff does part of it but that
this assessment roll is set up in the community of Sebastian. The
project engineer establishes the assessment district and staff
handles the assessment processing. The assessment resolutions will
be approved through the City of Sebastian.
Commissioner Adams was still unsure why this could not be done
in-house, and Director Pinto explained that this is .a very large
project involving 2-3,000 parcels which staff could not handle in-
house.
NOVEMBER 21, 1995
RM
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously approved
the Sebastian Water Project, Phase I, Work
Authorization with Masteller & Moler, Inc., as
recommended by staff.
WORK AUTHORIZATION IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE
CLERK TO THE BOARD
58TH AVENUE WATER MAIN, PHASE I - CHANGE ORDER NO.1 AND
FINAL PAY REQUEST
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of November 15, 1995:
DATE:
November 15, 1995-
995TO:
TO:
JAMES E. CHANDLER
COUNTY ADMINISTRATO
FROM:
TERRANCE G. PINTO
DIRECTOR OF UTI SE VICES
PREPARED
ROBERT O. WIS
AND STAFFED
ENVII20NMENTAL
BY:
DEPARTMENT OF UTILITY SERVICES
SUBJECT:
58TH AVENUE WATER MAIN, PHASE I
(FROM OSLO ROAD TO 5TH STREET, SW)
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY PROJECT NO. UW -94 -05 -DS
CHANGE ORDER NO. 1 AND FINAL PAY REQUEST
BACKGROUND
On June 13, 1995, the Board of County Commissioners awarded the
contract to construct the --subject project to Timothy Rose
Contracting of Ft. Pierce, Florida, in the amount of $117,929.00.
Construction has been completed, and the project has been cleared
for service by the Florida Department of Environmental Protection.
The project has met all County standards and has been accepted.
ANALYSIS
During the course of said construction, a quantity adjustment was
made in the field. Two additional homeowners west of the Maitland
Farms Preschool (at 5th Street, SW) requested service to their
properties. This required extension of approximately 1,080 linear.
feet of water main to the west, added one six-inch gate valve, two
fire hydrant assemblies, and two additional two-inch services.
Payment has been received from these homeowners for the line
extension charges for this extension. (Please see the attached
breakdown of fees). At the canal crossing, a long span of steel
pipe was used to replace the flanged ductile iron pipe (as it was
originally designed). This.change in pipe was necessitated because
of delivery time difficulty. Change Order•No. 1 increases, the
existing contract by $10,061.00 to $127,990.00. The total payment
paid to the.contractor to date was $106,136.10, leaving a balance
of $21,853.90, including retainage. The contractor has submitted
a final pay request in the amount of $21,853.90.
The staff of the Department of Utility Services recommends that
the Board of County Commissioners approve Change Order No. 1 M the
amount of $10,061.00, which adjusts the contract to the new amount
of $127,990:00. Further, staff recommends approval of the final
pay request in the amount of $21,853.90 to Timothy Rose Contracting
for services rendered.
NOVEMBER 21, 1995 67
ROOK
96 PACE 6 r
i
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Adams, the Board unanimously approved
Change Order No. 1 in the amount of $10,061,
adjusting the contract to the new amount of
$127,990, and approved the final pay request in the
amount of $21,853.90 to Timothy Rose Contracting, as
recommended by staff.
CHANGE ORDER IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE
CLERK TO THE BOARD
1'15 DR 11141R 12 1 R LVA I I' 1
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of November 16, 1995:
MEMORANDUM
TO: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
FROM: Alice E. White
Executive Aide
SUBJECT: Bigger hard drive space needed for computer
DATE: November 16, 1995
96 PnE671.
When Windows and Word Perfect programs were installed on my
computer, I discovered that I did not have enough hard drive to
handle all of my programs and enable me to do my daily work.
All of my work files had to be transferred to a disk in order to
leave me enough space on the hard drive to do daily work. If I
attempt to bring the data on the work disk back onto the hard
drive, I will not have enough space to do my work.
Attached is a quote from Vetrol on the cost to upgrade my hard
drive and upgrade the memory on my printer.
There are not enough funds in my computer hardware account (001-
101-500-035.13) to cover the cost. I respectfully request that
funds be provided for this upgrade.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Adams, SECONDED by
Commissioner Eggert, the Board unanimously approved
upgrading computer equipment pursuant to staff's
request.
NOVEMBER 21, 1995 68
r
SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL DISTRICT
The Chairman announced that immediately upon adjournment, the
Board would -convene as the Board of Commissioners of the Solid
Waste Disposal District. Those Minutes are being prepared
separately.
There being no further business, on Motion duly made, seconded
and carried, the Board adjourned at 11:39 a.m.
ATTEST:
J. arton-, Clerk
Minutes Approved: I =;� r I � -9 5-
900{( 96 PA 1 672
NOVEMBER 21, 1995 69