HomeMy WebLinkAbout7/23/1996= MINUT�9MATTACHEL"
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY. FLORIDA
A G E N D A
TUESDAY, JULY 23,1996
9:00 A.M. - COUNTY COMMISSION CHAMBER
County Administration Building
1840 25th Street
Vero Beach, Florida
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Fran B. Adams, Chairman (District 1)
Carolyn K. Eggert, Vice Chairman (District 2)
Richard N. Bird (District 5)
Kenneth R. Macht (District 3) .
John W. Tippin (District 4)
9:00 a.m. 1. CALL TO ORDER
2. EVOCATION
James E. Chandler, County Administrator
Charles P. Vitunac, County Attorney
Jeffrey K. Barton, Clerk to the Board
3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - Comm. Richard N. Bird
4. ADDITION to the AGE AXWR ,FN[Cy ITEM,q
Added 7-E Resignation of Kathy Cigala and Appointment of Jane Coyle to
Children's Services Advisory Committee
Added 10 Budget cut recommendations
Added 13-D-1 Small County Coalition
Added 13-D-2 Letter from Lier family re: Jungle Trail
Deleted 11-H-2
5. PROCLAMATION and PRESENTATIONS
None
6. APPROVAL OF MMWTES
Regular Meeting of June 25, 1996
7. CONSENT AGENDA
A. Approval of Warrants
(memorandum dated July 11, 1996)
B. Award Bid #6071 / North Beach Force Main/
Transmission System
(memorandum dated July 15, 1996)
C. Award Bid #6070 / North Beach Repump Station
(memorandum dated July 15, 1996)
D. South Vero Square - Marginal Access Easement
Release
(memorandum dated July 15, 1996)
HACXUP
PAGES
1-8
9-15
16-21
22-25
Boon 98 FAcF.571
9:05 A.M.
BOOK 98 FmcE 572
8. CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS and
GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES BACKUP
PAGES
None
9. PUBLIC ITEMS
A. PUBLIC HEARINGS
1. Beazer Homes, (Island Club) Request to
Modify a Condition of Conceptual Planned
Development Approval Regarding the
Timing of Construction for a Left Turn
Lane on SR AIA
(memorandum dated July 16, 1996) 26-30
2. AN ORDINANCE OF L R. COUNTY,
FLORIDA, AMENDING THE ZONING
ORDINANCE & THE ACCOMPANYING
ZONING MAP FROM A-1 TO RS -6, FOR
THE PROPERTY LOCATED f 2,200 FEET
WEST OF SR AIA, NORTH OF THE
MARBRISA S/D, & DESCRIBED HEREIN,
& PROVIDING FOR EFFECTIVE DATE
(memorandum dated July 9,1996) 31-48
3. AN ORDINANCE OF LRC., FLORIDA,
AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE
& THE ACCOMPANYING ZONING MAP
FROM A-1 TO PD FOR APPROX. 39.17
ACRES OF LAND GENERALLY LOCATED
AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF CR510
AND JUNGLE TRAIL; AND DESCRIBED
HEREIN, AND PROVIDING FOR AN
EFFECTIVE DATE
(memorandum dated July 16, 1996) 49-81
4• AN ORDINANCE OF I.R.C., FLORIDA,
AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE
& THE ACCOMPANYING ZONING MAP
FROM RS -6 TO RM -8, FOR THE PROPERTY
LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER
OF 41 ST STREET & IND. RIV. BOULEVARD,
AND DESCRIBED HEREIN, AND PROVIDING
FOR EFFECTIVE DATE
(memorandum dated July 9, 1996) 82-100
5. AN ORDINANCE OF I.R.C., FLORIDA,
AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE
& THE ACCOMPANYING ZONING MAP
FROM A-1 TO RS -3, FOR THE PROPERTY
LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF STH
STREET, BETWEEN 82ND AVE. AND 90TH
AVENUE, AND DESCRIBED HEREIN, AND
PROVIDING FOR EFFECTIVE DATE
(memorandum dated July 9, 1996) 101-114
9:05 A.M. 9. PUBLIC ITEMS (cont'd )• BACKUP
A. PUBLIC HEARINGS (cont'd.l• PAGES
6. AN ORDINANCE OF I.R.C., FLORIDA,
AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE
AND THE ACCOMPANYING ZONING
MAP FROM RMH-8 TO RS -6, FOR THE
PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE NORTH
OF 45TH STREET, BETWEEN 51 ST AVE.
AND 56TH AVE., AND DESCRIBED
HEREIN, AND PROVIDING FOR EFFEC-
TIVE DATE
(memorandum dated July 9, 1996) 115-125
B. PUBLIC DISCUSSION ITEMS
None
10. COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S MATTERS
None
11. DEPARTMENTAL MATTERS
A. Community Development
None
B. Emergency Services
None
C. General Services
None
D. Leisure Services
None
E. Office of Management and Budget
None
F. Personnel
None
G. Public Works
1. 26th Street Paving and Drainage
Improvements - 58th Ave. to 66th Ave.
Pay Request No. 9 & Final Release
(memorandum dated July 10, 1996) 126-127
2. Resolutions to Provide for the Paving
and Drainage Improvements to, and
set public hearing date for: 26th Street
(Walker Ave) West of 66th Ave. to
Village Green, Phase H
(memorandum dated June 26, 1996) 128-140
BooK 98 uu 573
BOOK 98 f'1 )E 514
11. DEPARTMENTAL MATTERS (cont'd ): BACKUP
PAGES
12.
13.
H. Utilities
1. Vero Beach Highlands Lift Station #1
Refurbishment - Award Bid #6069 and
Authorization to Purchase Equipment
(memorandum dated July 11, 1996)
141-163
2.. North Beach Reverse Osmosis Plant
Pump Station Conversion
(memorandum dated June 3, 1996)
164183
3. Laurelwood Force Main and Lift Station
Up -Grade Phase I - 27th Ave. Force Main
Change Order No. 1
(memorandum dated July 12, 1996)
184186
4. Petition for Water Service in Ponderosa
Estates Unit One (60th Ave., South of 45th
St.) Resolutions I and II
'
(memorandum dated July 19, 1996)
187-197
COUNTY ATTORNEY
Resolution Appointing Value Adjustment Board Members
and Providing for Per Diem Compensation for Value
Adjustment Board Members
(memorandum dated July 16,1996)
198-200
COMMISSIONERS ITEMS
A. Chairman Fran B. Adams
B. Vice Chairman Carolyn K. Eggert
C. Commissioner Richard N. Bird
D. Commissioner Kenneth R. Macht
E. Commissioner John W Tiepin
14. SPECIAL DISTRICTSBOARDS
A. Em�ency Services District
None
B. Solid Waste Disposal District .
Consulting Services - Waste Conversion
Industrial Park
(memorandum dated July 15, 1996)
C. Environmental Control Board
1. Approval of Minutes - meeting of 6-11-96
2. Quarterly Report
(memorandum dated July 11, 1996)
15. ADJOURNMENT
0
BACXUP
PAGES
201-210
211-223
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.
Meeting broadcast live on TCI Cable Channel 13 - rebroadcast S: 00 Am. Thursday through
S: 00 p.m. Friday
Falcon Cable Channel 35 - rebroadcast Friday evening
BDOK 98 F � 575
M QK Im
INDEX TO MINUTES
July 23, 1996
Regular Meeting of Board of County Commissioners
ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA/EMERGENCY ITEMS . . . . . . . . . . . 1
APPROVAL OF MINUTES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
CONSENT AGENDA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
A. Approval of Warrants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
B. Award Bid #6071 - North Beach Force
Main/Transmission System Derrico Construction . . 10
C. Award Bid #6070 - North Beach Repump Station . . . 13
D. South Vero Square - Marginal Access Easement
Release . . . . . . . . . . . .15
E. Resignation and Appointment - Children's Services
Advisory Committee . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
PUBLIC HEARING - BEAZER HOME'S REQUEST TO MODIFY CONDITION OF
CONCEPTUAL PLANNED DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL - ISLAND CLUB 16
PUBLIC HEARING - BEAZER HOMES' REQUEST TO REZONE APPROX. 8.3
ACRES FROM A-1 TO RS -6 - ISLAND CLUB . . . . . . . . . 19
PUBLIC HEARING - KENNEDY GROVES' REQUEST TO REZONE APPROX.
39.17 ACRES FROM A-1 TO PD . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
PUBLIC HEARING - DUCK POND SCHWERIN REAL ESTATE REQUEST TO
REZONE APPROX. 20.7 ACRES FROM RS -6 TO RM -8 . . . . . 56
PUBLIC HEARING - STOKE' S REQUEST TO REZONE APPROX. 1 ACRE FROM
A-1 TO RS -3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68
PUBLIC HEARING - HALL'S REQUEST TO REZONE APPROX. 2 ACRES FROM
RMH-8 TO RS -6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77
MODIFICATIONS TO PROPOSED BUDGET FOR 1996-97 . . . . . . . 84
26TH STREET PAVING AND DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS - 58TH AVENUE TO
66THAVENUE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90
26TH STREET PAVING - WEST OF 66TH AVE. TO VILLAGE GREEN, PHASE
II - RESOLUTIONS I AND II . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93
AWARD BID 6069 - VERO BEACH HIGHLANDS LIFT STATION #1
REFURBISHMENT - AUTHORIZATION TO PURCHASE EQUIPMENT 99
LAURELWOOD FORCE MAIN AND LIFT STATION . . « . . . . . . . 101
PETITION FOR WATER SERVICE IN PONDEROSA ESTATES
- RESOLUTIONS I AND II . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102
RESOLUTION APPOINTING VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD MEMBERS AND
PROVIDING FOR PER DIEM COMPENSATION . . . . . . . . . 112
SMALL COUNTY COALITION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114
NORTH JUNGLE TRAIL - LIER LETTER OF CONCERN . . . . . . . . 116
SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL DISTRICT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117
ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL BOARD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117
i
JULY 239 1996
aorh y� fAf, 5 r
Tuesday, July 23, 1996
The Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County,
Florida, met in Regular Session at the County Commission Chambers,
1840 25th Street, Vero Beach, Florida, on Tuesday, July 23, 1996,
at 9:30 a.m. Present were Fran B. Adams, Chairman; Carolyn K.
Eggert, Vice Chairman; Richard N. Bird; Kenneth R. Macht; and John
W. Tippin. Also present were James E. Chandler, County
Administrator; William G. Collins II, Deputy County Attorney; and
Barbara Bonnah, Deputy Clerk.
Chairman Adams called the meeting to order at 9:30 a.m. and
apologized for the delay due to a loss of power in the building.
Auxiliary lighting is being provided by generators but the air
conditioning will be out until temporary repairs are made.
Commissioner Bird led the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag.
ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA/EMERGENCY ITEMS
Commissioner Macht requested the additions:
7-E Resignation of Kathy Cigalo from the Children's
Services Advisory Committee and appointment of Jane
Coyle as her replacement.
13-D-1 Participation in Small County Coalition (Legislative
Network).
13-D-2 Letter from Lier Groves regarding North Jungle Trail.
Administrator Chandler requested the addition of Item 10,
modifications to the 1996-97 Budget, and deletion of 11-H-2, North
Beach Reverse Osmosis Plant.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously approved
the above additions and deletion to today's Agenda.
JULY 239 1996 1 B6 -9K, 98 577
98
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
The Chairman asked if there were any corrections or additions
to the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of June 25, 1996. There were
none.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Tippin, the Board unanimously approved
the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of 6/25/96, as
written.
CONSENT AGENDA
A. Approval of Warrants
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 7/11/96:
TO: HONORABLE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
DATE: JULY 11, 1996
SUBJECT: APPROVAL OF WARRANTS
FROM: EDWIN M. FRY, JR., FINANCE DIRECTOR
In compliance with Chapter 136.06, Florida Statutes, all warrants issued by
the Board of County Commissioners are to be recorded in the Board minutes.
Approval is requested for the attached list of warrants, issued by the Clerk
to the Board, for the time period of July 5, thru July 11, 1996.
2
JULY 239 1996
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Tippin, the Board unanimously approved
the list of warrants issued by the Clerk to the
Board for the time period of July 5 through July 11,
1996.
CHECK
NAME
CHECK
CHECK
NUMBER
DATE
AMOUNT
0017801
BARTON, JEFFREY K -CLERK
7/05/96
305.20
0017802
SHELDON, JAMES
7/05/96
818.00
0017803
FLORIDA RETIRIIMENT SYSTEM
7/09/96
307,842.93
0017804
AETNA LIFE INSURANCE AND
7/09/96
864.39
0017805
BARTON, JEFFREY K -CLERK
7/09/96
947.70
0017806
FLORIDA BAR, THE
7/10/96
190.00
0017807
FLORIDA BAR, THE
7/10/96
190.00
0017808
FIRST UNION NATIONAL BANK OF
7/10/96
1,652.15
0205589
ACTION TRANSMISSION AND
7/11/96
32.00
0205590
ADVANCED GARAGE DOORS, INC
7/11/96
40.00
0205591
AERO PRODUCTS CORP
7/11/96
674.47
0205592
ALPHA ACE HARDWARE
7/11/96
96.43
0205593
ACTION ANSWERING SERVICE
7/11/96
240.40
0205594
APPLE MACHINERY & SUPPLY
7/11/96
134.82
0205595
A T C 0 TOOL SUPPLY
7/11/96
8.52
0205596
ALL POWER SERVICES, INC
7/11/96
172.50
0205597
A T & T
7/11/96
15.90
0205598
AVANTI INTERNATIONAL
7/11/96
4,480.00
0205599
AMADEAS LEGAL PUBLICATION, INC
7/11/96
92.00
0205600
ARMA INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE
7/11/96
100.00
0205601
ADDISON OIL CO
7/11/96
530.47
0205602
A T & T
7/11/96
72.70
0205603
ABLE AIR, INC
7/11/96
30.00
0205604
A T C 0 MANUFACTURING CO, INC
7/11/96
187.80
0205605
A T & T
7/11/96
10.74
0205606
AMERICAN COASTAL ENGINEERING,
7/11/96
401,850.00
0205607
AMERIGAS, INC
7/11/96
696.00
0205608
ALL INDIAN RIVER FENCE CO
7/11/96
1,650.00
0205609
ALBERTSON'S
7/11/96
227.93
0205610
AVMA ACTUATORS, INC
7/11/96
1,245.53
0205611
ALL COUNTY EQUIPMENT COMPANY
7/11/96
58.41
0205612
ALLEN, CHERI
7/11/96
91.37
0205613
BAKER & TAYLOR, INC
7/11/96
1,394.67
0205614
BAKER BROTHERS, INC
7/11/96
567.31
0205615
BARTH CONSTRUCTION
7/11/96
500.00
0205616
BARTON, JEFFREY K -CLERK
7/11/96
847.50
0205617
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
7/11/96
3,374.54
0205618
BENSONS LOCK SERVICE
7/11/96
22.45
0205619
BRIX OUTH MOBILITY
7/11/96
67.66
0205620
BARTON, JEFFREY K -CLERK
7/11/96
4,811.25
0205621
B & B INDUSTRIAL SUPPLY CO.
7/11/96
2,144.08
0205622
BAKER & TAYLOR
7/11/96
2.00
0205623
BILLING SERVICE, INC
7/11/96
118.51
0205624
BESS, SHAWN
7/11/96
301.75
0205625
BLAKESLEE MAINTENANCE
7/11/96
250.00
0205626
BELLSOUTH
7/11/96
4,251.14
0205627
BOLLE AMERICA, INC
7/11/96
17.55
0205628
CHILTON BOOK COMPANY
7/11/96
10.96
0205629
COMMUNICATIONS INT, INC
7/11/96
52.25
0205630
CHILDREN'S BOOK COUNCIL, INC
7/11/96
95.70
0205631
CLARK WATER CONDITIONING
7/11/96
96.20
3 98 p.�,,�� 5i9
JULY 23, 1996 BooK
FF_ -7
BOOK 98 PAU 53®
CHECK NAME
CHECK
CHECK
NUMBER
DATE
AMOUNT
0205632
COASTAL FUELS MARKETING, INC
7/11/96
4,374.14
0205633
CLINIC PHARMACY
7/11/96
443.44
0205634
COPELAND, LINDA
7/11/96
199.50
0205635
CARTER & VERPLANCK
7/11/96
98.82
0205636
CUSTOM CARRIAGES, INC
7/11/96
698.54
0205637
CUSTOM TOUCH OF VERO, INC
7/11/96
7,235.00
0205638
COOGAN, MAUREEN AND
7/11/96
540.20
0205639
CROMES III, INC.
7/11/96
3,855.84
0205640
CUES, INC
7/11/96
2,022.83
0205641
C & D CONSTRUCTION INC
7/11/96
2,414.81
0205642
CANTERBURY
7/11/96
29.42
0205643
C E I
7/11/96
205.07
0205644
CENTRAL A/C & REFRG SUPPLY
7/11/96
108.95
0205645
DAILY COURIER SERVICE
7/11/96
270.00
0205646
DAVIS, JAMES
7/11/96
273.80
0205647
FLORIDA DEPT OF MANAGEMENT
7/11/96
2,922.71
0205648
DOCTOR'S CLINIC
7/11/96
588.34
0205649
DON SMITH'S PAINT STORE, INC
7/11/96
707.61
0205650
DATA SUPPLIES, INC
7/11/96
616.77
0205651
DISCOUNT AUTO PARTS
7/11/96
171.68
0205652
DAVIDSON TITLES, INC
7/11/96
53.50
0205653
DATA FLOW SYSTEMS, INC
7/11/96
220.00
0205654
DAVIS METER & SUPPLY, INC
7/11/96
4,110.00
0205655
DARTEK COMPUTER SUPPLY CORP
7/11/96
23.77
0205656
DICIANO, JOSEPH DDS
7/11/96
461.00
0205657
DADE PAPER COMPANY
7/11/96
230.67
0205658
DWYER INSTRUMENTS
7/11/96
36.22
0205659
DAVIS INSTRUMENTS CORPORATION
7/11/96
165.00
0205660
ENVIROMETRICS, INC
7/11/96
315.00
0205661
EXECUTIVE BUSINESS EQUIPMENT
7/11/96
80.00
0205662
ERCILDOUNE BOWLING LANES
7/11/96
210.00
0205663
EAST COAST SOD
7/11/96
1,064.50
0205664
ENVIRONMENTAL WATERWAY
7/11/96
190.00
0205665
ELPEX, INC
7/11/96
337.35
0205666
EVAC ONE
7/11/96
775.64
0205667
FLORIDA BAR, THE
7/11/96
190.00
0205668
FLORIDA COCA-COLA BOTTLING CO
7/11/96
154.00
0205669
F P & L
7/11/96
5,579.54
0205670
FLORIDA RIBBON & CARBON
7/11/96
1,247.15
0205671
FLORIDA SLUDGE SERVICE
7/11/96
2,331.00
0205672
FOURTH DISTRICT COURT OF
7/11/96
500.00
0205673
FLOWERS BAKING COMPANY OF
7/11/96
83.11
0205674
FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS
7/11/96
645.00
0205675
FORBES MAGAZINE
7/11/96
114.00
0205676
FLINN, SHEILA I
7/11/96
150.50
0205677
FLORIDA TREASURE COAST
7/11/96
125.00
0205678
FMC CORPORATION
7/11/96
4,440.00
0205679
FALCON CABLE TV
7/11/96
18.27
0205680
FOWLER CARBONICS, INC
7/11/96
63.00
0205681
FLORIDA MEDICAID COUNTY
7/11/96
62,220.86
0205682
FALZONE, JESSICA
7/11/96
17.00
0205683
FELL MERE, CITY OF
7/11/96
53.83
0205684
FERGUSON ENTERPRISES, INC
7/11/96
105.25
0205685
FLORIDA NOTARY SERVICE AND
7/11/96
74.00
0205686
FORE COMMUNICATIONS, INC
7/11/96
155.00
0205687
GABBERS CONTRACTOR SUPPLY
7/11/96
537.43
0205688
GATOR LUMBER COMPANY
7/11/96
31.88
0205689
GAYLORD BROTHERS, INC
7/11/96
29.58
0205690
GEORGE W FOWLER CO
7/11/96
125.69
0205691
GLIDDEN COMPANY, THE
7/11/96
241.44
0205692
GROLIER EDUCATION CORP
7/11/96
397.00
4
JULY 239 1996
5 BOOK 9���
JiTLY 239 1996
CHECK
CHECK NAME
DA E
AMOUNT
NUMBER
0205693 GENERAL MEDICAL CORP
7/11/96
7/11/96
1,132.99
103.21
0205694 GEORGE T BISEL COMPANY
7/11/96
30.00
0205695
0205696
GRAVES & HALL, INC
GOODYEAR TIRE & RUBBER
7/11/96
7/11/96
3,040.05
372.00
0205697
GOLF SPECIALTIES
7/11/96
45.70
0205698
0205699
GORKA, CAROL
H F SCIENTIFIC, INC
7/11/96
7/11/96
160.57
48.03
0205700
HARRISON UNIFORMS
7/11/96
24.00
0205701
0205702
HEATH, CHAFES W
HI -TECH SERVICING TECH
7/11/96
11/96
3,005.65
19,940.00
0205703
HUMANE SOCIETY OF VERO BEACH
7/11/96
1,109.27
0205704
0205705
HUNTER AUTO SUPPLY
HARCO TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION
7/11/96
3,850.00
1,021.55
0205706
HILL MANUFACTURING CO
PATIO FURNITURE
7/11/96
528.00
0205707
HOME &
7/11/96
706.90
0205708
0205709
HORIZON NURSERY
HARTSFIELD, CELESTE L
7/11/96
168.00
365.00
0205710
HANDI PRO HOMEOWNER SERVICE
7/11/96
7/11/96
315.03
0205711
HYDRAULIC QUALITY SERVICE
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY SOLID
7/11/96
4.50
0205712
0205713
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY SCHOOL
7/11/96
7/11/96
8,334.47
16.33
0205714
INDIAN RIVER ACE PAINT
7/11/96
254.00
0205715
0205716
INDIAN RIVER BATTERY
INDIAN RIVER BLUE PRINT, INC
7/11/96
20.70
180.00
0205717
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY COMMUNITY
COUNTY UTILITIES
7/11/96
7/11/96
594.64
0205718
0205719
INDIAN RIVER
INDIAN RIVER MEMORIAL HOSPITAL
7/11/96 11/96
28,50
57.00
0205720
INDIAN RIVER MEMORIAL HOSPITAL
7/11/96
285.52
0205721
0205722
INGRAM
INTERSTATE BILLING SERVICE
11/96
7/11/96
581.88
1,550.00
0205723
0205724
INFORMATION ACCESS CO
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY SCHOOL
7/11/96
1,800.00
675.00
7/11/96
0205725
0205726
ROY CLARK
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
7/11/96
7/11/96
332.16
133.35
0205727
INFORMATION CONSERVATION, INC
IRRIGATION CENTER
1/96
141.88
0205728
HOMELAND
711/96
304.77
0205729
0205730
JOHNSTON, JOYCE M
J R REPORTING ASSOCIATES, INC
7/11/96 /11/96
58.00
1,094.00
0205731
0205732
JIMMY'S TREE SERVICE, INC
JOHNSON CONTROLS INSTITUTE
711/96
2,250.00
0205733
J & A HANDY -CRAFTS, INC
7/11/9682.44
7/11/96
76.50
0205734
0205735
JONES, LUTHER
JONES CHEMICALS, INC
7/11/96
7/11/96
2,920.00
48.85
0205736
KNIGHT & MATHIS, INC
7/11/96
380.44
0205737
KELLY'TRACTOR
7/11/96
41.47
0205738
0205739
KLUCINEC, MONA
KILPATRICK TURF EQUIPMENT INC
27.34
152.39
0205740
KIRBY AUTO SUPPLY
.7/11/96 11/96
7/11/96
500.00
0205741
KILKENNNY, JOHN & ELAINE
7/11/96
387.55
0205742
LESCO, INC
7/11/96
413.97
0205743
0205744
L B SMITH, INC
LIGHT SOURCE -TONER SUPPLY
7/11/96
7/11/96
662.42
133.95
0205745
LYBEN COMPUTER SYSTEMS
ASSOC
7/11/96
15,695.93
0205746
L ROBERT KIMBALL &
7/11/96
60.34
0205747
LEATHERMAN, SHONDALA
7/11/96
380.38
0205748
MACMILLAN OIL COMPANY
5 BOOK 9���
JiTLY 239 1996
BOOK 98 PAPE 582
CHECK NAME
CHECK
CHECK
NUMBER
DATE
AMOUNT
0205749
MAXWELL PLUMBING, INC
7/11/96
224.34
0205750
MICROFORMS MANAGEMENT COR
7/11/96
30.45
0205751
MISCO/POWER UP INC
7/11/96
21.78
0205752
MASTELLER & MOLER, INC
7/11/96
1,150.00
0205753
MAP LINK, INC
7/11/96
67.23
0205754
MCMASTER-CARR SUPPLY COMPANY
7/11/96
174.73
0205755
MICHIE
7/11/96
39.49
0205756
MC GINNIS, JAMES
7/11/96
679.50
0205757
MIDWEST TAPE EXCHANGE
7/11/96
28.90
0205758
MR BOB PORTABLE TOILET
7/11/96
76.12
0205759
MERCIER, SID
7/11/96
1,181.65
0205760
MCCULLY, W K & ASSOCIATES
7/11/96
4,260.00
0205761
MID -FLORIDA FORKLIFT, INC
7/11/96
70.95
0205762
NORTHERN BANK NOTE CO
7/11/96
2,003.21
0205763
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF
7/11/96
95.00
0205764
NEW HORIZONS OF THE TREASURE-
7/11/96
4,306.41
0205765
NATIONAL ALLIANCE FOR
7/11/96
18.95
0205766
OFFICE PRODUCTS & SERVICE
7/11/96
248.60
0205767
OFFICE PRODUCTS & SERVICE
7/11/96
628.04
0205768
OSBORN, MERLE RN
7/11/96
100.00
0205769
PEPSI -COLA BOTTLING GROUP
7/11/96
57.75
0205770
PETTY CASH
7/11/96
79.10
0205771
PHILLIPS, LINDA R
7/11/96
276.50
0205772
PIFER, INC
7/11/96
60.08
0205773
PUBLIC DEFENDER 19TH JUDICIAL
7/11/96
2,970.62
0205774
PANASONIC COMMUNICATIONS CO
7/11/96
171.57
0205775
PORT PETROLEUM, INC
7/11/96
1,085.08
0205776
PROGRESSIVE DATA MGMT, INC
7/11/96
730.00
0205777
PAT'S AUTO PARTS
7/11/96
7.78
0205778
PRINTMARK, INC
7/11/96
384.00
0205779
PRIMESTAR BY TCI CABLE
7/11/96
39.95
0205780
PANASONIC COMMUNICATIONS
7/11/96
144.78
0205781
R & J CRANE SERVICE, INC
7/11/96
225.00
0205782
RADIO SHACK ACCT RECEIVABLE
7/11/96
206.70
0205783
RIFKIN, SHELDON H PHD
7/11/96
500.00
0205784
RAY PACE'S WASTE EQUIPMENT,INC
7/11/96
49.29
0205785
ROSS, TONY
7/11/96
91.37
0205786
SAFETY KLEEN CORP
7/11/96
138.00
0205787
SCOTT'S SPORTING GOODS
7/11/96
1,079.50
0205788
SCOTTY'S, INC
7/11/96
410.78
0205789
SEBASTIAN TRUE VALUE
7/11/96
13.91
0205790
SEWELL HARDWARE CO, INC
7/11/96
159.15
0205791
SKISCIM CAMERA STORE, INC
7/11/96-
3.77
0205792
SOUTHERN EAGLE DISTRIBUTING,
7/11/96
461.10
0205793
SOUTHERN ELECTRIC SUPPLY
7/11/96
645.52
0205794
SOUTHERN TRUCK EQUIPMENT
7/11/96•
500.63
0205795
SUDDEN IMAGES
7/11/96
12.38
0205796
SULLIVAN, CHARLES A JR ESQ
7/11/96
423.33
0205797
SUN COAST CLEANING SUPPLIES,
7/11/96
126.20
0205798
SUNCOAST WELDING SUPPLIES, INC
7/11/96
182.46
0205799
SUNRISE FORD TRACTOR CO
7/11/96
92.60
0205800
SERVICE REFRIGERATION CO, INC
7/11/96
280.45
0205801
SKATE TOWN USA
7/11/96
1,234.00
0205802
SIMON & SCHUSTER CONSUMER
7/11/96
688.81
0205803
SOUTHERN JANITOR SUPPLY
7/11/96
3,192.39
0205804
SKILLPATH, INC
7/11/96
395.00
Cl
JULY 239 1996
CHECK
NAME
CHECK
CHECK
NUMBER
DATE
AMOUNT
0205805
SPALDING SPORTS WORLD WIDE
7/11/96
969.60
0205806
SUN BELT MEDICAL SUPPLY, INC
7/11/96
610.00
0205807
SELIG CHEMICAL IND
7/11/96
208.74
0205808
SOLINET
7/11/96
397.53
0205809
SUPERIOR PRINTING
7/11/96
148.95
0205810
SYSCO FOOD SERVICE
7/11/96
476.63
0205811
SMITH, DONALD
7/11/96
444.00
0205812
SMITH, VENICE TYRONE
7/11/96
1,218.00
0205813
STM COMPANY/SAVE THE MOMENT
7/11/96
45.00
0205814
SECURITYLINK FROM
7/11/96
703.60
0205815
SIGNATURE SOFTWARE INC
7/11/96
107.45
0205816
TAYLOR RENTAL CENTER
7/11/96
12.00
0205817
TITLEIST DRAWER CS
7/11/96
122.96
0205818
TREASURE COAST REFUSE CORP
7/11/96
572.39
0205819
TREASURE COAST DATA PROCESSING
7/11/96
255.00
0205820
TNEMEC COMPANY, INC
7/11/96
272.02
0205821
TREASURE COAST CONTRACTING,INC
7/11/96
1,310.00
0205822
TRANSTAT EQUIPMENT INC
7/11/96
540.00
0205823.
TREASURE COAST PUBLISHING INC
7/11/96
749.00
0205824
THOMPSON PUBLISHING GROUP, INC
7/11/96
238.00
0205825
TATTEGRAIN, RAYMOND
7/11/96
62.50
0205826
THIMMER, JAMES
7/11/96
235.87
0205827
TABAR, JEFFREY
7/11/96
25.14
0205828
UNITED HORTICULTURAL SUPPLY
7/11/96
4,575.00
0205829
VELDE FORD, INC
7/11/96
24.21
0205830
VERO BEACH PRESS JOURNAL
7/11/96
24.48
0205831
VERO BEACH PRESS JOURNAL
7/11/96
814.68
0205832
VERO BEACH, CITY OF
7/11/96
48,234.89
0205833
VERO CHEMICAL DISTRIBUTOR.S,INC
7/11/96
119.16
0205834
VERO LAWNMOWER CENTER, INC
7/11/96
236.35
0205835
VILLAGE ANIMAL CLINIC
7/11/96
30.00
0205836
VITUNAC, CHARLES P
7/11/96
158.93
0205837
VERO BEACH, CITY OF
7/11/96
259.50
0205838
VERO BEACH, CITY OF
7/11/96
46.16
0205839
VERO BOWL
7/11/96
564.00
0205840
VEY, CARRIE
7/11/96
284.75
0205841
VERO BEARING & BOLT
7/11/96
142.35
0205842
VERO BEACH POWERTRAIN
7/11/96
190.60
0205843
VERO BEACH PRESS JOURNAL INC
7/11/96
26.60
0205844
WAL-MART STORES, INC
7/11/96
748.96
0205845
W W GRAINGER, INC
7/11/96
35.19
0205846
WISEMEN, ROBERT 0
7/11/96
82.02
0205847
WILLHOFF, PATSY
7/11/96
104.00
0205848.
WM THIES & SONS, INC
7/11/96
103.60
0205849
WHEELER PUBLISHING, INC
7/11/96
142.92
0205850
WALLACE AND TIERNAN, INC
7/11/96
214.82
0205851
WYNDHAM HARBOUR ISLAND HOTEL
7/11/96
89.00
0205852
WOLFE, MEGAN
7/11/96
28.68
0205853
WHITTINGTON, KYLIE
7/11/96
269.87
0205854
WRAP `N SHIP
7/11/96
91.85
0205855
WHITTINGTON, MEGAN
7/11/96
282.62
0205856
YAVORSKY'S TRUCK SERVICE,INC
7/11/96
1,803.09
0205857
ZENGOTITA, NELSON A
7/11/96
52.40
0205858
BELL PROPERTY MGM T, INC
7/11/96
56.60
0205859
PAPPAS, MARILYN
7/11/96
22.00
0205860
LIOTTA, ANTHONY
7/11/96
38.05
7
JULY 239 1996 ma 96'
BOOK 98 PAGE 584
CHECK
NAME
NUMBER
C UX
CHECK
DATE
AMOUNT
0205861
SCHLITT, MICHAEL
7/11/96
11.87
0205862
MERRILL, WILLIAM
7/11/96
7.81
0205863
WHITE PINE
7/11/96
11.87
0205864
STOKES, DAVID
7/11/96
57.29
0205865
WASDIN GROUP, INC
7/11/96
61.40
0205866
BECCI, PETE & EILEEN
7/11/96
28.30
0205867
POWELL, STEPHEN
7/11/96
3.71
0205868
COLELLA, JAY
7/11/96
73.26
0205869
GEBHART, MR & MRS BARRY
7/11/96
15.18
0205870
O CONNOR, MAURICE/BRENDA
7/11/96
105.10
0205871
BAYLE, RICHARD
7/11/96
105.14
0205872
0205873
GROVE ISLE CONDO ASSOC
DISMUKES, MARTHA C
7/11/96
1,226.22
0205874
GONZALEZ, MBLANIO
7/11/96
7/11/96
58.83
0205875
WITTE, LINDA
7/11/96
52.52
58.73
0205876
HESSMAN, CAMILLE
7/11/96
52.53
0205877
BARKER, ROY S
7/12/96
57.20
0205878
MC KALLIP, WILLIAM B
71196
50.00
0205879
-PUGLIESE, SALVATORE
7/11/96
52.54
0205880
ROMAN, JESUS
7/11/96
57.13
0205881
BARNETT MORTAGE CO
7/11/96
31.73
0205882
KITZMILLER, DOROTHY
7/11/96
3.03
0205883
PARADISE HOMES OF IR INC
7/11/96
14.03
0205884
DODGEM, JOEY
7/11/96
17.44
0205885
BROWNING, GARY
7/11/96
19.72
0205886
PUNCHES, GILL
7/11/96
16.43
0205887
GOLDEN EAGLE, INC
7%11/96
240.00
0205888
PAN AMERICAN ENGINEERING CO
7/11/96
18.04
0205889
BALL, STEPHEN & MAUREEN
7/11/96
1.03
0205890
MAYER, CARL H
7/11/96
35.09
0205891
R ZORC & SONS BUILDERS INC
7/11/96
30.26
0205892
WATERS, TAD J & EMILIE
7/11/96
8.94
0205893
DEEHAN, WILLIAM & VIVIAN
7/11/96
80.46
0205894
GTM DEVELOPMENT INC
7/11/96
12.90
0205895
CARONE, JOSEPH V
7/11/96
76.51
0205896
HOLIDAY BUILDERS
7/11/96
45.81
0205897
BRADLEY JR, JAMES
7/11/96
28.73
0205898
CHAMBLISS, CHIQUITA
7/11/96
1.55
0205899
DAVENPORT, RICHARD & TAMMIE
7/11/96
63.14
0205900
STRICKLAND, DIANE D
7/11/96
28.54
0205901
DAVIS, SUSAN
7/11/96
44.49
0205902
STAGGS, ROBERT
7/11/96
37.07
0205903
BRYANT, CHRISTOPHER
7/11/96
41.08
0205904
PAGE, THOMAS
7/11/96
23.32
0205905
CASDORPH, ROBERT E
7/11/96
4.48
0205906
SC HMITT, WENDY
7/11/96_
59.12
0205907
MULLINAX, DARRELL & JILL
7/11/96
13.03
0205908
C:ARLTON, ALAN R
7/11/96
66.59
0205909
WILSON, ROBERT J
7/11/96
81.97
0205910
BUSKIRK, KENNETH RAY
7/11/96
23.76
0205911
HALCOMB, RICK
7/11/96
78.20
0205912
BARTLEMAN, WILLIAM J
7/11/96
12.82
0205913
EHLERS JR, ROBERT L
7/11/96
7.42
0205914
ANTHONY, SHERRI
7/11/96
56.45
0205915
DIGIACOMO, SAL
7/11/96
44.31
0205916
BRADSHER, SHIRLEY
7/11/96
67.84
8
JULY 239 1996
CHECK NAME
CHECK
CHECK
NUMBER
DATE
AMOUNT
0205917
PAROW, TANJA
7/11/96
71.67
0205918
GILLESPIE, NANCY
7/11/96
44.74
0205919
FAETH, JOSEPH C
7/11/96
68.43
0205920
SPIRES (TR), HASKELL E
7/11/96
38.48
1,042,732.04
9
JULY 239 1996 saOK 98
BOOK r A 586
B. Award Bid #6071 - North Beach Force Main/Transmission System
Derrico Construction
The Board reviewed the following memos dated 7/15/96:
DATE: July 15, 1996
TO: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
THRU: James E. Chandler, County Administrator
H.T. "Sonny" Dean, General Services Director
FROM: Fran Boynton -Powell, Purchasing Manager
SUBJECT: Award Bid #607I/North Beach Force MaWrransmission System
Utilities Department
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
Bid Opening Date:
Advertising Dates:
Advertisement Mailed to:
Replies:
VENDOR
Derrico Construction
Melbourne, FL
All American Concrete Inc
St Petersburg, FL
Martin Paving
Vero Beach, FL
Speegle Construction
Cocoa, . FL
JoBear
Palm Bay, FL
Pipeline Utilities
Riviera Beach, FL
Pipeline Inc
Tiers Verde, FL
TOTAL AMOUNT OF BID
June 19, 1996
May 23, 20, June 6, 13, 1996
Fifteen (15) Vendors
Seven (7) Vendors
BID TOTAL
$1,420,260.00
$1,737,740.49
$1,743,371.10
$1,797,340.00
$2,012,500.00
$2,308,816.00
$2,250,000.00
$1,420,260.00
ESTIMATED BUDGET $1,500,000.00
Utilities Department Anessments Fund -473-000-169-279.00 &472-00M69-243.00
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the bid be awarded to Derrico Construction as the lowest, most
responsive and responsible bidder meeting specifications as set forth in the Invitation to Bid. (See
Departmental Memo)
In addition, staff also requests Board approval of the attached Agreement as to form, when all
requirements are met and approved by the County Attorney.
JULY 239 1996 10
DATE:
TO:
THRU:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
UTIL (CBIDAWAR.WFM)
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
DEPARTMENT OF UTILITY SERVICES
INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM
JULY 15, 1996
FRAN BOYNTON POWELL
PURCHASING MANAGER
TERRANCE G.
DIRECTOR OF
WILLIAM F.
AIN, P. E.
ENGINEER
DEPARTMENT Or'UTILITY SERVICES
�--
AWARD OF BID NOS. 6070 AND 6071
CES
The final budget estimate was $1,705,000.00. The original bid for
the project was $1,940,861.00. This was $235,861.00 over the
budgeted project amount and approximately 390,000± over the
original estimate. On April 23, 1996, the Utilities Department
went before the Board of County Commissioners to reject the
original bids. (See attached agenda and minutes.)
At that same time, we acquired approval for a redesign to
accommodate additional Department of Transportation (D.O.T.)
requirements. The bid cost was reduced by $168,572.00 over the
original bid.
The total combined bids for this project is $1,772,289.00, which is
$67,289.00 over the project budget estimate. Based on a review of
the bids and the' engineers recommendation, we request that you
proceed with the award of both bids and secure approval' for
contract signature when bond and insurance have been received.
If you have any questions, please contact me at 770-5325.
WFM/c
Attachment
11 Boot 9 D.
JULY 23, 1996
BOOK 98 Fact 588
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Tippin, the Board unanimously awarded
Bid #6071 to Derrico Construction in the amount of
$1,420,260 as set forth in staff's recommendation.
AGREEMENT '- . PLACED ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE
CLERK TO THE BOARD
C. Award Bid ##6070 - North Beach Repump Station
The Board reviewed the following memos dated 7/15/96:
DATE: July 15, 1996
TO: BOARD OF COUNTY CONWSSIONERS
THRU: James E. Chandler, County Administrator
H.T. "Sonny" Dean, General Services Director
FROM: Fran Boynton -Powell, Purchasing Manager
SUBJECT: Award Bid #6070/North Beach Repump Station
Utilities Department
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
Bid Opening Date:
Advertising Dates:
Advertisement Mailed to:
Replies:
JULY 239 1996
June 19, 1996
May 23, 20, June 6, 13, 1996
Fifteen (15) Vendors
Seven (7) Vendors
12
VENDOR BID TOTAL
Treasure Coast Contracting $352,029.00
Vero Beach, FL
JoBear $387,350.00
Palm Bay, FL
TLC Diversified $398,993.00
West Palm Beach, FL
Martin Pang $416,000.00
Vero Beach, FL
Driveways, Inc $426,000.00
Titusville, FL
Florida Design $431,300.00
Lake Park,. FL
Hutchinson Utilities Services $525,930.00
Jensen Beach, FL
TOTAL AMOUNT OF BID $352,029.00
ESTIMATED BUDGET $400,000.00
UtWt'as Department Assessments Fund - 4734)00-169-278.00 dt 472-000-169-243.00
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the bid be awarded to Treseure Coast Contracting as the lowest,
most responsive and responsible bidder meeting specifications as set forth in the Invitation to Bid.
(See Departmental Memo)
In addition, staff also requests Board approval of the attached Agreement as to form, when all
requirements are met and approved by the County Attorney.
Copy to :'`' "��`� .+cam-.��" 9+• ,c .T�-rx�
Terry Pinto, Utilities Director
Bill McCain, Capital Projects Engineer
Joe Baird, Budget Director
APPROVED AGENDA ITEM
By: �_.___
J E. Chandler, County Administrator
Fo ._ ZZ —I
1ntM Hhe Cs
ApprovsdDale
AdmirL
`�
Legal
—/� .9Z
8udgel
_�. _ .
Dept.
Risk Mgr.
i
t
JULY 239 1996 13 Boa 98 P,' aF 589
DATE:
TO:
THRU:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
JULY 15, 1996
FRAN BOYNTON POWELL
PURCHASING MANAGER
TERRANCE G. P
DIRECTOR OF N
WILLIAM F.
DEPARTMENT Of-UT3
,4 --
AWARD OF BID NOS.
a:����
, P. E.
INEER
LITY SERVICES
6070 AND 6071
BOOK 98 Pau 590
The final budget estimate was $1,705,000.00. The original bid for
the project was $1.940.861.00. This was $235.861.00 over the
budgeted project amount and approximately 390,000± over the
original estimate. On April 23, 1996, the Utilities Department
went before the Board of County Commissioners to reject the
original bids. (See attached agenda and minutes.)
At that same time, we acquired approval for a redesign to
accommodate additional Department of Transportation (O.O.T.)
requirements. The bid cost was reduced by $168,572.00 over the
original bid.
The total combined bids for this project is $1,772,289.00, which is
$67,289.00 over the project budget estimate. Based on a review of
the bids and the engineers recommendation, we request that you
proceed with the award of both bids and secure approval for
contract signature when bond and insurance have been received.
If you have any questions, please contact me at 770-5325.
WFM/c
Attachment
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Tippin, the Board unanimously awarded
Bid #6070 to Treasure Coast Contracting as set forth
in staff's recommendation.
AGREEMENT PLACED ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE
CLERK TO THE BOARD --
14
JULY 239 1996
O �
s
A South Vero Square - Marginal Access Easement Release
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 7/15/96:
TO: The Board of County Commissioners
FROM: ua(., William G. Collins II - Deputy County Attorney
DATE: July 15, 1996
SUBJECT: South Vero Square - Marginal Access Easement Release
In 1988 Indian River County was granted a marginal access easement running
through the parking lot and driving aisles of the South Vero Square Shopping
Center located at the northeast corner of Oslo Road and U.S. Highway 1. The
dedication of the easement was a requirement of the ordinances in place at
that time.
The easement runs through the center of an out parcel to the shopping center
which is now under site plan review. In order for a building to be located
centrally on the out parcel, the marginal access easement needs to be
released.
Robin Lloyd, Esq. has requested a release of the marginal access easement in
lieu of a relocation on behalf of the owners of the shopping center and the
out parcel. A release would be consistent with --developments in case law
since 1988 which have generally struck down such marginal access easements as
conditions of development. It should be noted that the Indian River County
Code requirement for inter -connecting parking lots still remains satisfied by
virtue of reciprocal access easements between the shopping center and its
various out parcels as well as the design of an inter -connecting drive to
connect to the property to the north on U.S. 1.
RECOMMENDATION:
Authorize the Chairman to execute the attached Release of Marginal Access
Easements with respect to South Vero Square Shopping Center.
WGC/nbm
\memo\bcc25.doc
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Tippin, the Board unanimously approved
the Release of Marginal Access Easements with
respect to South Vero Square Shopping Center.
RELEASE OF MARGINAL ACCESS EASEMENTS IS ON FILE IN
THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD
15
JULY 235 1996 BOOK 98 Foy -591
Bm 98 PvLE592
E. Resignation and Appointment - Children's Services Advisory Committee
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 7/19/96:
To: Board of County Commissioners
From: Kenneth R. Macht, Chairman
Children's Services Advisory Committee
Date: July 19, 1996
Re: Resignation and Appointment
Please accept the resignation of Kathy Cigala and the
appointment of Jane Coyle on the Children's Services
Advisory Committee.
Thank you.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Tippin, the Board unanimously accepted
the resignation of Kathy Cigala from the Children's
Services Advisory Committee and appointed Jane Coyle
as her replacement.
PUBLIC HEARING - BEAZER ROME'S REQUEST TO MODIFY
CONDITION OF CONCEPTUAL PLANNED DEVELOPMENT
APPROVAL - ISLAND CLUB
PRESS -JOURNAL
Published Daily
Vero Beach, Indian River County, Florida
COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER: STATE OF FLORIDA
Before the undersigned authority personally appeared Darryl K. Hicks who on
oath says that he is President of the Press -Journal, a daily newspaper published at Vero Beach
In Indian River County, Florida: that the attached copy of advertisement, being
.1 InC1147 CW
in the matter of (L&_6/ OLz A
I �
.m o gar nor a � •w. for s �� `\ ..
Subject ??ri?::.
Property
l
•
16
JULY 239 1996
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARM
Notice of hearing to co reidw a request for modi-
rW
in the Court, was pilo
Wovel chs gN ff>B *nhV odretrr�offaa
left tum lathe. Lek tum conatructon an SR
fished in said newspaper in the issues of ( & �, , 1'9!9-4
WMW
�r �;,�t qty N
owned by Beazer Hanes Florida Inc., arrd located
M Seciah 35, Township 31 and Barge 39. See the
above rtrt� tar the bcatlm.
A P heertrg. et vuholh parties In interest and
Affiant further says that the said Press -Journal is a newspaper published at Vero Beach. In
said Indian River County. Florida, and that the said newspaper has heretofore been
corhtinuously in said Iridian River County,
cdzerre anal 1 a n to be heard. will
be held byJ. the Band of CammBsicners of
published Florida, each daily and has been entered as
second Gass mail matter at the post office in Vero Beadh. ic saki Indian River County, Florida,
soon of the Canty both Bu ild-
Ing, located at 1840 25th Street. Vero Beach. Fior-
for a period of one year next preceding the first publication of the attached ropy of
adviceertisoernent, and affiant further says that he has neither paid r� promised any person. firm
Ida on Tuesday. Judy 23,1998 at 9.06 a.m
ArWe who may wish to appeal any decision
need to en•
adv f� publication said rebate, cernmission or refund for the purpose of sewing tics
newspaper.
which may be made at Ws meearg YA
sure that a verbatim moorof Bre ptooeecrhgs Is
Swo;AO@. �� 1peforlsbased
e `'� day D. 1g %L
%3de. whiapchpaaIrck es 18aft rry and evidence hrpan
ANYONE NiHO � A SPECIAL ACCOMMODA-
Q: • pTA Gh ,•
TION FOR THIS MmTM MUST CONTACT THE
COUNrCT
rrS AMERICANS wrTH
� S AAT
Comm. Ex
AT 587
iEA3T 48 HOM IN ADVANCE OF THE MEET -
BARBARA C. SPRAGUE. NOTARY PU %
JUthe 29, 1997 Bmte of Ronda. My Ciommsaion Lxp. June 29. 997
No. CC3005
INS' INDIAN RIVIM COUNTY
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMONERS
,S �• A(/BL\G,••QQ :
%
•,,y�F ~�
B. Adam1318659
July 2,19966
-
�t
OF FLP\ stg,+ed:
"' Notary: BARBARA C. SPRAGUF
16
JULY 239 1996
Planning Director Stan Boling presented staff's recommendation
dated 7/16/96 for approval of modification.
TO: James E. Chandler
County Administrator
DIV ION HEAD CONCURRENCE:
Bober M. Matin AIC
Community Develop ent:, irector
14.15•
THROUGH: Stan Boling, AICP
Planning Director
FROM: John W. McCoy, AICP -4 M
Senior Planner, Current Development
DATE: July 16, 1996
SUBJECT: Beazer Homes I (Island Club) Request to Modify a Condition
of Conceptual Planned Development Approval Regarding the
Timing of Construction for a Left Turn Lane on SR A -1-A
It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal
consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at its regular
meeting of July 23, 1996.
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS:
At its regular meeting of February 20, 1996, the Board of County
Commissioners approved a conceptual planned development known as
Island Club. Approval was granted to construct 131 single family
detached homes in three phases. The Island Club project is located
on the west side of SR A -1-A, just north and west of the Town of
Indian River Shores.
As a condition of approval, the developer is required to construct
a left turn lane on SR A -1-A at the project's entrance prior to the
issuance of a certificate of completion for phase I (46 units).
The applicant is now requesting that the left turn lane condition
be tied to a certificate of completion for phase II (92 units).
The county attorney's office has advised planning staff that the
requested change to the conceptual planned development condition
should be considered by the Board of County Commissioners at a
public hearing, since the condition was established by the Board of
County Commissioners at a public hearing. Based upon the
attorney's office opinion, staff has advertised and scheduled the
request as a public hearing item.
The Board is now to consider the applicant's request to modify the
required timing of the project's left turn lane condition.
JULY 23, 1996 17 Boa 98 =ui f 593
poen 98 Fn -1.594
ANALYSIS:
The applicant's request has been reviewed by planning, engineering,
and traffic engineering staff. While the developer agreed to
construct the left turn lane with phase I of the project, the left
turn lane is not technically required by the LDRs until the end of
phase II. At the end of phase II, enough units will be completed
to generate the traffic demand for 30 peak hour left turn movements
from SR A -1-A into the project's A -1-A entrance. When the project
generates the demand for 30 peak hour left turn movements, the left
turn lane will be needed. Therefore, a left turn lane is
technically required prior to the issuance of a certificate of
completion for phase II. Staff has no objections to the existing
PD approval condition being modified to require construction of the
left turn lane prior to a certificate of completion for phase II,
rather than phase I.
RECOMMENDATION:
Based on the above analysis., staff recommends that the Board of
County Commissioners approve the modification of the conceptual PD
plan condition to require that the SR A -1-A left turn lane be
constructed prior to the issuance of a certificate of completion
for phase II.
Chairman Adams opened the public hearing and asked if anyone
wished to be heard in this matter. There being none, she closed
the.public hearing.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Tippin, the Board unanimously approved
the modification of the conceptual PD plan with the
condition that the AIA left turn lane be constructed
prior to the issuance of a certificate of completion
for Phase II, as recommended by staff.
18
JULY 239 1996
M
PUBLIC HEARING - BEAZER HOMES' REQUEST TO REZONE
APPROX. 8.3 ACRES FROM A-1 TO RS -6 - ISLAND CLUB
PRESS -JOURNAL
Published Daily
Vero Beach, Indian River County, Florida
COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER: STATE OF FLORIDA
Before the undersigned authority personally appeared Darryl K. Hicks who on
oath says that he is President of the Press-Joumal, a daily newspaper published at Vero Beach
in Indian River County, Florida; that the attached copy of advertisement, being
a
M_ ,
MUT-MAP-11 : . M - j .
in the Court, was pub -
lished in said newspaper in the issues of Q" I I • ) 9 l tD
Affiant further says that the said Press-Joumal is a newspaper published at Vero Beach, In
said Indian River County, Florida, and that the said newspaper has heretofore been
continuously published In said Iridian 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 County, 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 said newspaper.
Ir --•.•---.••.4.
�P•'p�ARy••C
m�COmm. ExW1�
• MY X997
June29��72
N0' C •
�TEOFF -,
BARBARA C.
..,,,,u, wry uornmhsshoR UP. June 29.1 7
Commis Number: CC300572
Sigrhed: -
Notary! BARBARA C. SPRAGUE
RM -6 \
1 AIt - \w
z Property j +� • 4
O
NOTICE — PUBLIC NEARING
The Board of C01ffft Carordssione:s of trs8an
River ty�ll. Florida, will the adoption of
cultural Distrifto 1 unit/5 land m as -6. Sin.
Wamly Residential
Disb (up to 6 W is =9a
Fk= 7 "21,11bct p►oopfertSyowned � meted �
eSetlorRal�p�Ma'apro
fnatrs�ahproperty lies In the
Ran 9 teaVi florarar�C3Y39E, lyk9 and In Y.
F big
ft
A public having at which parties In bderest and
shall have an opporhatlry to be heard, willbe held by the Board a Commissioners of
Indian
ChaandmrsRim oft:e Atl��tion Build.
ing, located at 1840 251h street, Vero Beach. Flor-
ida on Tuesday. ,k/v 23, 1998, at 9.05 am The
lam_ artLa io remne the auli" property
FECTIVE DATE
The floe of the to the Board at =of
dy comthemis-
sioros.1840 25th Street Vero Beach, Fbri&
Theanother =1 a �
quested. It Is within the Berne general use
w�yona .who app
t may n� at this �meetrg�wi0need
orae that a verbeft ram of thepracee H gs is
made, which tnhsades testimony and evidence upon
which the appeal Is based.
Anyone
thiscarhtact the oohmtyra�Arthwk
�res
withties Act (ADA) Coordinator at 587000
extension 223 at lessay 48 hours in advance of
Board f c.m y Cartuniss"ons"
July 11,9138 ren B. Adams, Chalmtefh 1320858
Community Development Director Bob Keating presented staff's
recommendation for approval of the rezoning:
19
JULY 239 1996 Box 98 o�,4 595
Bock 98 uu 596
TO: James E. Chandler
County Administrator
DgPXRTMENT HEAD CONCURRENCE
Robert M. R atin Al
THROUGH: Sasan Rohani, AICP jg-
Chief, Long -Range Planning
FROM: John Wachtel�j'
Senior Planner, Long -Range Planning
DATE: July 9, 1996
RE: Beazer Homes Florida, Inc.'s Request to Rezone
Approximately 8.3 acres from A-1 to RS -6
(RZON 95-11-0136)
It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal
consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at its regular
meeting of July 23, 1996.
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
This is a request to rezone the western 8.3 acres of the approved
Island Club Planned Development Subdivision. Located on the
barrier island, west of -SR AIA and abutting the north boundary of
the Town of Indian River Shores, the Island Club Subdivision is
owned by Beazer Homes Florida, Inc., a Delaware corporation. The
request involves rezoning the property from A-1, Agricultural
District (up to 1 unit/5 acres), to RS -6, Single -Family Residential
District (up to 6 units/acre).
On February 20, 1996, the Board of County Commissioners voted 5-0
to give Conceptual Planned Development plan and special exception
approval to the Island Club Planned Development Subdivision. Such
projects can be approved even when they contain agriculturally
zoned land, if the area is designated for residential uses, and
certain other criteria are met.
During the preliminary plat approval process, the applicant agreed
to apply for the subject rezoning prior to final plat approval. As
promised, the applicant submitted the rezoning application before
the Board of County Commissioners approved the final plat.
This arrangement let the developer proceed with approval and
construction of his subdivision, while the rezoning was being
processed. The rezoning is needed as a "house keeping" measure, so
that, when the 40 acres to the west of Island Club are eventually
rezoned and developed, there is no 8.30 acre hiatus of A-1 zoned
property. The rezoning will also make the area's zoning pattern
more logical and efficient.
On June 27, 1996, the Planning and Zoning Commission voted 5-0 to
recommend that the Board of County Commissioners approve this
request to rezone the subject property to RS -6.
20
JULY 239 1996
M M M
Existing Land Use Pattern
The subject property consists of the western portion of the Island
Club Subdivision for which construction has commenced. The subject
property, the citrus grove to the west, and the densely wooded area
to the north are zoned A-1. Abutting the property on the east is
the RS -6 zoned portion of the Island Club Subdivision. Land
abutting the site on the south is within the Town of Indian River
Shores and contains the Marbrisa Subdivision of single-family
houses. That land is within the Town's R1A zoning district, a
district which allows single-family houses at a density of up to
approximately 2.5 units/acre.
Future Land Use Pattern
The subject property and properties to the north, east and west are
designated L-2, Low -Density Residential -2, on the county .future
land use map. The L-2 designation is intended for residential uses
with densities up to 6 units/acre. To the south, land is
designated R1A on the Town of Indian River Shores's future land use
map. The R1A designation is intended for single-family residential
uses with densities of up to f2.5 units/acre.
Environment
With the exception of some large oaks in the northwest corner of
the site, the property has been cleared. For that reason, 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 is within an "AE"
100 year flood area with a minimum base flood elevation requirement
of 8 feet NGVD.
Utilities and Services
Centralized potable water service is provided to the site by the
North Beach Water Plant. Centralized wastewater service is
provided to the site by the North Beach (Sea Oaks) Wastewater
Treatment Plant.
Transportation System
Access to the property is by a subdivision collector road which
connects the site to SR AlA. Classified as an urban principal
arterial road on the future roadway thoroughfare plan map, that
segment of SR AlA is a two lane paved road with approximately 100
feet of existing public road right-of-way. This segment of SR AlA
is programmed for expansion to 120 feet of public road right-of-way
by 2010.
ANALYSIS
In this section, an analysis of the reasonableness of the
application will be presented. The analysis will include a
description of:
• concurrency of public facilities;
• compatibility with the surrounding area;
• consistency with the comprehensive plan; and
• potential impact on environmental quality.
21 $SOK 98 P,,,t o
JULY 239 1996
F,
BOOK 98 Pn„JE 598
Concurrency of Public Facilities
This site is located within the county Urban Service Area, an area
deemed suited for urban scale development. The Comprehensive Plan
establishes standards for: Transportation, Potable Water,
Wastewater, Solid Waste, Drainage and Recreation (Future Land Use
Policy 3.1). The adequate provision of these services is necessary
to ensure the continued quality of life enjoyed by the community.
The Comprehensive Plan and Land Development Regulations also
require that new development be reviewed to ensure that the minimum
acceptable standards for these services and facilities are
maintained.
Policy 3.2 of the Future Land Use Element states that no
development shall be approved unless it is consistent with the
concurrency management system component of the Capital Improvements
Element. For rezoning requests, conditional concurrency review is
required.
Conditional concurrency review examines the available capacity of
each facility with respect to a proposed project. Since rezoning
requests are not projects, county regulations call for the
concurrency review to be based upon the most intense use of the
subject property based upon the requested zoning district.
The site information used for the
follows:
1. Size of Area to be Rezoned:
concurrency analysis is as
f8.3 acres
2. Existing Zoning Classification: A- 1, Agricultural
District (up to 1 unit/5
acres)
3. Proposed Zoning Classification:
4. Most Intense Use of Subject
Property under Existing
Zoning Classification:
5. Most Intense Use of Subject
Property under Proposed
Zoning Classification:
- Transportation
RS -6, Single -Family
Residential District (up
to 6 units/acre)
1 unit
49 units
A review of the traffic impacts that would result from the
development of the property indicates that the existing level of
service "D" or better on impacted roadways would not be lowered.
The site information used for determining the amount of traffic is
as follows:
Existing Zoning District
1. Use Identified in 5th Edition ITE Manual:
Single -Family Residential
2. For Single -Family Units, in 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. Southbound (P.M. Peak Hour): 57%
ii. Northbound (P.M. Peak Hour): 43%
JULY 239 1996
22
i
d. Outbound (P.M. Peak Hour): 35%
i. Southbound (P.M. Peak Hour): 43%
ii. Northbound (P.M. Peak Hour): 57%
3. P.M. Peak Direction of SR AlA, from the north boundary of the
Town of Indian River Shores to CR 510: Southbound
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 -Southbound Percentage
(1 X 1.01 X .65 X .57 = 1)
5. Formula for Determining Number of Average Weekday Trips
Generated: Number of Units X Average Weekday Rate
(1 X 10.1 = 10)
Proposed Zoning District
1. Use Identified in 5th Edition ITE Manual:
Single -Family Residential
2. For Single -Family Units, in 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. Southbound (P.M. Peak Hour): 57%
ii. Northbound (P.M. Peak Hour): 43%
d. Outbound (P.M. Peak Hour): 35%
i. Southbound (P.M. Peak Hour): 43%
ii. Northbound (P.M. Peak Hour): 57%
3. P.M. Peak Direction of SR AIA, from the north boundary of the
Town of Indian River Shores to CR 510: Southbound
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 -Southbound Percentage
(49 X 1.01 X .65 X .57 = 18)
(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
(49 X 10.1 = 494)
6. Traffic Capacity on this segment of SR AIA, at a Level of
Service "D": 1,310 peak hour/peak season/peak direction trips
7. Existing Traffic volume on this segment of SR AIA: 285 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 zoning
district is 10. This was determined by multiplying 1 unit (the
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 zoning
district is 494. This was determined by multiplying the 49 units
(the most intense use), by ITE's single-family residential factor
of 10.1 Average Daily Trip Ends/unit.
Since the county's transportation level of service is based on peak
hour/peak season/peak direction characteristics, the transportation
23 8
JULY 239 1996
boox 98 V's'UO
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 SR AlA is southbound.
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 zoning district was
calculated to be 1. This was determined by multiplying the total
number of units allowed under the existing zoning district (1) by
ITE's factor of 1.01 p.m. peak hour trips/unit, to determine the
total number of trips generated.
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 requested zoning district, the total
number of units allowed under the proposed district (49) was
multiplied by ITE's factor of 1.01 p.m. peak hour trips/unit to
determine the total number of trips generated (49). Of these
trips, 65% (32) will be inbound and 35% (17) will be outbound. Of
the inbound trips, 57% or 18 will be southbound. Therefore, the
most intense use of the subject property under the proposed zoning
district would generate 17 more peak hour/peak season/peak
direction trips than the 1 that would be.generated by the most
intense use of the subject property under the existing zoning
district (18 - 1 = 17).
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 (50) 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 traf f is volumes; this is
updated daily based upon vesting associated with project approvals.
The traffic capacity for the segment of SR AIA most impacted by
this site is 1,310 trips (peak hour/peak season/peak direction) at
Level of Service (LOS) "D", while the existing traffic volume on
this segment of SR AlA is 285 trips (peak hour/peak season/ peak
direction). The additional 18 peak hour/peak season/peak direction
trips created by the most intense use of the subject property under
the proposed zoning district would increase the total peak
hour/peak season/peak direction trips for this segment of SR AlA to
approximately 303.
Based on the above analysis, staff determined that SR AlA and all
other impacted roads can accommodate the additional trips without
decreasing their existing levels of service.
The table below ide
associated with the
property, however,
Subdivision, a proje
acres. In contrast
entire subdivision,
JULY 239 1996
ntifies each of the impacted roadway segments
entire Island Club Subdivision. The subject
is only a portion of the Island Club
ct approved for 131 single-family houses on ±43
to the level of development approved for the
the maximum development potential of the 8.3
24
acre subject site, under the proposed zoning, would be 49 single-
family units. Therefore, the trips generated by the most intense
development allowed under the proposed zoning classification would
actually be less than shown in the table . Even with that "over
calculation" of trips generated, this table indicates that there is
sufficient capacity in all of the segments to accommodate the
projected traffic.
TRAFFIC CONCURRENCY DETERMINATION
Impacted Road Segments
(peak hour/peak season/peak direction)
Segment
Roadway Capacity
Segment Road From To LOS "D"
1030N
1030S
1040N
1040S
1050N
1050S
1060N
10605
1070N
1070S
1080N
1080S
113 ON
1130S
114 ON
1140S
1150N
1150S
1380N
13805
1385N
13855
139ON
13905
1395N
1395S
140ON
1400S
1405N
1405S
1820E
1820W
1830E
1830W
1840E
1840W
1945E
1945W
1950E
1950W
1955E
1955W
1960E
1960W
1965E
1965W
1970E
1970W
SR AIA
614
SR AlA
719
SR AIA
7 Y
SR AIA
834
SR AlA
932
SR AIA
4 Y
SR AIA
780
SR AIA
878
SR AIA
32 Y
SR AlA
887
SR AlA
988
SR AIA
18 Y
Ind. Riv.
Blvd.
Ind. Riv.
Blvd.
Ind. Riv.
Blvd.
Ind. Riv.
Blvd.
Ind. Riv.
Blvd.
Ind. Riv.
Blvd.
US 1
US 1
US 1
US 1
US 1
US 1
US 1
IIS 1
US 1
US 1
us 1
US 1
CR 510
CR 510
CR 510
CR 510
CR 510
CR 510
SR 60
SR 60
SR 60
SR 60
SR 60
SR 60
SR 60
SR 60
SR 60
SR 60
SR 60
SR 60
17th Street
17th Street
SR60
SR60
N. VB City Lim.
N. VB City Lim.
Fred Tuerk Road
Fred Tuerk Road
Old Winter Bch. Rd.
Old Winter Bch. Rd.
N. IRS Town Limits
N. IRS Town Limits
S. VB City Lim.
S. VB City Lim.
17th Street
17th Street
21st Street
21st Street
65th Street
65th Street
69th Street
69th Street
Old Dixie Highway
Old Dixie Highway
Schumann Drive
Schumann Drive
CR 512
CR 512
N. Seb. City Limits
N. Seb. City Limits
66th Avenue
66th Avenue
58th Avenue
58th Avenue
US 1
US 1
20th Avenue
20th Avenue
Old Dixie Highway
Old Dixie Highway
loth Avenue
10th Avenue
IIS 1
IIS 1
Ind. Riv. Blvd.
Ind. Riv. Blvd.
ICWW
ICWW
SR60
SR60
N. VB City Lim.
N. VB City Lim.
Fred Tuerk Road
Fred Tuerk Road
Old Winter Bch. Rd.
Old Winter Bch. Rd.
N. IRS Town Limits
N. IRS Town Limits
CR 510
CR 510
17th Street
17th Street
21st Street
21st Street
SR 60
SR 60
69th Street
69th Street
Old Dixie Highway
Old Dixie Highway
Schumann Drive
Schumann Drive
CR 512
CR 512
N. Seb. City Limits
N. Seb. City Limits
Roseland Road
Roseland Road
58th Avenue
58th Avenue
US 1
US 1
SR AlA
SR AIA
Old Dixie Highway
Old Dixie Highway
10th Avenue
10th Avenue
US 1
US 1
Ind. Riv. Blvd.
Ind. Riv. Blvd.
ICWW
ICWW
SR AIA
SR AIA
1,060
1,060
1,120
1,120
1,240
1,240
1,310
1,310
1,310
1,310
1,310
1,310
1,770
1,770
1,770
1,770
1,770
1,770
2,650
2,650
2,650
2,650
2,370
2,370
2,370
2,370
2,300
2,300
2,300
2,300
650
650
650
650
650
650
2,328
2,328
2,328
2,328
2,328
2,328
2,328
2,328
1,520
1,520
1,520
1,520
Existing Demand Total Available Positive
Roadway Existing Vested Segment Segment Project Concurrency
Seament Volume Volume Demand Capacity Demand Determination
1030N
614
105
719
341
7 Y
10305
834
98
932
128
4 Y
1040N
780
98
878
242
32 Y
1040S
887
101
988
132
18 Y
10SON
780
55
835
405
35 Y
1050S
887
51
938
302
20 Y
25
JULY 239 1996 BOOK 6 �¢1� Sud
HC* 98 FKH sot
Existing Demand Total Available Positive
Roadway Existing Vested Segment Segment Project Concurrency
Segment Volume Volume Demand Cavacity Demand Determination
106ON
521
49
570
740
39 Y
10605
396
44
440
870
22 y
1070N
350
63
413
897
41 y
10705
285
60
345
965
23 Y
1080N
350
98
448
862
29 Y
10805
285
114
399
911.
52 Y
1130N
751
83
834
936
3 y
1130S
1,007
135
1,142
628
1 y
1140N
786
132
918
852
7 y
11405
989
137
1,126
644
4 y
115ON
890
145
1,035
735
23 y
11505
1,011
150
1,161
609
13 y
138ON
1,041
68
1,107
1,541
5 y
13805
751
68
819
1,831
3 y
1385N
1,027
87
1,114
1,536
7 y
1385S
708
92
800
1,850
5 y
1390N
1,144
103
1,247
1,123
10 y
13905
859
114
973
1,397
19 y
1395N
1,091
115
1,206
1,164
6 y
13955
823
125
948
1,422
10 y
140ON
1,100
67
1,167
1,133
5 y
14005
968
83
1,051
1,249
8 y
1405N
1,100
146
1,246
1,054
2 y
14055
968
151
1,119
1,181
3 y
1820E
359
63
422
228
7 y
1820W
532
54
586
64
4 y
1830E
325
91
416
234
9 y
1830W
515
81
596
54
5 y
1840E
351
103
454
196
36 y
1840W
436
91
527
123
20 y
1945E
928
456
1,384
944
7 y
1945W
985
441
1,426
902
4 y
1950E
1,037
365
1,402
926
9 y
1950W
789
358
1,147
1,181
5 y
1955E
937
336
1,273
1,055
11 y
1955W
491
330
821
1,507
6 y
1960E
445
184
629
1,699
19 y
1960W•
463
180
643
1,685
10 y
1965E
861
184
1,045
475
25 y
1965W
1,032
189
1,221
299
14 y
1970E
684
118
802
718
25 y
1970W
717
117
834
686
14 y
- Water
Centralized potable water service is available to the subject
property from the North Beach Water Plant. With the most intense
use allowed under the proposed rezoning, the subject property will
have a water consumption rate of 49 Equivalent Residential Units
(ERU), or 12,250 gallons/day. This is based upon a level of
service standard of 250 gallons/ERU/day. Since the North Beach
Water Plant currently has a remaining capacity of approximately
500,000 gallons/day, the plant can accommodate the additional
demand generated by the proposed zoning.
- Wastewater
Centralized wastewater service is available to the subject property
from the North Beach Wastewater Treatment Plant (Sea Oaks). With
the most intense use allowed under the proposed rezoning, the
subject property will have a wastewater generation rate of 49
Equivalent Residential Units (ERU), or 12,250 gallons/day. This is
based upon a level of service standard of 250 gallons/ERU/day.
Since the North Beach Wastewater Treatment Plant (Sea Oaks)
currently has a remaining capacity of approximately 500,000
gallons/day, the plant can accommodate the additional demand
generated by the proposed zoning.
JULY 239 1996
M M M
- 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 49 unit residential development would be anticipated to house
approximately 113 people (2.3 X 49). 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 268 (113 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 850,000
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. Any
development on the subject property will be prohibited from
discharging any runoff in excess of the pre -development rate.
In this case, the minimum floor elevation level of service standard
applies, since the property lies within a floodplain. Consistent
with Drainage Policy 1.2, "all new buildings shall have the lowest
habitable floor elevation no lower than the elevation of the 100 -
year flood elevation as•shown on the Federal Emergency Management
Agency's Flood Insurance Rate Map, or as defined in a more detailed
study report." Additionally, section 930.07(2) of the county's
LDRs requires that all residential development shall have the
lowest floor (including basement) elevated to six inches or more
above the base flood level. Since the subject property lies within
Flood Zone AE -8, which is a special flood hazard area located
within the 100 -year floodplain, any development on this property
must have a minimum finished floor elevation of no less than 8.5
feet above mean sea level.
Besides the minimum elevation requirement, on-site retention and
discharge standards also apply to this request. With the most
intense use of this site, the maximum area of impervious surface
under the proposed zoning classification will be approximately
144,619 square feet, or 3.32 acres. The maximum runoff volume,
based on that amount of impervious surface and the 25 year/24 hour
design storm, will be approximately 219,230 cubic feet. In order
to maintain the county's adopted level of service, the applicant
will be required to retain approximately 39,352 cubic feet of
runoff on-site. With the soil characteristics of the subject
property, it -is estimated that the pre -development runoff rate is
68 cubic feet/second.
Based upon staff's analysis, the drainage level of service
standards will be met by limiting off-site discharge to its pre -
development rate of 68 cubic feet/second, requiring retention of
39,352 cubic feet of runoff for the most intense use of the
property, and requiring that all finished floor elevations exceed
8.5 feet above mean sea level.
27
JULY 239 1996 BOR 98 rn 60
BOOK 98 PArF 604
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 zoning classification
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.
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 zoning. Therefore, the concurrency test has been
satisfied for the subject request.
Consistency with Comprehensive Plan
Rezoning requests are reviewed for consistency with all policies of
the comprehensive plan. Rezoning requests must also be consistent
with the overall designation of land uses as depicted on the Future
Land Use Map, which includes agricultural, residential,
recreational, conservation, and commercial and industrial land uses
and their densities. Commercial and industrial land uses are
located in nodes throughout the unincorporated areas of Indian
River County.
The goals, objectives and policies are the most important parts of
the comprehensive plan. Policies are statements in the plan which
identify the actions which the county will take in order to direct
the community's development. As courses of action committed to by
the county, policies provide the basis for all county land
development related decisions. While all comprehensive plan
policies are important, some have more applicability than others in
reviewing rezoning requests. Of particular applicability for this
request are Future Land Use Element Policies 1.11 and 1.12.
- Future Land Use Element Policies 1.11 and 1.12
Future Land Use Element Policy 1.12 states that the L-2, Low -
Density Residential -2, land use designation is intended for
residential uses with densities up to 6 units/acre. In addition,
Future Land Use Element Policy 1.11 states that these residential
uses must be located within an existing or future urban service
area.
Since the subject property is located within an area designated as
L-2 on the county's future land use plan map and is located within
the county's urban service area, and the proposed zoning district
would permit residential uses no greater than the 6 units/acre
permitted by the L-2 designation, the proposed request 'is
consistent with Policies 1.11 and 1.12.
28
JULY 239 1996
LOS
Project
(Acres per
Demand
Surplus
Park Type
1000 population)
Acres
Acreage
Urban District
5.0
0.49
178.945
Community (north)
3.0
0.29
17.110
Beach
1.5
0.15
64.080
River
1.5
0.15
25.077
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 zoning. Therefore, the concurrency test has been
satisfied for the subject request.
Consistency with Comprehensive Plan
Rezoning requests are reviewed for consistency with all policies of
the comprehensive plan. Rezoning requests must also be consistent
with the overall designation of land uses as depicted on the Future
Land Use Map, which includes agricultural, residential,
recreational, conservation, and commercial and industrial land uses
and their densities. Commercial and industrial land uses are
located in nodes throughout the unincorporated areas of Indian
River County.
The goals, objectives and policies are the most important parts of
the comprehensive plan. Policies are statements in the plan which
identify the actions which the county will take in order to direct
the community's development. As courses of action committed to by
the county, policies provide the basis for all county land
development related decisions. While all comprehensive plan
policies are important, some have more applicability than others in
reviewing rezoning requests. Of particular applicability for this
request are Future Land Use Element Policies 1.11 and 1.12.
- Future Land Use Element Policies 1.11 and 1.12
Future Land Use Element Policy 1.12 states that the L-2, Low -
Density Residential -2, land use designation is intended for
residential uses with densities up to 6 units/acre. In addition,
Future Land Use Element Policy 1.11 states that these residential
uses must be located within an existing or future urban service
area.
Since the subject property is located within an area designated as
L-2 on the county's future land use plan map and is located within
the county's urban service area, and the proposed zoning district
would permit residential uses no greater than the 6 units/acre
permitted by the L-2 designation, the proposed request 'is
consistent with Policies 1.11 and 1.12.
28
JULY 239 1996
While policies 1.11 and 1.12 are particularly applicable to this
request, other comprehensive plan policies also have relevance.
For that reason, staff evaluated the subject request for
consistency with all plan policies. Based upon that analysis,
staff determined that the request is consistent with the
comprehensive plan.
Compatibility with the Surrounding Area
Staff's position is that granting the request to rezone the subject
property to RS -6 will result in development which will be
compatible with surrounding areas. Since land to the east is
currently zoned RS -6, the request is for an expansion of the
existing zoning pattern.
Already the dominant land use, residential development in this area
of the county is expected to increase. This development pattern
would be consistent with the comprehensive plan, since the area is
located within the Urban Service Area and is designated for low-
density residential development.
Any potential incompatibilities associated with residential
development on the subject property would be with the adjacent
areas to the west and north. Those areas are currently used for
agricultural purposes. These incompatibilities, however, will be
somewhat mitigated by the landscaping and buffering requirements of
the PD approval. The planned development compatibility standards
require a 25' perimeter building (residence) setback for all
planned developments. For .this project, buffers are required as
follows:
North: Along the north property line, a double frontage
buffer is required, since the proposed lots will have frontage
on the internal subdivision street and the collector access
road to SR AlA. The double frontage buffer requires a 6'
opaque feature which the applicant proposes to satisfy by a 2'
high earthen berm with 4' high continuous hedge (2' high at
planting with 2 year grow -in period) . This proposal meets the
section 913.09(3)(c)5 double frontage buffer requirements.
These buffer improvements must be constructed prior to the
issuance of a certificate of completion for Phase I.
West: A Type "C" vegetative buffer will be provided.
Development of the subject site with single-family uses would be
compatible with property in the Marbrisa development to the south,
since that property is also single-family residential in character.
To somewhat mitigate potential impacts of development, however, the
applicant, during the development approval process, agreed to the
following buffer along the project's south property line:
• On the subject property, the buffer will cover a 20' wide
strip of land that will be planted with 80% of the plant
material necessary to meet Type B buffer requirements. On
adjacent Marbrisa property, which is beyond the scope of the
PD proposal, the applicant will plant a 5' strip of land with
the amount of plant material equal to�20k of a type B buffer.
In addition, the developer has agreed to construct a 6' high
green vinyl clad chainlink fence on the Marbrisa property
during phase 1 construction.
These private agreement provisions are not a part of the PD
plan approval and cannot and will not be enforced by the
county. Only the provisions affecting the subject property
are part of the PD plan approval.
29 �DOK 9�
JULY 239 1996
BOOK 98 PnE 606
During Phase I, the 5' buffer on the Marbrisa property is to
be installed, based upon the private agreement. The remaining
north 20' buffer on the subject site is to be planted during
the appropriate development phases that abut the south
perimeter, based upon a recommended condition of PD plan
approval.
For those reasons, staff feels that the requested RS -6 zoning would
be compatible with the surrounding area.
Potential Impact on Environmental Oualitx
With the exception of some oak trees in the northwest corner of the
site, the property has been cleared, and contains no
environmentally important land, such as wetlands or uplands. Tree
removal permits would be required to remove any of the oak trees.
Therefore, development of the site will have little or no impact on
environmental quality. For this reason, no adverse environmental
impacts associated with this request are anticipated.
CONCLUSION
The requested zoning is compatible with the surrounding area,
consistent with the comprehensive plan, meets all concurrency
criteria, and will have no negative impacts on environmental
quality. The subject property is located in an area deemed suited
for low-density residential uses and meets all applicable rezoning
criteria. For these reasons, staff supports the request.
Based on the analysis, staff and the Planning and Zoning Commission
recommend that the Board of County Commissioners approve this
request to rezone the subiect nronerty from A-1 to RS -6.
30
JULY 239 1996
M s M
Chairman Adams opened the public hearing and asked if anyone
wished to be heard in this matter. There being none, she closed
the public hearing.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Tippin, the Board unanimously adopted
Ordinance 96-14, rezoning approximately 8.3 acres in
Island Club from A-1 to RS -6.
ORDINANCE NO. 96-14
AN ORDINANCE OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, AMENDING THE
ZONING ORDINANCE AND THE ACCOMPANYING ZONING MAP FROM A-1 TO
RS -6, FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED ±2,200 FEET WEST OF SR AlA,
NORTH OF THE MARBRISA SUBDIVISION, AND DESCRIBED HEREIN, AND
PROVIDING FOR EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission, sitting as the
local planning agency on such matters, has held a public hearing
and subsequently made a recommendation regarding this rezoning
request; and
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River
County, Florida, did publish and send its Notice of Intent to
rezone the hereinafter described property; and
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners has determined that
this rezoning is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan of
Indian River County; and
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners has held a public
hearing pursuant to this rezoning request, at which parties in
interest and citizens were heard;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED, by the Board of County
Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, that the zoning of
the following described property situated in Indian River County,
Florida, to -wit:
A PARCEL OF LAND BEING A PORTION OF GOVERNMENT LOT 1,
SECTION 35, TOWNSHIP 31 SOUTH, RANGE 39 EAST, INDIAN
RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
COMMENCE AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SAID SECTION 35; THENCE
SOUTH 00030'07" WEST ALONG THE EAST LINE OF SAID SECTION, A
DISTANCE OF 60.00 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE
CONTINUE SOUTH 00030'07" WEST ALONG SAID SECTION LINE, A
DISTANCE OF 1235.51 FEET; THENCE NORTH 89041'51" WEST, A
DISTANCE OF 299.58 FEET TO A POINT ON A LINE WHICH IS 1445.00
31
JULY 23, 1996 ���� 60
BOOK 98 FACE 608
ORDINANCE NO. 96-14
FEET WEST OF, AS MEASURED AT RIGHT ANGLES TO, THE EAST LINE OF
GOVERNMENT LOT 2, SECTION 36, TOWNSHIP 31 SOUTH, RANGE 39
EAST, INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA; THENCE NORTH 01011'20"
EAST PARALLEL TO SAID EAST LINE, A DISTANCE OF 1235.65 FEET TO
A POINT ON A LINE WHICH IS 60.00 FEET SOUTH OF, AS MEASURED AT
RIGHT ANGLES TO, THE NORTH LINE OF SECTION 35; THENCE SOUTH
89041'52" EAST ALONG SAID LINE, A DISTANCE OF 284.77 FEET TO
THE POINT OF BEGINNING.
CONTAINING 8.2869 ACRES MORE OR LESS.
Be changed from A-1 to RS -6.
All with the meaning and intent and as set forth and described in
said Land Development Regulations.
Approved and adopted by the Board of County Commissioners of
Indian River County, Florida, on this 23rd day of July, 1996.
This ordinance was advertised in the Vero Beach Press -Journal
on the 11th day of July, 1996 for a public hearing to be held on
the 23rd day of July, 1996 at which time it was moved for adoption
b Commissioner Eggert , seconded by Commissioner
WPPin , and adopted by the following vote:
Chairman Fran B. Adams Aye
Vice -Chairman Carolyn K. Eggert Aye
Commissioner Richard N. Bird Aye
Commissioner Kenneth R. Macht Aye
Commissioner John W. Tippin Aye
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
BY: cLm--
Fran B. Adams, Chairman
ATTEST BY: �IrQ�
/Jef\f-r-K. Bar Clerk Acknowledgement by the Department of State of the State of Florida
this 5th day of August , 1996.
Effective upon filing with the Department of State.
This ordinance was filed with the Department of State on the
following date: July 31, 1996
u\v\j\beazer.ord
32
JULY 239 1996
® _ r
PUBLIC HEARING - KENNEDY GROVES' REQUEST TO REZONE
APPROX. 39.17 ACRES FROM A-1 TO PD
PRESS -JOURNAL
Published Daily
Vero Beach, Indian River County, Florida
COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER: STATE OF FLORIDA
Before the undersigned authority personally appeared Darryl K. Hicks who on
oath says that he is President of the Press-Joumal, a daily newspaper published at Vero Beach
in Indian River County, Florida; that the attached copy of advertisement, being
a I' 2d:221J CZ
In the matter of 1Jy t7-`�iD.v
in the Court, was pub -
C' C
lished in said newspaper in the issues of -2 77 06
Affiant further says that the said Press -Journal is a newspaper published at Vero Beata, 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 County, 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 j�fj In any discount, rebate, commission or refund for the purpose of securing this
''f publication in said newspaper.
• C/FCJ . .R ',
QTY`1 J
aro me this A.D.1
cca
' *o. 0:
BARBARA C. SPRAGUE. NOTARY PUBLIC.
%y '•� V"••• � � St•'a ^r o=^''' uycammmoien Erp done Q9 � 9B' e
'•, • • • P • • � �: Co an Number. cc300572
4
Signed:
Notary: BARBARA C. SPRAGUE
Sub t Site \'
9 �
\: RM -4
•;� � ..".lei ' .','+,a%
C.R 5tor'-��
NOTICE OF FIKIC HEARING
Notice of hearing to mm .4''er the adoption of a
m+dy ordirm ►ewi mutest from A-1, Agri -
(up to 1 uri1/5 saes) to Plarned Develop -
merit (up to 8 uitslaaeJ The subject Ixoperty is
presently arced by Groves ft. and Io -
cod in section 23. Township 31 and Range 39.
Seethe above map tar the location.
A public hearkV at which patties in interest and
oitizats shat have an apporhrity to be heard, will
be held' by the Board at CourN CAmnessbnas of
Ya9en Rher canty. Florida, in the Ccudy Coffuds-
� lom at ChWMM 840 25ft 1SbeaL Vero Bead►. Fl�or-
Board er zz000n orfig nem a�
gd, provided within ft general use
A one who may wish to any decbion
� OW maya ever�batlmnredt�m of the�pr rocas" is
r it taatimay and evidlm upas
19 based
ANYONE VVt10 NEE0.S A SPECIAL ACCOMMODA-
TION FOR THIS MEETING MUST CONTACT THE
COUNTY'S AMEIWAW WITH DISASIITIM ACT
0 COORDINATOFI AT 557-6000 X223 AT
LEAST 48 HOURS IN ADVANCE OF. THE MEET-
Wa
INDIAN RIVEP COUNTY
BOARD OF COUNTY GOFERS
BY -s -Fran B. Adarrs 1318209
Jury 2,1998
Community Development Director Bob Keating presented staff's
recommendation for approval subject to the 6 conditions set out in
the above memo:
33
JULY 239 1996 BOOK 98 PA gE 609
807
BOOK 98 PACE 61®
TO: James Chandler
County Administrator
D S ON HEAD CONCURRENCE:
Ro ert M. Keatin ,AICP
Community De4v�,elop ent DiVector
THROUGH: Stan Boling,AICP
Planning Director
FROM: John W. McCoy, AICP�j,�
Senior Planner, Current Development
DATE: July 16, 1996
SUBJECT: Kennedy Groves, Inc.'s Request to Rezone Approximately
39.17 Acres from A-1 (Agricultural) to PD (Planned
Development); to Receive Conceptual PD Plan Approval for
a 134 Lot Single Family Planned Development
It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal
consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at its regular
meeting of July 23, 1996.
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS:
*General Request
This is a request by Kennedy Groves Inc., through its agent Knight,
McGuire & Associates, Inc., to rezone approximately 39.17 acres
from A-1 (Agricultural) to PD (Planned Development). As part of
the PD rezoning request, a PD conceptual plan/plat and preliminary
PD plan/plat for phase I have been submitted for concurrent
approval. The subject site is located at the northeast corner of
CR 510 and Jungle Trail, and consists of an existing citrus grove.
The purpose of this request is to secure the zoning which would
permit the construction of single family homes (attached and
detached) on lots of various sizes, many of which are proposed to
be smaller than normally sized RS -6 lots (7,000 square feet).
•PZC & BCC Consideration
At its regular meeting of June 27, 1996, the Planning and Zoning
Commission (PZC) voted unanimously (5-0) to:
1. Recommend that the Board of County Commissioners (BCC) approve
the PD rezoning request and corresponding PD conceptual plan.
2. Grant approval of the preliminary PD.plan/plat, subject to the
Board of County Commissioners' approval of the rezoning and PD
conceptual plan request, and subject to the following
conditions:
a. That temporary construction access from Jungle Trail be
prohibited (access to be from CR 510).
b. That prior to the issuance of a land development permit
(LDP) for subdivision improvements, the applicant shall
submit detailed Jungle Trail buffer area landscape plans
that comply with the Jungle Trail Management Plan.
c. That prior to the issuance of an LDP, the applicant shall
obtain approval from the Planning Division and Department
of Emergency Services of a detail of the project's
emergency access point at Coco Plum Lane.
34
JULY 239 1996
d. That prior to the issuance of a certificate of completion
for phase I, an 8' bikepath shall be built or bonded for
along the project's CR 510 frontage.
e. That prior to the issuance of a certificate of completion
for phase II, the left -turn lane on CR 510 shall be
completed.
f. That landscape buffering shall be provided along the CR
510 frontage of Tract A prior to the operation of a
temporary or permanent use on Tract A (e.g. sales office,
recreation use).
Please note that conditions "a." through "e." were recommended
by staff and approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission;
condition "f." was added by the. Planning and Zoning
Commission.
If the Board of County Commissioners approves the rezoning and
conceptual plan, the preliminary PD plan/plat approval for
phase I will become effective. The Board of County
Commissioners is now to take action on the rezoning and
conceptual PD plan request.
ODevelopment Approval options Available to the Developer
Because the site is zoned A-1, Agricultural (1 unit/5 acres), the
applicant must rezone the property to a residential zoning district
to allow for residential development. Any rezoning action must
comply with the site's L-2, Low Density Residential 2 (up to 6
units/acre) land use designation. There are two options available
to the developer to seek approval of the proposed project. Either
of the two options, if approved, would allow the applicant to
proceed with his project, as proposed.
These options are as follows:
1. Rezone the site to a standard residential zoning district
which allows a density of no more than 6 units/acre, and
propose development under a normal subdivision application or
a PD (planned development) application for special exception
use approval.
2. Rezone the site to a PD zoning district that is tied to a
conceptual PD plan proposing a density not 'exceeding 6
units/acre.
The developer has opted for a PD rezoning. If approved, the PD
rezoning would effectively rezone the property and approve the
conceptual plan in one set of public hearings.
*The PD Zoning District, Generally
Although many PD projects have been reviewed in the county, to date
the PD zoning district process has been used only one time in the
county to rezone a property (the existing SR 60 Wal-Mart site) .
Unlike standard zoning districts, there are no specific size or
dimension criteria for PD districts. Instead, the PD district is
based on the underlying land use plan designation for density and
use limitations, and on compatibility requirements. In the PD
zoning district, setbacks and other typical zoning district
regulations are established on a site by site basis through
approval of a conceptual PD plan. Adopted as part of the PD zoning
for a property, the conceptual plan serves as the zoning standard
for the site.
A rezoning to the PD district requires the submission of a binding
conceptual PD plan which, along with certain PD district
35
JULY 239 1996 BOOK 98 PACE 01�
BOCK 98 pn+ E 612
requirements, limits uses and sets -forth specific development
standards on the site. Thus, a PD rezoning allows a unique PD
district to be developed specifically for each development site.
In this case, the conceptual PD plan proposes the phased
development of a 134 lot single family subdivision with associated
recreational amenities and certain buffers. The PD plan indicates
that the single family homes could be attached or detached units.
Aspects of the conceptual PD are addressed in the "Plan Analysis"
section of this report.
In planning staff's opinion, the PD rezoning option is the best
alternative for approving residential development on the subject
site. Unlike other zoning districts, the PD zoning district allows
the county to consider the appropriateness of the proposed
development design as part of a rezoning request.
*The PD Rezoning Process
The PD rezoning review, approval, and development process is as
follows:
STEP 1. Rezoning and conceptual PD plan approval: Review and
recommendation made by staff and by the Planning and
Zoning Commission. Final action taken by the Board of
County Commissioners.
STEP 2. Preliminary PD plan (combination of site plan and
preliminary plat) approval: Review and recommendation
made by staff. Final action taken by the Planning and
Zoning Commission, subject to the Board's action on the
rezoning request.
STEP 3. Land Development Permit or Permit Waiver: Reviewed and
issued by staff for construction of subdivision
improvements (roads, utilities, drainage).
STEP 4. Building Permit(s): Reviewed and issued by staff for
construction of buildings.
STEP 5. Final PD Plat approval: Review and recommendation made
by staff. Final action taken by the Board of County
Commissioners.
STEP 6. Certificate of Occupancy: Reviewed and issued by staff
for use and occupancy of buildings.
As allowed by the PD ordinance, the applicant is pursuing
concurrent approval of the rezoning request, the PD conceptual
plan, and the preliminary PD plan for phase I.
Once a PD conceptual plan is approved, only minor modifications to
the conceptual plan can be approved at a staff level. Any changes
proposed that would intensify the site use (e.g. increase the
maximum number of lots) or reduce compatibility elements (e.g.
reduced buffering) could be approved only via the public hearing
process with a decision from the Board of County Commissioners.
*Proposed PD District for the Project Site
The subject site has an L-2 land use designation. This underlying
land use designation allows a variety of single and multi -family
zoning districts having a maximum density of 6 units/acre. Since
the land use designation controls the use of the property by
limiting the zoning districts applicable to the property, any
rezoning must be compatible with the uses and densities allowed by
the property's land use designation. Once a specific PD rezoning
is approved for a site, the applicable PD conceptual plan adopted
as part of the rezoning will limit the type of specific uses,
densities, and dimensional criteria allowed on the subject site.
36
JULY 239 1996
M M M
Although PD zoning district parameters are flexible, certain
standards related to uses, compatibility (buffering),
infrastructure improvements, dimensional criteria, and open space
areas are set forth in chapter 915 (P.D. Process and Standards for
Development Ordinance) of the county's land development regulations
(LDRs) . Based upon the proposed conceptual .PD plan and the chapter
915 standards, the proposed PD district for the subject site
contains the following elements as compared with the RS -6 zoning
and RT -6 zoning districts. .
ELEMENT
PROPOSED PD DISTRICT
RS -6 DISTRICT
RT -6 DISTRICT
Uses
Same as RS -6, except
Single family
Single family
attached single
detached,
detached and
family units and
accessory
two-family
guest cottages would
dwelling units,
attached, as
be permitted uses,
places of
listed in
and the existing
worship, etc. as
section 911.07
grove operation
listed in
would be a permitted
section 911.07.
use until build-
out.*
Density
3.42 units/acre
up to 6
up to 6
(gross)
units/acre
units/acre
3.54 units/acre
(net)
Maximum bldg.
coverage
45%r
30%
35%r
Maximum impervious
per lot
70%
60%-
601k
Minimum open
space:
Per lot
30%
40%
40%
Overall site
405*****
40%5
40la
Maximum bldg.
height
35'
35'
35'
Minimum lot size
5,500 sq. ft. (lots
7,000 sq. ft.
7,000 sq. ft.
not adjacent to site
perimeter)
Perimeter bldg.
setbacks
25'
20'
20'
Lot setbacks:
Front:
201/10'**
20'
20'
Side:
0'/10'***
10'
10'
Rear:
10'****
20'
20'
Pools:
Front:
10'
20'
20'
Side:
5'
10'
10'
Rear:
5'***
10,
10'
Decks & Patios:
Front:
5'
201
20,
Side:
5'
10'
10'
Rear:
5'***
10'
10,
*Guest cottages on any lots would have to comply with the specific land use criteria
normally applied to guest cottages. These include the filing of a restriction in the
public records on the restricted use of a guest cottage for the temporary use of
non-paying guests.
setback eonrthe higher volume will have
roadwayfront yard setback; corner lots can have a 10'
***Garages can have a 0' side yard setback; all residential units can have a common
wall (0' setback) provided the unit has a 10' setback on the opposite side.
****Pools, patios, and decks will have a 10' rear
lots, and the principal structure will be setback 25ard setback for all perimeter
37
JULY 23, 1996 B°°� �� ��{:6.LJ
, cid 98 Fr, -F614
*****Open space will be guaranteed through the setbacks on each individual lot and
the overall controls on the conceptual PD plan.
Note: All lots along the eastern perimeter will meet the RS -6
zoning district minimum lot size and setback criteria, with
perimeter lots having the ability to have a zero side yard setback,
if the side is opposite the project perimeter. Road rights-of-way
and open space areas are proposed between project lots and north,
south, and west perimeters.
It should be noted that, if the PD rezoning is approved, the
approved conceptual plan would be included as an actual exhibit to
the ordinance that approves the rezoning request. Additional items
which are controlled by the conceptual plan include buffering and
the overall subdivision layout.
REZONING ANALYSIS:
*Existing Zoning and Land Use Pattern
The subject site is presently an active citrus grove and is located
on a principal arterial (CR 510) at the northeast corner of the
intersection with CR 510 and Jungle Trail.
To the north and west of the subject site are primarily residential
areas within the Town of Orchid. However, at the northwest corner
of Jungle Trail and CR 510, immediately west of the southern
portion of the site is vacant commercially zoned property within
the Town. Jungle Trail physically separates the proposed project
from the Town of Orchid on the west perimeter, and provides an
effective physical barrier between the two developments. There is
an area labeled as conservation area within the Town of Orchid
which separates the north portion of the proposed development from
Jungle Trail. Staff and the developer have been coordinating with
the Town manager, who indicates that the Town has no objections to
the proposed project.
South of the subject site, across CR 510, is a grove zoned RM -6
with an L-2 land use designation.
East of the site is an existing residential area zoned RT -6 and
RS -6 (please see attachment #2). This area includes the Oceanaire
Heights and Spring Place neighborhoods, both of which consist
primarily of single family homes. There are several duplexes in
Oceanaire Heights. Since Oceanaire Heights is zoned RT -6, duplexes
are allowed in that subdivision.
It is the property to the east which will be most affected by the
proposed rezoning, since that property is the most heavily
developed and is not physically separated from the subject
property. Generally, the proposed single family PD rezoning is
consistent with the existing pattern of development to the east.
In addition, a 10, wide Type "C" buffer is required along the east
property line, and all lots along the east property line are
proposed to conform to the RS -6 minimum lot size, dimensional, and
setback criteria. These factors should ensure that the proposed
development is compatible with the adjacent subdivisions.
38
JULY 239 1996
M ® M
r � �
*Future Land Use Map Pattern
The subject property has an L-2 land use designation, as does the
property to the east and south. The property to the north and
west, within the Town of Orchid, has a. residential land- use
designation allowing up to 2 units/acre, except for the
commercially designated parcel at the northwest corner of CR
510/Jungle Trail. The proposed PD rezoning of the subject property
is consistent with the county's Future Land Use Map.
Consistency with the Comvrehensive Plan
Rezoning requests are reviewed for consistency with the policies of
the comprehensive plan and must also be consistent with the overall
designation of land uses as depicted on the Future Land Use Map.
These include agricultural, residential, recreational,
conservation, and commercial and industrial land uses and their
densities. Commercial and industrial land uses are located in
nodes throughout the unincorporated areas of Indian River County.
The goals, objectives and policies are the most important parts of
the comprehensive plan. Policies are statements in the plan which
identify the actions which the county will take in order to direct
the community's development. As courses of action committed to by
the county, policies provide the basis for all county land
development related decisions. While all comprehensive plan
policies are important, some have more applicability than others in
reviewing rezoning requests. Of particular applicability for this
request are the following policies and objectives.
Future Land Use Element Objective 5 and Policy 5.3
Future Land Use Element Objective 5 and Policy 5.3 encourage varied
densities and development patterns to accommodate a diversity of
lifestyles. Most of the residentially designated land near the
subject property is platted for single. family or two-family
development. By permitting single family and two-family
development options on the subject property, the subject request
implements Future Land Use Element Objective 5 and Policy 5.3.
Future Land Use Element Policies 1.11 and 1.12
Future Land Use Element Policy 1.12 states that the L-2, Low
Density Residential -2, land use designation is intended for
residential uses with densities up to 6 units/acre. In addition,
Future Land Use Element Policy 1.11 states that these residential
uses must be located within an existing or future urban service
area.
Since the subject property is located within an area designated as
L-2 on the county's future land use plan map and is located within
the county's urban service area, the proposed zoning district would
permit residential uses less.than the 6 units/acre allowed by the
L-2 designation. Therefore, the proposed request is consistent
with Policies 1.11 and 1.12.
While the referenced policies and objectives 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
request is consistent with the comprehensive plan.
Comvatibility with the Surrounding Area
Staff's position is that granting the request to rezone the subject
property to PD will result in development which will be compatible
with surrounding areas. Since land to the east is current zoned
39
JULY 23, 1996 B°�� �� F' �c 415
BGCK 98 P. "JE. 616
RT -6 and RS -6, the request is consistent with an expansion of that
existing zoning pattern. It should also be noted that the
clubhouse and recreational facilities will be close to CR 510 and
the commercial property within the Town of Orchid to ensure
compatibility with existing residential uses in the area.
Based on population projections and current development patterns,
residential development in this area of the county is expected to
increase and eventually become the dominant land use. The proposed
rezoning would be consistent with the comprehensive plan, since the
area is located within the Urban Service Area and is designated for
low-density residential development.
As indicated previously in the rezoning analysis, the property to
the east will be the most affected by this rezoning request.
However, the proposed rezoning to PD for a single family
residential development would be more compatible with the existing
development to the east than is the present active agricultural use
on the subject property.
For these reasons, staff feels that the requested PD zoning would
be compatible with the surrounding area.
•Environmental Impacts and Concurrency
These issues will be analyzed in the PD plan analysis.
PD PLAN ANALYSIS:
The PD plan indicates that 134 lots will be developed in three
phases. The project will also include a recreational tract, 3
lakes, and other amenities.
1. Size of Site: 39.17 acres (gross)
37.84 acres (less right-of-way dedications)
2. Zoning Classification:
Current: A-1, Agricultural (up to 1 unit/5 acre)
Proposed: PD, Planned Development (up to 3.54 units/acre)
3. Land Use Designation: L-2, Low Density 2 (up to 6 units/acre)
4. Density:
Current Zoning: 7.56 lots on 37.84 acres = 0.2 units/acre
Proposed Zoning
PD Plan: 134 lots divided by 37.84 acres = 3.54
units/acre
Phase I: 26 lots divided by 11.32 acres = 2.30
units/acre
Please note that the densities are calculations based on the
net parcel size. With the property's L-2 (up to 6 units/acre)
land use designation, the 37.84 acre site could have a maximum
of 227 units.
S. Lot Size:
A-1 Minimum:
200,000
sq.
ft.
RS -6 Minimum:
7,000
sq.
ft.
Minimum Proposed:
5,500
sq.
ft.
Largest Proposed:
12,506
sq.
ft.
Average Proposed:
7,200
sq.
ft.
6. Open Space: Required: 40.0% of the site or 15.14 acres
Provided: 42.8% of the site or 16.23 acres
40
JULY 239 1996
M M
Below is a summary of the open space provided.
Lake Area:
Common Green Area:
Recreation Tract:
Private Green Space:
Private Impervious Area:
Sidewalk:
Total:
2.74'
acres
2.87
acres
1.66
acres
6.662
acres
1.51'
acres
requirement
.79
acres
16.23
acres
equal
to 10% of
General note: Open space does not include green area within
private rights-of-way, and is calculated on net project size.
Note': Lake area can account for only 30% of the open space
requirement and private impervious area can account for only
10% of the open space requirement.
Note 2: Private green open space is based on 30o green open
space per lot, which is guaranteed by the proposed setbacks.
Note 3: Under the PD ordinance, sidewalks count as open space;
however, other areas within rights-of-way are not counted as
open space.
7. Recreation Area: Required: 1.61 acres
Provided: 3.24 acres
The recreation area is provided via a clubhouse recreation
complex and pedestrian walkways.
8. Phasing: The applicant is proposing to construct the proposed
development in three phases. The first phase will consist of
26 lots on 11.32 acres for a density of 2.30 units/acre. The
recreational amenities are also proposed in phase I, along
with the stormwater management system to support the
construction.
Phase II will include 69 lots on 17.7 acres which creates a
density of 3.89 units/acre. The remainder of the stormwater
management system along with pedestrian improvements will also
be part of phase II.
Phase III will contain 39 lots on 8.82 acres or a density of
4.42 units/acre. The remainder of the pedestrian path will be
completed in phase III. Note that the area for this phase is
based on the net project, after right-of-way dedications.
9. Environmental Issues:
*Uplands: Since the site is over 5 acres, the native upland
set-aside requirement of LDR section 929.05 applies to any
native upland vegetation areas. However, the existing site
consists entirely of groves; therefore no upland set-aside is
required.
*Wetlands: Environmental planning staff has concluded that
there are no wetlands on the site. Therefore, wetland
permitting is not an issue.
•Excavation: Approximately 2.74 acres of lake are proposed
within the project. The applicant has indicated that the fill
obtained will be used on-site. Therefore, there is no
incidental to construction off-site hauling/sand mining issue.
The applicant is required to construct littoral zones within
41
�ooK
JULY 239 1996 �� �a� 6i
FUCK 98 pAu618
the proposed lake, and such zones have been depicted on the
plan. The littoral zone planting plan will need to be
approved prior to the issuance of a land development permit.
10. Concurrency Management: Long-range planning staff has
indicated that a conditional concurrency certificate will be
issued for this project prior to the Planning and Zoning
Commission's consideration of this item. Thus, all
concurrency requirements related to preliminary PD approval
have been satisfied.
11. Stormwater Management: As with standard single family
subdivisions, the stormwater management plan has been
conceptually approved by the public works department, provided
that the applicant can document a legal positive outfall.
Final review and approval of. the stormwater management plan
shall be accomplished through the land development permit
process.
12. Thoroughfare Plan: The project has 647' of frontage on CR 510
which is designated on the Thoroughfare Plan as an urban
principal arterial requiring 160' of right-of-way. Presently
the existing right-of-way width varies between 120' and 1401.
The applicant's design accommodates the additional 20' and 40'
segments that will be acquired by the county. The county will
acquire the full right-of-way for CR 510 as part of this
project and compensate the applicant through traffic impact
fees and other means.
13. Traffic Circulation: The project will be accessed from CR 510
by the subdivision's main roadway which will provide access to
the other streets within the subdivision. The connection to
CR 510 will be the only vehicular access point for this
subdivision. Staff reviewed the alternative of
interconnecting the proposed PD with one or more streets in
Oceanaire Heights, and decided not to recommend such vehicular
interconnections. This decision was based upon the
limitations of the existing street pattern to the east of the
subject property and potential negative impacts on Oceanaire
Heights. Since Coco Plum is the only through street to SR A-
1 -A, Coco Plum would bear the majority of any traffic as a
result of an interconnection with the PD. In staff's opinion,
the traffic funnelling effect on Coco Plum would adversely
affect the existing homes on that street.
As a result of the Traffic Impact Analysis, which was reviewed
and approved by the County Traffic Engineering Division, a
left -turn lane on CR 510 is required at the project entrance.
The left -turn will need to be constructed prior to the
issuance of a certificate of completion for phase II. Also,
the developer will provide a west bound right -turn lane on CR
510, an improvement which is not a requirement of the Traffic
Impact Analysis.
The applicant will provide an emergency access interconnection
at Coco. Plum Lane, for which the construction details will
need to be approved by the Emergency Management Department
prior to the issuance of a land development permit. There
will also be a pedestrian interconnection between the proposed
development and Oceanaire Heights at the emergency access
point (Coco Plum Lane). Such an interconnection should
benefit residents of both the proposed PD and Oceanaire
Heights neighborhoods.
42
JULY 239 1996
14. Utilities: County potable water and wastewater services are
available to the site, and connection is mandatory. The
project will connect to county water and wastewater services.
County Utilities has approved the connection to water and
wastewater.
15. Dedications and Improvements: The developer is required to
construct an S' wide bike path along the project's CR 510
frontage. The bike path will need to be built or bonded prior
to the issuance of a certificate of completion for phase I.
As earlier referenced, the developer will also be required to
construct a left -turn lane on CR 510 at the project entrance.
16. Proposed PD Waivers: The proposed waivers available through
the PD process were discussed in the PD zoning analysis.
Please reference that section for waivers proposed by the
development.
17. Pedestrian Circulation: The subdivision will have a 4'
sidewalk along the main north/south entry road. The 4'
sidewalk will brandh-off from the main road at Tract H and
provide a north/south pedestrian corridor through the project.
Pedestrian travel in the east and west direction can be
accommodated by the proposed roadways, since these are lower
traffic volume roadways. Three_ external pedestrian
connections will also be provided, one to Coco Plum Lane and
two to Jungle Trail.
18. Jungle Trail: The project borders Jungle Trail along its
western perimeter for approximately 2,6001. The conceptual
and preliminary PD plans provide for a 30' Jungle Trail buffer
as required in the Jungle Trail Management Plan. The
developer proposes to remove the existing citrus trees and
exotics within the.Jungle Trail buffer zone and replant the
buffer zone in accordance with the criteria of the Jungle
Trail Management Plan (see attachment #5). Generally, the
Jungle Trail Management Plan requires that a buffer be planted
that will form a 7' high visual screen with 60% opacity within
2 years after planting. At maturity, 50% of the buffer must
be covered by tree canopy. Planning staff agrees with the
applicant's proposal to remove citrus trees and replant the
buffer area, since the replanting of the buffer area will
ultimately produce a more "jungle like" atmosphere along
Jungle Trail. The applicant will need to submit a detailed
Jungle Trail landscape plan to staff, and obtain staff
approval of that plan, prior to issuance of a land development
permit for Phase I.
The developer may also construct a fence within the Jungle
Trail buffer. The fence would be permitted, provided that it
meets certain criteria. Generally, the following criteria
would need to be met for fence construction:
• the fence must be less than 50% opaque when viewed at a
right angle to the fence; and
• the fence must be located in the outer (eastern) 10' of
the buffer, i.e. more than 20' from the travel way; and
• no native vegetation in the buffer can be removed to
construct the fence.
The developer is also proposing a temporary vehicular access
point to Jungle Trail near CR 510 for access to a construction
43 BOOK 98 Pi r, 619
JULY 239 1996
BOOK 98 PAGE 620
and sales office. While the Jungle Trail Management Plan does
not address the use of the Trail as access for development
purposes, it has been the past practice of staff to discourage
the use of the Trail for access. It is staff's opinion that
the developer should be prohibited from using.Jungle Trail as
a construction access for the project and that project
construction traffic should use the project's CR 510 frontage
for access. The intent of such a prohibition is to keep
Jungle Trail from being used as a construction access entrance
which could have a high volume of daily traffic. It is
acknowledged that a citrus operation will remain in the
northern phases of the project and will continue to be
accessed by Jungle Trail until the citrus operation is
concluded. There will also be some project -related site work
along Jungle Trail (e.g. Jungle Trail buffering,
infrastructure improvements along the Trail perimeter) that
will need to be handled from the Jungle Trail side of the
project perimeter. Staff's recommendation at the end of this
report would allow for such limited use of Jungle Trail.
19. Use of Tracts:
Tracts B,C,I - Drainage facilities and common area for
recreation, open space and landscaping.
Tract D - Multi-purpose recreation facility, 3,000 square foot
Property Owners Association building, tennis courts. These
improvements require Indian River County site plan approval.
Tracts E, F, H - Common area for recreation, open space and
landscaping.
Tract G - Common recreation area, open space, landscape, and
double frontage buffer.
Tract J - Landscape buffer/double frontage buffer, and
emergency access.
Note: Tract A is reserved for future development. Any such
development must be consistent with the uses in the proposed
PD zoning district, or the tract must be rezoned.
20. Landscaping and Buffering: The planned development
compatibility standards require a 25' perimeter building
(residence) setback within all planned developments.
Landscape buffers can be required within these setbacks,
depending upon the proposed type of development within the PD
and adjacent development or zoning. For this project, buffers
are required as follows (see attachment #7):
North: Along the north property line, the proposed project is
adjacent to the Town of Orchid. The property within the Town
of Orchid adjacent to the project has been dedicated as a
conservation tract, with Jungle Trail just to the north of the
conservation tract. That conservation tract is the Jungle
Trail buffer area. The applicant is proposing a Type "C"
landscape buffer for this area, which will satisfy, the
applicable PD buffering requirements (915.16).
West: The west project perimeter is adjacent to Jungle Trail.
As earlier described, the applicant will be removing the
existing citrus and providing a buffer consistent with the
Jungle Trail Management Plan. Such a buffer will satisfy the
applicable PD buffering requirements (915.16).
44
JULY 239 1996
L�
South: Lying across CR 510 to the south of the property is a
grove which has a residential land use designation. There is
no buffer required along the south property line adjacent to
CR 510, since the applicant is providing a 150' transitional
area.
East: To the east of the project site is Oceanaire Heights
and Spring Place, subdivisions which are residentially
designated and residentially developed. Along the east
boundary of the project site the developer is proposing to
provide a Type "C" buffer which satisfies the applicable PD
buffering requirements (915.16). Principal structures will be
set back 25' from the east property line and.pools and decks
will be set back 101, as allowed on residential lots
throughout the unincorporated area of the county.
CONCLUSION:
The requested PD rezoning and corresponding conceptual PD plan are
compatible with the surrounding area, consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan, meet all concurrency requirements, and are
consistent with the site's L-2, Low Density 2 (up to 6 units/acre),
land use designation. The subject property is suitable for
residential development given its surrounding future land use map
and zoning designations, and its proximity and direct access to CR
510. The preliminary PD plan is consistent with the proposed PD
rezoning and the conceptual PD plan, and meets or exceeds
applicable land development regulation requirements.
RECONMEIiDATION :
Staff recommends that the. Board of County Commissioners grant
approval of the PD rezoning request and the PD conceptual plan
subject to the following conditions:
a. That temporary construction access from Jungle Trail be
prohibited, except for construction and landscaping activities
occurring within the Jungle Trail buffer and on the project's
Jungle Trail perimeter.
b. That prior to the issuance of a land development permit (LDP)
for subdivision improvements, the applicant shall submit
detailed Jungle Trail buffer area landscape plans that comply
with the Jungle Trail Management Plan.
C. That prior to the issuance of an LDP, the applicant shall
obtain approval from the Planning Division and Department of
Emergency Services of a detail of the project's emergency
access point at Coco Plum Lane.
d. That prior to the issuance of a certificate of completion for
phase I, an 8' bikepath shall be built or bonded for along the
project's CR 510 frontage.
e. That prior to the issuance of a certificate of completion for
phase II, the left -turn lane on CR 510 shall be completed.
f. That landscape buffering shall be provided along the CR 510
frontage of Tract A prior to the operation of a temporary or
permanent use on Tract A (e.g. sales office, recreation use).
45
JULY 239 1996
Boa 9 #',�: DI
r
BOOK 98 mT 622
Chairman Adams asked where the emergency access would be
located, and Director Boling explained that the emergency access
and a pedestrian crossing with a gate would be situated about mid-
point in the project.
Chairman Adams asked if temporary access from Jungle Trail to
the sales trailer would be a problem, and Director Boling advised
that the applicant is not longer requesting that access.
Chairman Adams opened the public hearing and asked if anyone
wished to be heard in this matter.
Bruce Barkett, attorney for the applicant, advised that he and
the engineer were here to answer any questions the Board may have
about the project.
Jim Metzer, resident of Summerplace, questioned whether
pedestrians would realize that the only access would be from
Wabasso Beach.
Deputy County Attorney Will Collins advised that it would be
a simple matter of posting it on the direct access to the beach,
the stairs, etc.
Barbara Barker of Seagrape Drive didn't understand why an
emergency exit is needed, and Chairman Adams and Commissioner
Eggert explained that it would be an alternate access only in the
case of an emergency.
Marjorie Ricker of Sandpiper Drive in Summerplace, asked if
the emergency access could be off Jungle Trail, and Attorney
Collins explained that the preference is to keep emergency vehicles
on paved roads.
Mrs. Ricker asked if proof of residency would be needed to
enter the pedestrian walkway, and Attorney Collins advised that it
would depend on whether the project is designed as a private
community.
Director Boling advised that the project is proposed as a
designed community.
Attorney Barkett interjected that pedestrians can go into Coco
Plum Lane. He believed a reciprocal agreement could be worked out
with Summerplace and Oceanaire Heights.
Ruth Stormbush, Sandpiper Road East in Summerplace, advised
that the developers have to make it clear that access is only from
Wabasso Beach and Golden Sands Park because people from Oceanaire
can go through there.
46
JULY 239 1996
There being no others who wished to be heard, the Chairman
closed the public hearing.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Tippin, the Board unanimously approved
staff's recommendation and adopted Ordinance 96-15,
rezoning 39.17 acres of land generally located at
the northeast corner of CR -510 and Jungle Trail from
A-1 to PD (up to 4 units an acre).
ORDINANCE NO. 96- 15
AN ORDINANCE OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, AMENDING
THE ZONING ORDINANCE AND THE ACCOMPANYING ZONING MAP FROM
A-1 TO PD FOR APPROXIMATELY 39.17 ACRES OF LAND GENERALLY
LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF CR 510 AND JUNGLE
TRAIL; AND DESCRIBED HEREIN, AND PROVIDING FOR AN
EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission, sitting as the
local planning agency on such matters, has held a public hearing
and subsequently made a recommendation regarding this rezoning
request; and
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River
County, Florida, did publish and send its Notice of Intent to
rezone the hereinafter described property; and
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners has determined that
this rezoning, is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan of Indian
River County, and the county land development regulations,
including but not limited to the Planned Development (PD) Process
and Standards for Development chapter; and
WHEREAS, The Board of County Commissioners of Indian River
County, in conjunction with the rezoning request has approved a PD
conceptual plan (see EXHIBIT B, attached) that controls and
regulates development on the subject land; and
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners has held a public
hearing pursuant to this rezoning request, at which parties in
interest and citizens were heard;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED, by the Board of County
Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, that the Zoning of
JULY 239 1996
L-
47
BN -K 98 64903
F,
ECOK 98 ml -;1624
ORDINANCE 96-15
the property situated in Indian River County, and legally described
in EXHIBIT A (attached) be changed from A-1 to PD (up to 4
units/acre).
All with the meaning and intent as set forth in the land
development regulations, and the approved conceptual plan as may be
amended pursuant to the provisions of the,Planned Development (PD)
Process and Standards for Development chapter of the land
development regulations.
Approved and adopted by the Board of County Commissioners of
Indian River County, Florida, on this 23 day of July , 1996.
This ordinance was advertised in the Vero Beach Press -Journal
on the 2 day of July 1996 for a public hearing to be held
on the -OF day of July , 1996 at which time it was moved for
adoption by Commissioner Eggert , seconded by Commissioner
Ti ppi n , and adopted by the following vote:
Chairman Fran B. Adams Aye
Vice Chairman Carolyn K. Eggert Aye
Commissioner Richard N. Bird Aye
Commissioner Kenneth R. Macht Aye
Commissioner John W. Tippin Aye
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
By:
Fran B. Adams, Chairman
ATTEST BY:
..,(-JsrSfrey K. Bar Clerk
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this
_7--'DS-9L_ by Fran B. Adams as Chairman of the Board of County
Commission�jrsI of Indian River County, Florida, and by
?A 5EICI A M. 1\%c c e_ Ly, Deputy Clerk for Jeffrey K. Barton, Clerk of
the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida,
who are personally known to me.
Notary Public
; . PATNUA L. JONES
„s 12 Printed Name: A i e G
:.: ter COWSSiar r CC430 3 .
°••
Febrd" 25, 1999 Commission No.:
;;,, � pTF9Ulif{OYFAINIK4Ufl�NC W- Commission Expiration: .� -�S
Acknowledgement by the Department of State of the State of Florida
this 5th day of August , 1996.
Effective upon filing with the Department of State.
This ordinance was filed with the Department of State on the
following date: July 31, 1996
48
JULY 239 1996
i
EXHIBIT "A"
WEST 1/2 OF THE NORTHEAST 1/4 OF THE SOUTHWEST 1/4, AND
THE WEST 1/2 OF THE SOUTHEAST 1/4 OF THE SOUTHWEST 1/4,
IN SECTION 23, TOWNSHIP 31 SOUTH, RANGE 39 EAST, INDIAN
RIVER COUNTY, STATE OF FLORIDA, LESS ALL ROAD, DITCH AND
CANAL RIGHTS OF WAY OF RECORD, LESS AND EXCEPT THE
FOLLOWING DESCRIBED PROPERTY CONVEYED TO BRUCE JACOBS AND
ELLEN JACOBS, HIS WIFE, IN OFFICIAL RECORDS, BOOK 0763,
PAGE 1467, PUBLIC RECORDS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, STATE
OF FLORIDA: BEGINNING AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF LOT 9,
BLOCK C OCEANAIRE HEIGHTS SUBDIVISION UNIT #1, AS
RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 3, PAGE 84, PUBLIC RECORDS OF
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, STATE OF FLORIDA, RUN WEST ALONG THE
PROLONGATION OF THE NORTH LINE OF SAID LOT 9 A DISTANCE
OF 4.0 FEET; THENCE RUN SOUTH PARALLEL TO THE WEST LINE
OF SAID LOT 9 FOR A DISTANCE OF 93.5 FEET; THENCE RUN
EAST A DISTANCE OF 4.0 FEET TO A POINT WHICH LIES 23.5
FEET SOUTH OF THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SAID LOT 9; THENCE
RUN NORTH ALONG THE WEST PROPERTY LINE OF PART OF LOT 8
AND LOT 9 FOR A DISTANCE OF 93.5 FEET TO THE POINT OF
BEGINNING.
ALSO LESS:
"LYING WITHIN THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED BOUNDARIES TO WIT:
COMMENCING AT THE SOUTH QUARTER CORNER OF SECTION 23,
TOWNSHIP 31 SOUTH, RANGE 39 EAST, INDIAN RIVER COUNTY,
FLORIDA; THENCE SOUTH 89059146" WEST (BEARINGS USED
HEREIN ARE REFERENCED TO THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID SECTION
23 AS SHOWN ON RIGHT OF WAY MAPS OF FORMER STATE ROAD
(S.R.) 510, SECTION 88050-2505 FOR THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT
OF TRANSPORTATION AS RECORDED IN DOCKET NO. 200539 PLAT
BOOK 9, PAGE 84 OF THE SAID PUBLIC RECORDS) ALONG THE
BASELINE OF SURVEY AND CENTERLINE OF CONSTRUCTION (FOR
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS TO COUNTY
ROAD (C.R.) 510 AND STATE ROAD A -1-A, PROJECT NO. 8842)
SAME LINE BEING THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID SECTION 23, A
DISTANCE OF 1003.45 FEET; THENCE NORTH 00000114" EAST (AT
RIGHT ANGLES TO THE PRECEDING LINE), A DISTANCE OF 40.00
FEET TO A POINT OF THE EXISTING NORTHERLY RIGHT OF WAY
LINE FOR SAID C.R. 510 (SAID FORMER S.R. 510) AND THE
POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE NORTH 00000'14" EAST, A
DISTANCE OF 20.00 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 89059146" EAST ALONG
A LINE LOCATED 60.00 FEET NORTH OF (AS MEASURED AT RIGHT
ANGLES) AND PARALLEL WITH THE SAID SOUTH LINE OF SECTION
23, A DISTANCE OF 344.73 FEET TO A POINT ON THE WESTERLY
LINE OF THE PLAT OF "OCEANAIRE HEIGHT" UNIT NO. 1, AS
RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 3, PAGE 84 OF THE SAID PUBLIC
RECORDS; THENCE SOUTH 00006114" WEST ALONG SAID WESTERLY
LINE OF "OCEANAIRE HEIGHTS", A DISTANCE OF 20.00 FEET TO
A POINT ON SAID NORTHERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF COUNTY
ROAD 510; THENCE SOUTH 89059146" WEST ALONG SAID
NORTHERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF COUNTY ROAD 510 LOCATED
40.00 FEET NORTH OF (AS MEASURED AT RIGHT ANGLES) AND
PARALLEL WITH THE SAID SOUTH LINE OF SECTION 23, A
DISTANCE OF 344.70 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING
CONTAINING IN AREA 6,394 SQUARE FEET, MORE OR LESS."
(O.R. 0919, PG. 2872, INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA)
49
JULY 239 1996 BOOK 98 pmjr. 6 ,
BOOK 98 NKF.
EXHIBIT B
APPROVED CONCEPTUAL PLAN
(Approved conceptual plans will
be attached to the ordinance)
2,.�d'♦. vte tia•-ate -9`4 Y; �f r - -+•� t( _
T �� Ni �.+5 � � �•� t f � � i � •1 4 . - .
Ay
r
7 114
I t' !RC � � Pltyir IID iltsp t�ON.:1iw�} : ff
1 ' swam P�1gTS SOL FAMdY Am pa& �'
WARM= PVM*
WLMM
s to -..F'V n • `{f # ,. FM � An
I t .S�RrDDmmmm
,.. t• + ORCHID ISLAND - PLAT 1
t TRACT a
i f LAND USE: L-2 r
sty + ZONED: COMMERCIAL
off. go& �
v1 W
Lt
30' dAyR PRpIECAON ZONE
} .iU1K#F .lfUY6 { 1 TRACT ,A, Pff� A _ — — — '_
USE PERWI —f8o f ASS i !
tc+aCe - 1314
LOT
101 Lam
12
;
27
�yEAMW
law
,'fi{]6
y. ,y peat. i - 0,/SAO'
1W 0"WaL. MAT
26 29
f' Doom
t �cr B [ 8 ' 25 30
tiA6rt�• B 1aa AG _
>�c[ Aad►`` �, — , ,uAr
t i LAKE. t ' � 24 31
,b.aa
k ,aaor F.15 23
7..
32
ftp Adel \ ,uea ' ,moa or
16 22
,u.,z ,
:� ;� t►c°r c 1 ; 5. 17 21 34
AC
AWAI
AC
�' � - � ; LAIC 1 t �• ` - ' t t
4 f: !�� �� 2 3 4'. 18 18 20 L 35
�.- •.t - . ern o.m :
f * . _ fo-roar aa. na ae�eYtac reit . WWW •
7M- 0_� 2,
77
r �w. —u. mil:• . a.�..���_ � `.
4QnT
DATA
vw �` K t
Mmmf Wt
`s IO ft 'm fE" f0/fA -Rs . i
"Q loft, Oto 101fdp
a IO R` .
10 R.rr 1.
50
JULY 239 1996
Ps7 W
d tr..
L'—B
'"' { C ' RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION `
1:4}' OCEANAIIRE HEIGHTS
fA ch1 _ _LAND M' -2
zoNL . LiSs-5 �.
¢• SAN DFWE
ORCHID ISLAND — GOLF COURSE
- - F EXISTMIG 40`JUNGL E TRAIL R/W
--- L_. J=PP=_�_ - - ZONE
-----
I LAND USE: L-2
RS -6
-KEMMY PROPERTY - STI'E DATA
KENNEDY PROPERTY - S name >i�oro Fact &�, q Vis. ul�
faLthn� sits c A.
1 }� � yqp I 5emoc4 fren, an o.
�"X.o aloe. Ae�e avua groM T �- t
� AG
Mvp � EL &0 R awwo Ramtet 3.000 d - 2W mN.
L S t -Wt« zmo 'i Tw+MAQ(2 Cyt) 13.000 of - 25 mil.
lLieft. =m Felt mqwPOW tAOO of - 23' min.
I, .-van6 d Lilt sendl,(Mortq sax'a 'm 'C', water td1N.1.0 to 3.0 rp ! ReaNenNW G1oe Sta»farAc a
a
MA,tldldiow-4 h 40R of db). NSG 'BID' water t�N. Q.0 to OAS z dila Bldg fes) 100d +tea -00 Semed� bem PD
K .4—W
51
JULY 239 1996 98 697
St
_
HEST 1/2 OF THE NORMCAS1-4/4 OF THE SOU OF IHE SOUTHEAST 1/4 OF /*4 S1-.TJIN^ 33..
7004SRP 31 SOUTH. RANGE 39 TsJ►ST. utdAN RWM t/4. Alp s4 OrLFORMA LESS ALL ROAD. DITCH AND CANAL RIGHTS Or -WAY -OF RECORB.
a � 1ACO s i NOR CORNER OF LOAND ELLEN JACOBS, HIS Win- IN ST 9 BLOC% C OCEANIARE s
f
PAGE 1487. PUBLIC RECORDSNW ESTATE ;
'
}&10FiT5 5<lI;DIN90N IAIAT f1. AS RECORDED M ' �A q A RECORDS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY. STATE OF FLORIDA. RUN NES'
1
J'
ALONG THE PROLONGATION OF THE NCE OF 93.5 FEET. 7NOW UNE OF 4� 3. PAGE��.� *0 FW: THENCE RUN SOUTH PARALLEL TO THE NEST LINE OF S�YD LOT
HEMCE RUN EASTLOT 9 LIES23.5 FEET SOUT01 OF THE SOUTHWEST CORNER
SAID fOT THENCE RUN NORTH AWM THE ��N-IALE�OF 7 OF OT 8 AND A DISTANCE OF 93: FEET TO THE POINT OF
BEG INMING. .FAY
' Ujaa�P
ALSO LESS
'L114G 1W1FNt THE FOLLOWING DESCF480 BIX-Re RIES TO
COMMENCING AT 1K SOUTH QUARTER CORNER OF SECTI Wy- j1 SOUTH. RANGE 39 EAST. INDIAN 'RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA; THENCE SOUTH
RNGS USED NEREIM ARE OF SAID SECTION 23 AS SHOWN ON RIGHT QF WAY MAPS OF FORMER
IN DOCKET NO 200539 PLAT
513TO11K 8 P 84�OF1l PI�BiIC RECORDS RECORDED
�ATijE To THE Soul" TOF TRANSPORTATION AND TERLMIE�OF CONSTRUCTION (FOR OfD1A11�ER COON
ALONG SURVEY SAID
TO �45NFEET;
INTERSE)
SECTION C233.. A DIST�MA003TS
THETY ROAD NCE )NpRTOHµD STB TAAIC . (�T RIQIT ANGLES TO Tw PRECEDING LINE DISTANCE � tX1FW
AND THF OF BEGNMG;
TO A POINT OF THE EASTING NORTHERLY RiGHT OF NORTH (AS
THENCE NORTH OLfWlr EAST AA p INCE OF 20.00 MAY Uq Fop SMO CR
SOUTH R. EAST ALONG ASLINE LOOCATID 60.00 FEET)
y�gI1R(]) AT RXSiT ANGLES) ADB) PARALLEL WITH THE DISTANCEOF 44.73PFEETTOA POINT THEPL'
ION
SAO' SOUTH V � �� BOOK 3 PAGE THE SOUTH
LINE OF T1# PL,T OF 'OCEANAw HEIGHTS' UNIT NO. t,
00'08'14' NEST ALONG SAID WESTERLY LINE OF 'OCEANAiIlE RECpRpEO20-00 FEET. TO A POINT ON SAID NORTHERLY RIGHT OF WAY
��' A DISTANCE OF
RIGHT COUNTY ROAD 510 LOCATED 40.00 FEET
OF WAY LINE OF
LINE OF COUNTY ROAD 510. THENCE SOUTH 89'59'48' NEST
NORTH OF (AS MEASURED AT RIGHT ANGLES) AND PARALLEL VAN G O SOUTH LINE OF SECTION 23. A DISTANCE OF 344.70 FEET TO THE POINT OF
VA
G.'CONTANING IN AREA 8.394 SOUARE FEET, MORE TH
.R-019. PG. 2872. INDIAN RIVER COUNTY. FLOR&)
Ps7 W
d tr..
L'—B
'"' { C ' RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION `
1:4}' OCEANAIIRE HEIGHTS
fA ch1 _ _LAND M' -2
zoNL . LiSs-5 �.
¢• SAN DFWE
ORCHID ISLAND — GOLF COURSE
- - F EXISTMIG 40`JUNGL E TRAIL R/W
--- L_. J=PP=_�_ - - ZONE
-----
I LAND USE: L-2
RS -6
-KEMMY PROPERTY - STI'E DATA
KENNEDY PROPERTY - S name >i�oro Fact &�, q Vis. ul�
faLthn� sits c A.
1 }� � yqp I 5emoc4 fren, an o.
�"X.o aloe. Ae�e avua groM T �- t
� AG
Mvp � EL &0 R awwo Ramtet 3.000 d - 2W mN.
L S t -Wt« zmo 'i Tw+MAQ(2 Cyt) 13.000 of - 25 mil.
lLieft. =m Felt mqwPOW tAOO of - 23' min.
I, .-van6 d Lilt sendl,(Mortq sax'a 'm 'C', water td1N.1.0 to 3.0 rp ! ReaNenNW G1oe Sta»farAc a
a
MA,tldldiow-4 h 40R of db). NSG 'BID' water t�N. Q.0 to OAS z dila Bldg fes) 100d +tea -00 Semed� bem PD
K .4—W
51
JULY 239 1996 98 697
800F 98 PA"(f, 628
got
wo
r t
+• ,:.... /Jj '-. Yom• •�•e C„t`+ `�
IAMW
ii<4JY,
• �
> North
ORCHID ISLAND — PLAT t
TRACT 2
LAND USE: L-2 Y A
_0* SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (2 DU/AC) -- - gyp',+, •i : `-
Aoms� ,s,c:
va1H HOA[ t ! •:
— ------ ----_------ \ ,33. NBt��$�8 ' 't eI
-�---- - - _ \� 134 ,y' _ . ` • �,' :,.
—URAL— 1 ORCH��`DD,� ftL AND — MAT '6 !4 S
&�- 6—ro 9 � 11 - — 115 i "sem' GOVERNMENT LOT -14
,a �aoscvs 133 I tJWb.'USi=: _L-2
—
-ZONED
: tINGLE ;FAFA(LY RESIDENTIAL (2 fl�l�C)
t , ao-. 'amr
,2sss `
94 ,fix 1113 fi� 13246 72"r
w
� 98 t2.�' + 131 nit
112 117
Mar N +ate,
t P2 ��� M.0 ' ,23.Bt1' ' — -
118
111 Q
S1 100-4-
. 90 = t109 120
89 102 108 121 127 m n
.:. a, •
i 103 1107 122 1126
•'�'� ` !� d" . , +', i • . -" a __
_ °. i — •'r '' .- `.' , � -'fir
:ge 104 105 104 1 123 124
-- — — --r -- — _ J `tel►,. -
taosa , — — '
iQ- T TYPE SERA 4D
10-f 7
DEO(. PAT* SE780 0c
EI r.
RqWWnAL SUMMON
s — — OM SCE
7%044 of
i.di aC �� Q1
A. 1Pew6u&e Aao
iK`e4y *am YM .ice R
52
JULY 239 1996
40' ADDITION
TO BE am
FOR TRWM
FEE CAM
GOVERNMENT LOT 3
(CITRUS GROVE)
LAND USE: L-2
ZONING: RM -6
CONST TURN LANES
AS
TRAREQUFFIC STUDIRED YBY
EXISTING ROADWAY
570' WEST OF
S/0 ENT. ROAD
IIID: --
KENNEDY PROPERTY - SITE DATA
Qtrner Kenniedy Groves. Inc
756 Beaehlmld Blvd, Suite 'C
Vero Beach. F1. 32963
Engineer: Knight. Mcr utre & Assoc ate% Inc.
:901 Cardinal Orrve
Vero Beach, FL 32963
Survevor. oral, & Assoc., Inc.
VERO DEWN. 2 32964
407-562-4191
Site Address N.E. corner cr 510 & Jungle Troii
Vero Beach. Fl
'a; I D. No's: 23-_I-39-00000-5000-00006.0
Statement of Use: Single Family "Pdarmned Development' Subdivision '134 lotaj
.,o 'P D. Special Exception Approval Process
and re -zoning from A-1 to RS -6_
Proposed Masntrmana Entity. Property Owners Association
Dedication of improvements Private road/ right-of-way. public utilities
Mews of Conveyance of Ownership: Fee simple
Owes CONSTRtrr70N
SCHEDULE
TZonfricA
7.0(X7efsf
S .5W sf
- Minewm Lot Slits:
- Minimum Lot Width.
PN�_
SATE
OF COMMENCEMENT
- Minimum Lot Frontage -
PHASE 1
30 R
9/96
30 R
20 ft
PHASE It
- Front
Side:
1997/98
10 it
0 to 10 R --
- eor
Rear-
Totals
tae I
Phan 11
Phase 10
l -'ass Area
39.17 cc
11.94 ac
30.07 ac
39 17 ac
CR 510 died.
0.45 ac
0.45 ac
0.45 cc
0 45 ac
.T. died.
0.88 ac
0.26 ac
0.69 ac
0.88 x
Net Dei. Area
37.84 ac
11.23 cc
28.9.5 ac
37.84 ac
Dwelling Units
134 0.1.1
26 D.0
95 D.U.
134 D.U.
'*•gty DU/AC
'.54
2.32
3.28
3.45
Res. Lots Area
22.27 ac
5.01 cc
15.57 ac
22.27 ac
on -Site R/W
'.53 cc
1 99 ac
196 ac
7 53 ac
Fedectttian Access 0 70 ac
0.04 ac
0.52 ao
0 70 cc
Trams
10 ft
0 R
- Front
5 R
Tract 'A
0.37 at
0.37 cc
0.37 ac
0.37 ac
Tract "B
116 ac
1.18 ac
1.16 do
1 16 ac
Tract 'C"
0.68 ac
0.66 ac
0.88 ac
0.88 ac
Tract D`
'.67 ac
1.67 ac
1.67 ac
1.67 ac
Tract •r
0.11 ac
0.11 ac
011 ac
0.11 ac
tract 'r
0.09 ac
0.09 ac
0.09 ac
0.09 ac
Tract 'G'
1.Q9 ac
0.05 ac
0.74 ac
1.09 ac
Troct "H•
0.09 ac
0.09 ac
0.09 cc
0.09 ac
Tract "r
1.82 ac
- ac
1.82 ac
142 do
Tact
0.30 ac
- ac
0 30 cc
0 30 cc
O
DESCRIPTION
NBfr54'25'W :
•.00'
Mr NEDY PWF:BTY
Development Parameters/Waiwrs,000
- SITE
of
TZonfricA
7.0(X7efsf
S .5W sf
- Minewm Lot Slits:
- Minimum Lot Width.
?50 R
70 ft
s0 ft
- Minimum Lot Frontage -
30 R
Minimum Yard Setbacks
30 R
20 ft
10/20 R•
- Front
Side:
30 R
10 it
0 to 10 R --
- eor
Rear-
30 ft
20 it
10 ft •••
Poole:
- Poole:Front:
30 ft
30 ft
20 ft
05
t0 ft
ft
- side
0 R
10 ft
s ft ••.
- Rear:
- patios:
5 ft
20 ft
5 It
- Front:
5 R
10 ft
5 ft
- Srde:
10 It
t0 tt
S It
- Ream
- Decks:
5 R
20 K
S It
- ern nt
5 R
10 ft
5 ft
- Side.
10 ft
10 ft
5 it-
-Rear
- Tennis Courts.
10 R
10 ft
0 R
- Front
5 R
" ft
0 ft
- Side,
to tt
10 R
0 ft
- Rear
- Fences
0 ft
a It
O R
Front,
0 R
0 it
0 h
- Side:
O N
0 ft
0 R
- Rear:
35 R
35 It
35 ft
- Maxarmum Budding Height:
- Maximum LotCOveragr
209
3OX'
45X
Bulldtn ge:
401
6=
70;
:rnoervous Area:
- Minimum Separation 0istaito
60 R
20 R
10 or 0 ft.
- Between Res. Buil
- Minimum Cv- Space:4011
N A
N/A
440X
- Lot:
- Phase:
N{A
N/A
N
4OX
- Project:
N/A
AA
40:
- Min.Conaerwtfon Arec/ot
Afew s"
d"1111,10
tau mer traw to t� Use
- Guest Cottages
. - 1W frond
Cep�o,r�ager
switlackP tropic vd�
r wd
(0' nom)
er ei be
«_ rMieamt1°Wtlo t+aw (00 1011
tbacko
� nqy vary to tai.
its wo6rtl by t0' man, a4trd�j0�.9a
�anmm�new 1a batwaan G'e'rw
Wb=k aorteexvhave 25' rear
a rs
a" dada aOA� Or
�
�d
971(4) b dot q
` .t th.
ot! tem..: O:r.
- MM
6' o
01
tradr tOea u7r<.'
was swell a a sal to e
'srxrw curt gots * - tb OCS�ED ORAtMI
s. C.R.M.
4/06 1 1-.1(&
53 8m 98 FgE
JULY 239 1996
Top
Ota:
to
See
Pro lett t_
- Tra
Tra
- Tpr�pooaac.
Tra.
Trar
Trot
Sinc
A.
B.
C.
D.
E
F.
ti. 7
L
A
OI11ct
I�Oo t�
93-047
6StJt.,,
BOOK 98 P"1,C 6.30
•,,,-w .,... � - --- -- - - - -- -Lido t-ta- - -
13 14 , f — anc>um
27
f� cItE`A"" 45
12 O � � }
r g ; •`'�` �>0 1 1 404p $ # 47 82
b, soca• - m
$ L u'wwmG / sour MW16
tssoo t
r � � =1 � t 26 2� 1• 43 48
- _ ' - �-� 25 30 g 42 49 i' a
t�.ter1 60 • .D:• i,. Y .•
•.' twVNT.
24 >4 31 nxm50
1 I �
;51— — -5.ao P 2a oo n.w zoNl 4 58 LAKE
'2 1.
t 15 $ 23 32 I 40 � 51 TRAM z
10 AC
2s 0D t pa 1 1 Ce 58 ! "a
AC LAW AIG
�g 16 22 39
a " 52 57
+181T �. -
'2J.7e' , 7.na'
oa
17 21 34 38 41 53 "S6
�" 85 84 s 3 ~82 g91 F
B 4
54
jfe 18 19 =i 20 - 35 �' 38 37 i
i. �cd.i•. !:.se' :3.32' __ �. � - - - - - -
- of ou •Jae' �� _. _�- __ - -
S89'+Sd'25"E /I � __ - -_ - --- rY, nrk•'a:E ., - - -_ .- - __ - . « -. - - - - `i0 -FC
4.00+ / i _ ( • - �er.�t PPm900'05.35"11 } ! w: B m Itvt
93 50' RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISIQN ,rtA "=%n
Y88S4'25"A' QQ OCEANAIRE HEIGHTS R
4.00• W �+ LAND t+SE L-1
ZONING. RS -6
FRANWAM DFWE I
:OPERTY —Stix tee rA
7gnina KENNEDY PROPERTY - SITE DATA KF1tT11iTi!T1Y PR{IPF
EXIST 2o0.D o at 7 0� s.s�oo gr Er+ntma ate. Lnca+Lsna --� _
Attw 0r Us.
ISO
ft 70 ft 50 it - Aras.ni • uatwn• Act" �ws Y Na,t "adciNok
30 tt ma; -0510083E t
45X uts - Zorn AE" E. 80 a rot 'o'-RoCreatim
30 it 20 ft 0/ZO fit 2 S7{ .-s,tr Lon. Bueong 3.0
TO rt !0 ft 0 to '0 ft•• - %oas °.CS SaAt meoit tennis (2 Cts
15.0
30 it 20 rt ., • •« - novs.a •tea canoe N -re 807[ of via, .+58 water tote 1 G to 3 0 Pppl 1.0
v 1 doth 8 Reetdentkm Use Stataartf�
0 it 20 It tt .a01na fro bards _«!•, 4. �t zte •5 '5;0' vote
30 ft io tt 5 it it sept' !o+s 0.0 to OS _ha
jW
+0 k •0 It '� it•« t. Single Forr,dY :.000 t
'�pagrapni r•Y;ea 3.0 !c 9i. ft (dune type r,agerI Average devotion
o 2
5 ft 20 ,t c .+ :5 tt .-
•n 10 it 5 R - 0raags tap•dRelMro. wttrim grotr :)rams •-crit east 'a west, than soul
1p It o3 •t+ to a wre+pma sin -he •he west D'awty a -e. �.
•• ip ewfvtinq-anditions pion aha server Raytttred.
5 f 20ft `it
5 rt :o ft 5it RS -8
•0 it 0 it ft- &2M --a,)— �XCULATIONS40X
"root A - stuns Deveapa en, B Fvopy� ON-ASStAPT
it
'0 R r 'rata B.C.: - Drainage facsiti ��—�-
15 tt !t re 9 as aria corttmon woo fpr recreation. open - Trdat 6,C,t Lake
1 apace jnd �onascapmq Areast
10 It 0 K oft - "'act O - Munl-nwooae reereot+on foeil,tY. 5.000 of P O.A 8tdq -
Tract
B'O'I 0tsen
pool. •ermn courts. -••.quires tRC Site plan approval T O Ret Facaltio :
0 tt 0 R ; ft - Tract E.F.H - r,lmm,n ,uea for r!ereauan• open ace sea Ian �� T
0 tt Oil G N. - -•acro 0 - Canrrwn recreation area open apace. andoCape k dp1 - rapt xreat '
0 ft 35 ft `t _ c Gcta - Lanascape Buffer; dtil frontage huffar
. and errt�gencY a Treat y1'.
35 tt 35 .t res Fomay Lots -x.134) rpr single tdmdv dew,oper built Unita - Treat r
'Of. xx 45E Moxunufr Dwelling Unit Computation Pa -5 - Private Exterior (}vert
*Ox sox 'Ox A roan Aro: ac. �re
37 54 PPS tCfae. dtrtion.t to
rs 8 17 Non -res Use Areas- ac 0.00 - •N!tgla T.ap
Areas -
C -0 ft -0 it 10 or 0 ft. C. (-1 Emir Sensitive _ands -Tot
for Density Transfer: ac 0,00m Prapa Ar..
"1)
4 N' Sof. D. Effect Baas Res. Area ac. 3784 6 s = based on
�2) 223 W. IOX of %a,
4,'A
/A N / A 407< E Total Mpa. Jetts Allowed3 0 9'i a• 20•
N/A N/A 4OX Within Effective Base
ped. a
N%A N/A 4OXevi Reatdentrpl Arab: •North 4-910�d�roe dtl1
A ; Ailowaale Use Zmina Dens,tu E B.fI.A. V pts
�9L�uutw I.O^fO4° '� -w have '0 t•snt t RS -5 5 un,X. x 37.84 227 ,t T• craft area Trot def
a .es (0 sareocbl r ae
Dwditnq Unit* Transfer credit for gip, a,
rano setDodt' m°v Yoty 0 to to•. tram Enwonmentd Areas: 0 C
aw G. OweHing Units Credit for Percent Proposed, oft SPeet
•+ ropy ..arae■ ono eu"-" l' -s 25• -nor Ahad Nousut4 0
0 Total No. of o -&-g Unda Allowed: 227
arra. ,+.
rc 7+ 4i_ +saa++stnMta m 971(41 ao teat a" Total Dwesinq units proposed: 134
shall mow "It RS --6 arth— -wooantit Density d t�fgngls CALCULATIONS ropostd: !34/37.84 . 3.34 unitsr'E.B.R•MI f0 tt5-Q
BASED ON ASSUMPTION THAT ZONING IS r,1WWED FROM
DE57CNED DRAWN
- R w "'S' C.R.W.ASB No
SCA . 95-347 ���
DATE LE CHECKED �'�
TUA
D.SK ®L® ORCHID C ��titto
54
JULY 239 1996
A
25-FO^T BU!LGING _CTSACx -m TN
10-FQQT ODE r"P£ "C` SUPER AND
10-FCGT POOL DECk• PATIO SETBACK
RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION
SPRING PLACE
ZCN!NG k�-6
KENNEDY PROP R — SITE DATA
Recreation Areas' _
t Penm. A. Required Recreation area. '-4 .,naa 52272 st
0:044 sf
..
8. Proposed Recreatron Area- 6.: -JI:
- Multi -use Recreation Focdd r : 6E ac
- Sidewalks, wolkwow 4.3r ac
pe"r - Tracts B.C,I walkmg trails
( 2,600 If at lake perim. . 4 ft. •'ne • -5 cc
- Tracts E.F.G.FI Passive reC i43 oc
Total Recreation Area Proposed-—
PrOSO atlan/Conservation Are":
an---------------
E<istmg Wetlands: :` 30 ac
Proposed Preserwtwn: :; OC oc
P. Native Uplands -
0 RS -6. - E,listmg Native Uplands: ac
- Requrced Mm�mum preservaticc. 'S� '%�' oc
- Proposed Preservatgn: ..i.:, ac
Parkmg/Traffic Circulation. ue
in��
3we!!i sde
minimum of lei g n" the .ra.nanci
Parking snares r�!n
dwelling unit development •ned
All accessary commercim areas SO pro•wae aw"
atxordanae wrtl+ Chapter 954.
Traffic Circulation. Mmimum 5C H woe oy prpr,-,t,pr,-,t,pr,-,t, -rosea
road rights-of—o, W"h mm: 2C Itn
Jn,ts ave mm. j °ll
be constructed so that all 0",,g
frontage on said rt-of-wov
c m t.
- marts B.C.! 13.64 at 2.?4 nc late �m IN tr!r n�!normanagement.
shall serve to detain cll required stor easements 70+1 Dui
- Road nuts -of -.0Y and /°r drofOd of :onmvon�e
created to Accommodate the •o0t'�
wales/ D'pes.
Traffic -he sde is est a3 A07. �cbed �� ' '°te et C
meted to genera: :'-. t�R. ester 5.. /3L.071
ACT 1;.r- t. per ,nalan River C' "
'LAN
y �j 1,
JULY 239 1996
Ex�►�b�t' B
ICNI%A MCGUIRE ASSocIATEs, INC. DRAINING NC
r40ti�-2 `. ,�__'.'''- :;..5. �'_.1 t'•; ,`�!�v_ 5047gA54
�t GDiNa r. 3t_�533 —FAX ?4G7) 231-1398 SHEET
OPICA. 3296.': 2 of t
55 BOOK 98 9�6•31
ORCO tLAWD MAT ,6
GOVERNMENT LO'F?4
LAND USE: L-2
ZONED: SINGLE
rFAMILY RESIDENTIAL (2 D q
D
- :- .� t
e
D
o
�
✓ �
ori �--
m i
- ,
Ex�►�b�t' B
ICNI%A MCGUIRE ASSocIATEs, INC. DRAINING NC
r40ti�-2 `. ,�__'.'''- :;..5. �'_.1 t'•; ,`�!�v_ 5047gA54
�t GDiNa r. 3t_�533 —FAX ?4G7) 231-1398 SHEET
OPICA. 3296.': 2 of t
55 BOOK 98 9�6•31
Boor 98 PvU.6:32
PUBLIC HEARING - DUCK POND SCHWERIN REAL ESTATE
REQUEST TO REZONE APPROX. 20.7 ACRES FROM RS -6 TO RM -8
PRESS -JOURNAL
Published Daily
Vero Beach, Indian River County, Florida
COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER: STATE OF FLORIDA
oath Before the undersigned authority PersorteBof the P y appeared Darryl K. Hicks who on
in UtdfarnYRnvertCOunty rFlorida; that the attHCtt COpa oda ay ndve wspaper published s y at Vero Beach
in the matter of R S — `.
in the Court, was pub.
ffshed In said newspaper in the issues of V sp. if q 9
Affiant further says that the said press,)oumal is a newspaper published at Vero Beach, in
said Indian River County, Florida, and that the said
continuously published in said Indian River County,newspaper has heretofore been
second class mail matter at theFlorida each daffy and has been entered as
for a Period of one year next office in Verg theo Beach. in said iridian River County, Florida,
advertisement; and of bint further says Publication paid nor posed any pe firm
adve ratio= for
di count. rebate, rews�� or refundor the purpose of securhtg thisPaper.
�tttttHuubtlttt
SwomQO`.•'-TA'
•reme Yof
My Comm. pees
June 29, 1997 _ tiARBAgA C. SPRAGUE, �re�denit)
No. CC3 NOTARY PUBUC,
:Myc
SEA " O 410 J•• Co wn Number• CC30os72
ttNnt• Si Pled•
Notary' BARBARA C SPRAGUE
The BperNO�Co—unRISUC HEARING
aty CamnssOWS of Indian
RIM County, Florida, will conekler theof
ardinarnce rezoning land frau: RS 6, Sin-
ResWeanmttaly Distlot (up to 6 units/we) to
u,ts,"KKaubjeCtRepsrlop tlyal DISfiC (� to 8
Pond Schwerin Reef Estate LC. is owned Duck
The subjectis located prop
Boulevard aandt41st Ssau t , and contains�
proximately, 20.7 acres. The subjectproperty Bas in
the Southwest W sactlm of Section 25, Towr�tp
328. RatgCourdy.F a lorid39E, "V and being In Indian River
titiA�stal ton aNailing at which parties in interest and
oppor4dtity to be heard, will
be geld by the Baud of Corm isslorlers of
�River
c ss a the Adm6istraflm BuilC1-
located at 18,4g0d�r25th Street, Vero Beach, Flor-
23. 19W, at 9.05 ajm The
pra�paadad ordinance to razme the subject property
AN ORDINANCE OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY,
INIANCE
AI T - A ANYM ZONING � FROM
RS -6 TO RM -8, FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT
THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF INDIAN RIVER
BOULEVARD AND 41ST STREET, AND DE-
SCRIBID HEREIN, AND PROVIDING FOR EFFEC.
�TIVE DATE. nspected �y
Pbu9i tWis ordinance may �wras` of
fine of the to the Board of Canty Camaris.
sloners. �25t Street, Vero Beach Florida.
The another -nhg d �tict�
Wasted, provided C Is within the Same general use
Anyone who may wish to appeaI any dedsicn
w►�h may be made at this me e wi need to en-
sure that a verbatim record of the praaesdlnp is
which the appeal Is based y and evidernce open
Anyone who needs a special accrosrodatm for
the county's AmericansCis DAmActc(mADAComanatar at 58-80 itlt
exte �m 223 at least 48 hours In advance of
mesfndlarn River County
Board of Canty Commissio here
By s Free B. Adams, Ctuimnan
July 11,1998 1320657
Community Development Director Bob Keating presented staff's
recommendation for approval of the rezoning:
56
JULY 239 1996
TO: James E. Chandler
County Administrator
DWAIATMENT HEAD CONCURRENCE
i�
Robeft M. Rea ing AIC,P
THROUGH: Sasan Rohani, AICP '(
Chief, Long -Rance Planning
FROM: John Wachte
Senior Planner, Long -Range Planning
DATE: July 9, 1996
RE: Duck Pond Schwerin Real Estate, L.C.'s Request to Rezone
Approximately 20.7 acres from RS -6 to RM -8
(RZON 96-03-0116)
It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal
consideration by the Board of County Commission at its regular
meeting of July 23, 1996. .
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
This is a request to rezone approximately 20.7 acres located at the
southeast corner of Indian River Boulevard and 41st Street. The
request involves rezoning the property, owned by Duck Pond Schwerin
Real Estate, L.C., a Florida Limited Liability Company, from RS -6,
Single -Family Residential District (up to 6 units/acre), to RM -8,
Multiple -Family Residential District (up to 8 units/acre). The
purpose of this request is to secure the necessary zoning to
develop the site with multiple -family uses.
Existing Land Use Pattern
The subject property, which is a citrus grove, is a roughly
triangular shaped tract with Indian River Boulevard abutting the
tract along the tract's southwest boundary. Land north of the site
consists of undeveloped wooded uplands while land to the east of
the site contains environmentally important wetlands. Although
zoned RS -6, Single -Family Residential District (up to 6 units/
acre), and RS -1, Single -Family Residential District (up to 1
unit/acre), in the County Zoning Atlas, those environmentally
important wetlands are deemed to be zoned Con -2, wetland
Conservation District (up to 1 unit/40 acres).
The subject property, adjacent property to the north, and property
to the south and west (across Indian River Boulevard) are zoned RS -
6. East of Indian River Boulevard, land south of the site is zoned
RM -8.
On June 27, 1996, the Planning and Zoning Commission voted 5-0 to
recommend that the Board of County Commissioners approve this
request to rezone the subject property to RM -8.
Future Land Use Pattern
The subject property and properties to the north, south and west
are designated M-1, Medium -Density Residential -1, on the county
future land use map. The M-1 designation permits residential uses
with densities up to 8 units/acre.
JULY 23 1996 57 BOOK 98 PAC U�J
800. 98 u ' 6.4
East of the subject property is an environmentally important
wetland that is designated C-2, Conservation -2, on the county
future land use map. The C-2 designation permits conservation
uses, limited recreational uses, and residential uses with
densities up to 1 unit/40 acres for on-site development or 1
unit/acre for transferable development rights.
Environment
Being a citrus grove, the subject property does not contain any
environmentally important habitat such as wetlands or native
uplands. The subject property is within an "AE" 100 year
floodplain, with a minimum base flood elevation requirement of
seven feet NGVD.
Utilities and Services
The site is within the Urban Service Area of the county. Water
lines from the South County Reverse Osmosis Plant extend along 37th
Street to within one quarter of a mile of the subject property.
Centralized wastewater service is not currently available to the
site.
Transportation System
The property abuts Indian River Boulevard which is classified as an
urban principal arterial road on the future roadway thoroughfare
plan map. This segment of Indian River Boulevard is a four -lane
paved road with approximately 200 feet of public road right-of-way.
There are no plans to expand Indian River Boulevard.
ANALYSIS
In this section, an analysis of the reasonableness of the
application will be presented. The analysis will include a
description of:
• concurrency of public facilities;
• compatibility with the surrounding area;
• consistency with the comprehensive plan; and
• 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, Drainage and Recreation (Future Land Use
Policy 3.1). The adequate provision of these services is necessary
to ensure the continued quality of life enjoyed by the community.
The Comprehensive Plan and Land Development Regulations also
require that new development be reviewed to ensure that the minimum
acceptable standards for these services and facilities are
maintained.
Policy 3.2 of the Future Land Use Element states that no
development shall be approved unless it is consistent with the
concurrency management system component of the Capital Improvements
Element. For rezoning requests, conditional concurrency review is
required.
Conditional concurrency review examines the available capacity of
each facility with respect to a proposed project. Since rezoning
requests are not projects, county regulations call for the
concurrency review to be based upon the most intense use of the
subject property based upon the requested zoning district.
58
JULY 239 1996
M M
The site information used for the concurrency analysis is as
follows:
1. Size of Area to be Rezoned:
2. Existing Zoning Classification:
3. Proposed Zoning Classification:
4. Most Intense Use of Subject
Property under Existing.
Zoning Classification:
5. Most Intense Use of Subject
Property under Proposed
Zoning Classification:
- Transportation
120.7 acres
RS -6, Single- Family
Residential District (up
to 6 units/acre)
RM -8, Multiple -Family
Residential District (up
to 8 units/acre)
124 single-family units
165 single-family units
A review of the traffic impacts that would result from the
development of the property indicates that the existing level of
service I'D" or better on Indian River Boulevard would not be
lowered. The site information used for determining traffic is as
follows:
Existing Zoning -District
1. Use Identified in 5th Edition ITE Manual:
Single -Family Residential
2. For Single -Family Units, in 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. Northbound (P.M. Peak
Hour): 75%
ii. Southbound (P.M. Peak
Hour): 25%
d. Outbound (P.M. Peak Hour):
35%
i. Northbound (P.M. Peak
Hour): 25%
ii. Southbound (P.M. Peak
Hour): 75%
3. P.M. Peak Direction of Indian River Boulevard, from the Vero
Beach City Limits to 53rd Street: Northbound
4. Formula for Determining Number of Peak Hour/Peak Season/Peak
Direction Trips Generated: Number of Units. 8 P.M. Peak Hour
Rate X Inbound P.M. Percentage X Inbound -Northbound Percentage
(124 X 1.01 B .65 X .75 = 61)
5. Formula for Determining Number of Average Weekday Trips
Generated: Number of Units X Average Weekday Rate
(124 X 10.1 = 1,252)
Proposed Zonina District
1. Use Identified in 5th Edition ITE Manual:
Single -Family Residential
2. For Single -Family Units, in 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. Northbound (P.M. Peak
Hour): 75%
ii. Southbound (P.M. Peak
Hour): 25%
d. Outbound (P.M. Peak Hour):
35%
i. Northbound (P.M. Peak
Hour): 25%
ii. Southbound (P.M. Peak
Hour): 75%
59
JULY 239 1996 Boos 98 Fmr 635
BooK 98 ry JE 6 36
3. P.M. Peak Direction of Indian River Boulevard, from the Vero
Beach City Limits to 53rd Street: Northbound
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 -Northbound Percentage
(165 X 1.01 X .65 X .75 = 81)
(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
(165 X 10.1 = 1,667)
6. Traffic Capacity on. this segment of Indian River Boulevard, at
a Level of Service "D": 1,770 peak hour/peak season/peak
direction trips
7. Existing Traffic volume on this segment of Indian River
Boulevard: 348 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 zoning
district is 1,252. This was determined by multiplying the 124
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 zoning
district is 1,667. This was determined by multiplying the _165
units (most intense use) by ITE's single-family residential factor
of 10.1 Average Daily Trip Ends/unit.
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 Indian River Boulevard
is northbound.
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 zoning district was
calculated to be 61. This was determined by multiplying the total
number of units allowed under the existing zoning district (124) by
ITE's factor of 1.01 p.m. peak hour trips/unit, to determine the
total number of trips generated. Of these trips, 65k (81) will be
inbound and.35k (44) will be outbound. Of the inbound trips, 75%
or 61 will be northbound.
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 requested zoning district, the total
number of units allowed under the proposed district (165) was
multiplied by ITE's factor of 1.01 p.m. peak hour trips/unit to
determine the total number of trips generated (167). Of these
trips, 650 (109) will be inbound and 35% (58) will be outbound. Of
the inbound trips, 75% or 82 will be northbound. Therefore, the
most intense use of the subject property under the proposed zoning
district would generate 21 more peak hour/peak season/peak
direction trips than the 61 that would be generated by the most
intense use of the subject property under the existing zoning
district (82 - 61 = 21).
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
JULY 239 1996
roads are defined in section 910.09(4)(b)3 of the
roadway segments which receive five percent (5k)
project traffic or fifty (50) or more of the
whichever is less.
county's LDRs as
or more of the
project trips,
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 Indian River Boulevard
adjacent to this site is 1,770 trips (peak hour/peak season/peak
direction) at Level of Service (LOS) "D", while the existing
traffic volume on this segment of Indian River Boulevard is 348
trips (peak hour/peak season/peak direction). The additional 82
peak hour/peak season/peak direction trips created by the most
intense use of the subject property under the proposed zoning
district would increase the total peak hour/peak season/peak
direction trips for this segment of Indian River Boulevard to
approximately 430.
Based on the above analysis, staff determined that Indian River
Boulevard 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
associated with this proposed zoning classification. As
in this table, there is sufficient capacity in all of the
to accommodate the projected traffic associated with the
TRAFFIC CONCURRENCY DETERMINATION
Impacted Road Segments
(peak hour/peak season/peak direction)
Roadway
Segment Road From To
segments
indicated
segments
request.
SegmentCapacity
LOS "D"
1030N
SR AlA
17th Street
SR 60
1,060
1040S
SR AlA
SR 60
N. VBC Limits
1,120
1130N
IR Blvd.
S. VBC Limits
17th Street
1,770
1130S
IR Blvd.
S. VBC Limits
17th Street
1,770
1140N
IR Blvd.
17th Street
21st Street
1,770
1140S
IR Blvd.
17th Street
21st Street
1,770
1150N
IR Blvd.
21st Street
SR 60
1,770
1150S
IR Blvd.
21st Street
SR 60
1,770
1160N
IR Blvd.
SR 60
W. VBC Limits
1,770
1160S
IR Blvd.
SR 60
W. VBC Limits
1,770
1170N
IR Blvd.
W. VBC Limits
53rd Street
1,770
1170S
IR Blvd.
W. VBC Limits
53rd Street
1,770
13305
U.S. 1
S. VBC Limits
17th Street
2,270
1335N
U.S. 1
17th Street
S.R. 60
2,270
13355
U.S. 1
17th Street
S.R. 60
2,270
1345N
U.S. 1
Royal Palm Place
Atlantic Blvd.
2,300
13455
U.S. 1
Royal Palm Place
Atlantic Blvd.
2,300
1350N
U.S. 1
Atlantic Blvd.
N. VBC Limits
2,300
13505
U.S. 1
Atlantic Blvd.
N. VBC Limits
2,300
1375N
U.S. 1
49th Street
65th Street
2,650
13755
U.S. 1
49th Street
65th Street
2,650
1935E
S.R. 60
43rd Avenue
27th Avenue
2,650
1940E
S.R. 60
27th Avenue
20th Avenue
2,330
1945E
S.R. 60
20th Avenue
Old Dixie Hwy
2,328
1950E
S.R. 60
Old Dixie Hwy
10th Avenue
2,328
1950W
S.R. 60
Old Dixie Hwy
10th Avenue
2,328
1955W
S.R. 60
10the Avenue
U.S. 1
2,328
1960E
SR 60
U.S. 1
IR Blvd.
2,328
1960W
SR 60
U.S. 1
IR Blvd.
2,328
1965E
SR 60
IR Blvd.
ICWW
1,520
1965W
SR 60
IR Blvd.
ICWW
1,520
1970E
SR 60
ICWW
SR AIA
1,520
1970W
SR 60
ICWW
SR AlA
1,520
2110E
17th Street
U.S. 1
IR Blvd.
1,990
2120E
17th Street
IR Blvd.
S.R. AlA
1,770
212OW
17th Street
IR Blvd.
S.R. AIA
1,770
23455
Old Dixie Hwy
41st Street
45th Street
830
2470N
27th Avenue
16th Street
S.R. 60
830
248ON
27th Avenue
S.R. 60
Atlantic Blvd.
830
61
JULY 239 1996
BOOK 98 F,{,� 637
�ar,K 98 FAc;'F 638
2510S
27th Avenue
Atlantic Blvd.
450
Aviation Blvd.
830
262ON
6th Avenue
S.BVC Limits
426
S.R. 60
830
286ON
20th Avenue
16th Street
1,504
S.R. 60
1,770
2870N
20th Avenue
S.R. 60
1,666
Atlantic Blvd.
690
2945S
43rd Avenue
41st Street
1,548
45th Street
630
4430E
41st Street
58th Avenue
998
43rd Avenue
630
4440E
41st Street
43rd Avenue
1,386
Old Dixie Hwy.
630
4450E
41st Street
Old Dixie Hwy.
1,213
IR Blvd.
630
445OW
41st Street
Old Dixie Hwy.
1,252
IR Blvd.
630
5810E
Atlantic Blvd.
27th Avenue
1,175
20th Avenue
630
5820E
Atlantic Blvd.
20th Avenue
909
U.S. 1
630
5820W
Atlantic Blvd.
20th Avenue
1,768
U.S. 1
630
6010E
Royal Palm Blvd
Royal Palm P1.
1,380
IR Blvd.
630
601OW
Royal Palm Blvd
Royal Palm P1.
1,384
IR Blvd.
630
6110E
Royal Palm P1.
U.S. 1
1,402
IR Blvd.
630
611OW
Royal Palm P1.
U.S. 1
1,147
IR Blvd.
630
1955W
Existing Demand
Total
Available
1,507
Positive
Roadway.
Existing Vested
Segment
Segment
Project
Concurrency
Segment
Volume Volume
Demand
Capacity
Demand Determination
1030N
614 105
719
341
5
Y
1040S
887 101
988
132
5
Y
1130N
751 83
834
936
4
Y
1130S
1,007 135
1,142
628
4
Y
1140N
786 132
918
852
12
Y
1140S
989 137
1,126
644
10
Y
1150N
890 145
1,035
735
24
Y
1150S
1,011 150
1,161
609
22
Y
116ON
1,116 107
1,223
547
82
Y
1160S
1,180 114
1,294
476
44
Y
8 Y
Existing Demand
Total
Available
Positive
Roadway
Existing Vested
Segment
Segment
Project
Concurrency
Segment
Volume Volume
Demand
Capacity
Demand Determination
1170N
-348
102
450
1,320
14 Y
1170S
300
126
426
1,344
27 Y
1330S
1,312
192
1,504
766
5 Y
1335N
1,442
224
1,666
604
4 Y
1335S
1,315
233
1,548
722
9 Y
1345N
849
149
998
1,302
8 Y
13455
1,221
165
1,386
914
24 Y
1350N
1,102
111
1,213
1,087
4 Y
1350S
1,124
128
1,252
1,048
4 Y
1375N
1,045
130
1,175
1,475
6 Y
1375S
763
146
909
1,741
9 Y
1935E
1,074
694
1,768
882
6 Y
1940E
863
517
1,380
950
7 Y
1945E
928
456
1,384
944
20 Y
1950E
1,037
365
1,402
926
20 Y
1950W
789
358
1,147
1,181
4 Y
1955W
491
330
821
1,507
4 Y
1960E
445
184
629
1,699
12 Y
1960W
463
180
643
1,685
12 Y
1965E
861
184
1,045
475
6 Y
1965W
1,032
189
1,221
299
10 Y
1970E
684
118
802
718
6 Y
1970W
717
117
834
686
10 Y
2110E
535
98
633
1,357
4 Y
2120E
1,042
81
1,123
647
4 Y
212OW
1,194
86
1,280
490
4 Y
2345S
170
31
201
629
5 Y
2470N
281
84
365
465
5 Y
2480N
65
23
88
742
8 Y
2510S
126
4
130
700
6 Y
2620N
269
12
281
549
4 Y
286ON
212
49
261
1,509
8 Y
287ON
135
20
155
535
10 Y
2945S
189
25
214
416
5 Y
4430E
105
81
186
444
5 Y
4440E
188
50
238
392
10 Y
4450E
77
15
92
538
15 Y
445OW
70
15
85
545
6 Y
5810E
148
16
164
466
14 Y
5820E
225
16
241
389
20 Y
5820W
239
15
254
376
4 Y
6010E
264
15
279
351
24 Y
601OW
106
13
119
511
8 Y
6110E
136
25
161
469
24 Y
611OW
302
29
331
299
8 Y
- Water
Centralized potable water service is available to the subject
property from the South County Reverse Osmosis Plant. With the
most intense use allowed under the proposed rezoning, the subject
62
JULY 23, 1996
M
M
property will have a water consumption rate of 165 Equivalent
Residential Units (ERU), or 41,250 gallons/day. This is based upon
a level of service standard of 250 gallons/ERU/day. Since the
South County Reverse Osmosis Plant currently has a remaining
capacity of approximately 2,000,000 gallons/day, the plant can
accommodate the additional demand generated by the proposed zoning.
- Wastewater
Although centralized wastewater service is not available to the
subject property, the site is located within the City of Vero Beach
Wastewater Service Area. With the most intense use allowed under
the proposed rezoning, the subject property will have a wastewater
generation rate of 165 Equivalent Residential Units (ERU), or
32,505 gallons/day. This is based upon a level of service standard
of 197 gallons/ERU/day. Since the City of Vero Beach Wastewater
Treatment Plant currently has a remaining capacity of approximately
1,700,000 gallons/day, the plant can accommodate the additional
demand generated by the proposed zoning.
- 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 165 unit residential development would be anticipated to house
approximately 380 people (2.3 X 165). 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 901 (380 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 850,000
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. Any
development on the subject property will be prohibited from
discharging any runoff in excess of the pre -development rate.
In this case, the minimum floor elevation level of service standard
applies, since the property lies within a floodplain. Consistent
with Drainage Policy 1.2, "all new buildings shall have the lowest
habitable floor elevation no lower than the elevation of the 100 -
year flood elevation as -shown on the Federal Emergency Management
Agency's Flood Insurance Rate Map, or as defined in a more detailed
study report." Additionally, section 930.07(2) of the county's
LDRs requires that all residential development shall have the
lowest floor (including basement) elevated to six inches or more
above the base flood level. Since the subject property lies within
Flood Zone AE -7, which is a special flood hazard area located
within the 100 -year floodplain, any development on this property
must have a minimum finished floor elevation of no less than 7.5
feet above mean sea level.
Besides the minimum elevation requirement, on-site retention and
discharge standards also apply to this request. With the most
intense use of this site, the maximum area of impervious surface
under the proposed zoning classification will be approximately
270,508 square feet, or 6.21 acres. The maximum runoff volume,
based on that amount of impervious surface and the 25 year/24 hour
design storm, will be approximately 575,000 cubic feet. In order
63
JULY 239 1996 BOOK 98
r
boox J8 �, :� 64 1
to maintain the county's adopted level of service, the applicant
will be required to retain approximately 50,650 cubic feet of
runoff on-site. With the soil characteristics of the subject
property, it is estimated that the pre -development runoff rate is
139 cubic feet/second.
Based upon staff's analysis, the drainage level of service
standards will be met by limiting off-site discharge to its pre -
development rate of 139 cubic feet/second, requiring retention of
50,650 cubic feet of runoff for the most intense use of the
property, and requiring that all finished floor elevations exceed
7.5 feet above mean sea level.
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 zoning classification
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.
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 zoning. Therefore, the concurrency test has been
satisfied for the subject request.
Consistency with Comprehensive Plan
Rezoning requests are reviewed for consistency with all policies of
the comprehensive plan. •Rezoning requests must also be consistent
with the overall designation of land uses as depicted on the Future
Land Use Map, which includes agricultural, residential,
recreational, conservation, and commercial and industrial land uses
and their densities. Commercial and industrial land uses are
located in nodes throughout the unincorporated areas of Indian
River County.
The goals, objectives and policies are the most important parts of
the comprehensive plan. Policies are statements in the plan which
identify the actions which the county will take in order to direct
the community's development. As courses of action committed to by
the county, policies provide the basis for all county land
development related decisions. While all comprehensive plan
policies are important, some have more applicability than others in
reviewing rezoning requests. Of particular applicability for this
request are the following policy and objective.
- Future Land Use Element Policy 1.14
Future Land Use Element Policy 1.14 states that the M-1, Medium -
Density Residential -1, land use designation is intended for
64
JULY 239 1996
LOS
Project
(Acres per
Demand
Surplus
Park TvDee
1000 population)
Acres
Acreacre
Urban District
5.0
3.80
175.635
Community (north)
3.0
2.28
15.120
Beach
1.5
1.14
63.090
River
1.5
1.14
24.087
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 zoning. Therefore, the concurrency test has been
satisfied for the subject request.
Consistency with Comprehensive Plan
Rezoning requests are reviewed for consistency with all policies of
the comprehensive plan. •Rezoning requests must also be consistent
with the overall designation of land uses as depicted on the Future
Land Use Map, which includes agricultural, residential,
recreational, conservation, and commercial and industrial land uses
and their densities. Commercial and industrial land uses are
located in nodes throughout the unincorporated areas of Indian
River County.
The goals, objectives and policies are the most important parts of
the comprehensive plan. Policies are statements in the plan which
identify the actions which the county will take in order to direct
the community's development. As courses of action committed to by
the county, policies provide the basis for all county land
development related decisions. While all comprehensive plan
policies are important, some have more applicability than others in
reviewing rezoning requests. Of particular applicability for this
request are the following policy and objective.
- Future Land Use Element Policy 1.14
Future Land Use Element Policy 1.14 states that the M-1, Medium -
Density Residential -1, land use designation is intended for
64
JULY 239 1996
residential uses with densities up to eight units/acre. In
addition, that policy states that these residential uses must be
located within an existing or future urban service area.
Since the subject property is located within an area designated as
M-1 on the county's future land use plan map and is located within
the county's urban service area, and the proposed zoning district
would permit residential uses no denser than eight units/acre, the
proposed request is consistent with Future Land Use Element Policy
1.14.
- Future Land Use Element Objective 4
Future Land Use Element Objective 4 states that Indian River County
will reduce the number and length of trips by implementing a land
use pattern which places employment centers near residential areas.
Projections indicate that the medical node near the subject
property will become one of the county's major employment centers.
This occurrence is expected to generate demand for multiple -family
housing. Allowing that demand for multiple -family housing to be
filled on property near the node implements Future Land Use Element
Objective 4.
While Future land Use Element Policy 1.14 and Objective 4 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 request is consistent with the comprehensive
plan.
Compatibility with the Surroundina Area
Staff's position is that granting the request to rezone the subject
property to RM -8 will result in development which will be
compatible with surrounding areas. Located near a medical
commercial node, and bordering both Indian River Boulevard and
other RM -8 zoned land, the site is more suited for medium density,
multiple -family development than it is for low density, single-
family uses.
Multiple -family development on the subject property will be
required to provide buffers where the site abuts a single-family
use or district.
More importantly, the surrounding development pattern indicates
that the RM -8 district is the most appropriate for the site.
Located near an employment center, a hospital, and various other
medical uses, the site is particularly suited for the multiple -
family and institutional uses permitted in the RM -8 zoning
district.
Since the M-1 land use designation allows multiple -family and
single-family development with densities of up to eight units/acre,
several zoning districts are consistent with the M-1 land use
designation. In the past, the Board has not zoned all property
with the most intense zoning district allowed under its land use
designation. The Board has often placed the densest multiple -
family districts along the border of a high impact use such as a
major road, while reserving less dense, single-family districts for
land bordering the multiple -family districts. In this way the
intensity of the use of land is gradually decreased as the distance
from the high impact use is increased. This strategy, which is
consistent with the subject request, reduces the difference between
the intensity .of use of adjacent lands, thus reducing potential
incompatibilities. For these reasons, staff feels that the
requested RM -8 zoning would be compatible with the surrounding
area.
65 goon
JULY 239 1996 ; : 641
r
BOOK 98'`F
Potential Impact on Environmental Ouality
Environmental impacts of residential development on the subject
property would be essentially the same under either the existing or
the proposed zoning district.
Because the site has already been developed as a citrus grove, the
environmental quality of the site may not be substantially impacted
by residential development. In fact, site development would result
in construction of a stormwater management system and protection of
jurisdictional wetlands which may be on site. Due to the county's
stormwater retention requirements for residential development,
residential development on the subject property would reduce the
amount of stormwater runoff from the site. The requirements for
residential development contrast with the present agricultural use
that allows runoff to occur without any stormwater retention. For
these reasons, no significant adverse environmental impacts
associated with this request are anticipated.
CONCLUSION
The requested zoning is compatible with the surrounding area,
consistent with the comprehensive plan, meets all concurrency
criteria, and will have no negative impacts on environmental
quality. The subject property is located in an area deemed suited
for medium -density residential uses and meets all applicable
rezoning criteria. For these reasons, staff supports the request.
RECONN=ATION
Based on the analysis, staff and the Planning and Zoning Commission
recommend that the Board of County Commissioners approve this
request to rezone the subject property from RS -6 to RM -8.
JULY 239 1966
W
65 (a)
M
M
Chairman Adams opened the public hearing and asked if anyone
wished to be heard in this matter. There being none, she closed
the public hearing.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Tippin, the Board unanimously adopted
Ordinance 96-16, rezoning from RS -6 to RM -8 property
located at the southeast corner of 41st Street and
Indian River Boulevard.
ORDINANCE NO. 96-16
AN ORDINANCE OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, AMENDING THE
ZONING ORDINANCE AND THE ACCOMPANYING ZONING MAP FROM RS -6 TO
RM -8, FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF 41ST
STREET AND INDIAN RIVER BOULEVARD, AND DESCRIBED HEREIN, AND
PROVIDING FOR EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission, sitting as the
local planning agency on such matters, has held a public hearing
and subsequently made a recommendation' regarding this rezoning
request; and
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River
County, Florida, did publish and send its Notice of Intent to
rezone the hereinafter described property; and
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners has determined that
this rezoning is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan of
Indian River County; and
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners has held a public
hearing pursuant to this rezoning request, at which parties in
interest and citizens were heard;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED, by the Board of County
Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, that the zoning of
the following described property situated in Indian River County,
Florida, to -wit:
A PARCEL OF LAND LYING IN SECTION 25, TOWNSHIP 32 SOUTH, RANGE
39 EAST, INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA BEING THAT PORTION OF
THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER, LYING EASTERLY
OF THE EASTERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF INDIAN RIVER BOULEVARD.
LESS HOWEVER THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED PARCEL OF LAND:
BEGIN AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE
SOUTHWEST QUARTER; THENCE SOUTH 89051'33" EAST ALONG THE
QUARTER SECTION LINE, A DISTANCE OF 145 FEET; THENCE SOUTH
00008'27" WEST, A DISTANCE OF 50 FEET; THENCE NORTH 89051'33"
WEST, A DISTANCE OF 125 FEET; THENCE SOUTH'45006'27" WEST, A
DISTANCE OF 27.80 FEET TO THE WEST LINE OF SAID NORTHEAST
QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER; THENCE NORTH 00008'36" WEST,
A DISTANCE OF 69.65 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING.
AND ALSO LESS THAT PORTION LYING EAST OF THE FOLLOWING
DESCRIBED LINE:
66
JULY 239 1996 Boos F;�,r 4
r
Roos: 98 PvF
ORDINANCE NO. 96- 16
COMMENCE AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF
THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 25; THENCE NORTH
89052'34n WEST, ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER,
A DISTANCE OF 316.27 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING OF THE
HEREIN DESCRIBED LINE; THENCE SOUTH 02039'49" EAST, A DISTANCE
OF 43.49 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 11017128" EAST, A DISTANCE OF
46.23
FEET; THENCE
SOUTH 21008118" EAST, A DISTNACE OF
35.68
FEET;
THENCE SOUTH
32003'16"
EAST, A DISTANCE OF 27.08
FEET;
THENCE SOUTH 37025'15"
EAST,
A DISTANCE OF 91.04
FEET; THENCE
SOUTH
27024'50"
EAST,
A DISTANCE OF 1.46.42 FEET;
THENCE
SOUTH
06043'00"
EAST,
A
DISTANCE
OF 61.22 FEET;
THENCE
SOUTH
03053'19"
EAST,
A
DISTANCE
OF 45.70 FEET;
THENCE
SOUTH
07001'15"
EAST,
A
DISTANCE
OF 68.39 FEET;
THENCE
SOUTH
23052'34"
EAST,
A
DISTANCE
OF 84.86 FEET;
THENCE
SOUTH
30006'05"
EAST,
A
DISTANCE
OF 89.65 FEET;
THENCE
SOUTH
17032'12"
EAST,
A
DISTANCE
OF 118.21 FEET;
THENCE
SOUTH
00003'27"
EAST,
A
DISTANCE
OF 96.11 FEET;
THENCE
SOUTH
00016'50"
WEST,
A
DISTANCE
OF 265.72 FEET;
THENCE
SOUTH
01058'04"
WEST,
A DISTANCE OF 17.82 FEET TO A
POINT ON THE
SOUTH
LINE OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER
OF SECTION 25,
AND
THE POINT OF TERMINATION OF THE HEREIN
DESCRIBED
LINE.
SAID EXCLUDED PARCEL CONTAINING 2.96 ACRES MORE OR LESS.
Be changed from RS -6 to RM -8.
All with the meaning and intent and as set forth and described in
said Land Development Regulations.
Approved and adopted by the Board of County Commissioners of
Indian River County, Florida, on this 23rd day of July, 1996.
This ordinance was advertised in the Vero Beach Press -Journal
on the 11th day of July, 1996 for a public hearing to be held on
the 23rd day of July, 1996 at which time it was moved for adoption
by Commissioner Eggert , seconded by Commissioner
Ti ppi n , and adopted by the following vote:
Chairman Fran B. Adams Aye
Vice -Chairman Carolyn K. Eggert Aye
Commissioner Richard N. Bird Aye
Commissioner Kenneth R. Macht A e
Commissioner John W. Tippin Aye
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
Fran B. Adams, Chairman
ATTEST BY:
flifge�-K. Barton rk
Acknowledgement by the Department of State of the State of FJlor'da'
this 5th day of August , 1996.
Effective upon filing with the Department of State.
This ordinance was filed with the Department of State on the
following date: July 31, 1996
JULY 239 1996
67
M
PUBLIC HEARING - STOKE'S REQUEST TO REZONE APPROX. 1
ACRE FROM A-1 TO RS -3
PRESS -JOURNAL
Published Daily
Vero Beach, Indian River County, Florida
COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER: STATE OF FLORIDA
Before the underskined authority personally appeared Darryl K. Hicks who on
oath says that he is President of the Press-Joumal, a daily newspaper published at Vero Beach
2nft
In Indian River County, Florida: that the attached copy of advertisement, being
a .ate
in the matter of S —3
m the Court, was pul -
lished in said newspaper in the Issues of 9
Affiant further say$ that the said Press -Journal is a newspaper published at Vero Beach, in
said Indian River County, Florida. area that the sadt> pyer has heretofore been
continuously published In said Indian River C linty, Florida, each and has been entered as
twee period mail atter at the post office In Vero Beata, in said Indian River County, Florida,
for ase iod and af8one a t r next pr9 � fit publication of the attached copy of
tharsays that he has neither paid nor prorrdsedany person, firm
"Or ftp, b t,innstenawsp or refund for the purpose of Securing this
��.•� C. gp
SP► tP,t bl"t�efore
cd:
my
�Yo D. 19 9 6
My comm. Expires ' • t 14
- _ �`
June 29,1997 W./i/1
No. CC300572 BAR C. SPRAGUE, 'NpTA1RY•PU;
�•. • State of Florida Ration E■ . ,lune 29.
a u
': t11j . AUBL�G• r
/
sir • • .... • o�.,,,.; ,,t�,act...•.
silpiect:
Notary: BARBARA C. SPRAGUE
N
RMH-8
pis
.l6
n
A-1
Subject
i
Prop",
a /
Me
8th ST
TH.I /
r
of
an
0
an
t 11, Township 333, Range 38E,
don FUM MLEV. Paida.
g at which pBNes in i h , set and
i an oppwW* to be heard, w8
hMd of Canty Con ftft era of
1fy," C*L Ada inial rrh B id -
NO 25th Mea Vero Beach, Ror-
Aly 23, 1996. at M sen The
: io Mans 9n Wiled property
The pMpoSed ordinal may be Kvpeated bpyy
ON regular husAhess boos at Bre of
floe at de aer)c ro the Bond of County CarmYe-
sloners,1840 25th $treat. Vero Beach Acdda.
The mono x�arhkg�ttiabiCt dew W
quested, pranced 8 B within Rhe sena gererw use
aryone who may wish to appeal am/ deddon
widen may be male at this meetkg wt need to en-
sure theta wgbahm recall of the proosedin s
made, which trhdudes testAr my and ev denaa upon
which the appeal is based.
kWw who needs a special wcom r odaaah for
this must mhmct the aaumy's Anwrica hs
with Ad (ADA) Caordirhetar at 587.6000
ezten9oah 223 at least 48 hobos In adyarm of
geo Coudyf�s
mY 1 t Bye ran S. Adorns, aheaman 13208Bn
Community Development Director Bob Keating presented staff's
recommendation for approval of the rezoning:
68
JULY 239 1996
BOOK 98`rAvE., 5,
r
BOCK 98 PaA
TO: James E. Chandler
County Administrator
DTMEMT BEAD CONCURRENCE
7 ,
�Ro4bet Reatin CB -
i
THROUGH: Sasan Rohani, AICp
Chief, Long -Range Planning
FROM: John Wachtel ✓ /
Senior Planner, Long -Range Planning
DATE: July 9, 1996
RE: Jack and Beverly Stokes Ia Request to Rezone Approximately
1 acre from A-1 to RS -3 (RZON 96-03-0015)
It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal
consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at its regular
meeting of July 23, 1996.
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
This is a request to rezone approximately 1 acre of a 5 acre
parcel. Located on the north side of 8th Street, between 82nd
Avenue and 90th Avenue, -the subject property is owned by Jack and
Beverly Stokes. The request involves rezoning the property from A-
1, Agricultural District (up to 1 unit/5 acres) to RS -3, Single -
Family Residential District (up to 3 units/acre).
In addition to the 5 acres containing the subject property, the
applicants also own and reside on the adjacent 5 acre parcel to the
west. The subject property contains a single-family house that the
applicants currently rent to another party. The applicants intend
to split the 1 acre subject property from the remainder of the 5
acre parcel and then sell the 1 acre parcel. To conform with
minimum lot size standards, the subject property must be rezoned,
and the remainder of the five acre parcel must be combined with the
adjacent property on the west before the subject property can be
legally split from the remainder of the parcel.
On June 27, 1996, the Planning and Zoning Commission voted 5-0 to
recommend that the Board of County Commissioners approve this
request to rezone the subject property to RS -3.
Existing Land Use Pattern
The subject property, which contains a single-family house, and all
surrounding properties are zoned A-1. South of the subject
property, across 8th Street, is a citrus grove. Land surrounding
the subject property on the north side of 8th Street consists of
single-family houses and rangeland.
JULY 239 1996
M
ME
M
M
Future Land Use Pattern
The subject property and all surrounding properties north of 8th
Street are designated M-1, Medium -Density Residential -1, on the
county future land use map. The M-1 designation permits
residential uses with densities up to 8 units/acre. South of the
subject property, land is designated L-1, Low -Density Residential -
1, on the county future.land use map. The L-1 designation permits
residential uses with densities up to 3 units/acre.
Environment
According to County Flood Insurance Rate Maps, portions of the
subject property are located in a Zone X; this indicates that those
portions of the property are outside of the 100 -year floodplain.
The County Flood Insurance Rate Maps indicate that the remainder of
the site is located in a Zone A; this indicates that those portions
of the property are within a 100 -year flood area. As a site that
has been cleared, the subject property is not environmentally
significant.
Utilities and Services
The site is within the Urban Service .Area of the county.
Centralized potable water service is provided to the site by the
South County Reverse Osmosis Plant. Centralized wastewater service
is available from the nearby West Regional Wastewater Treatment
Plant. The house on the subject property, however, is not
connected to the centralized wastewater system. As one single-
family' unit that is not part of a subdivision, county land
development regulations do not require that the house be connected
to the centralized wastewater system.
Transportation System
The property abuts 8th Street which is classified as a collector
road on the future roadway thoroughfare plan map. This segment of
8th Street, a two-lane paved road with approximately 60 feet of
existing public road right-of-way, is not presently programmed for
expansion.
ANALYs=s
In this section, an analysis of the reasonableness of the
application will be presented. The analysis will include a
description of:
• concurrency of public facilities;
• compatibility with the surrounding area;
• consistency with the comprehensive plan; and
• 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, Drainage and Recreation (Future Land Use
Policy 3.1). The adequate provision of these services is necessary
to ensure the continued quality of life enjoyed by the community.
70 BOOM
JULY 239 1996
Baer 9 FA F.648
To ensure that the minimum acceptable standards for these services
and facilities are maintained, the Comprehensive Plan and Land
Development Regulations require that new development be reviewed.
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 rezoning requests, conditional concurrency review is
required.
Conditional concurrency review examines the available capacity of
each facility with respect to a proposed project. Since rezoning
requests are not projects, county regulations call for the
concurrency review to be based upon the most intense use of the
subject property based upon the requested zoning district. The
site information used for the concurrency analysis is as follows:
1. Size of Area to be Rezoned: fl acre
2. Existing Zoning Classification:
3. Proposed Zoning Classification:
4. Most Intense Use of Subject
Property under Existing..
Zoning Classification:
5. Most Intense Use of Subject
Property under Proposed
Zoning Classification:
- Transportation
A-1, Agricultural
District (up to 1 unit/5
acres)
RS -3, Single -Family
Residential District (up
to .3 units/acre)
1 single-family unit
3 single-family units
According to the ITE Manual, three single-family units would
generate three peak hour trips. A review of capacity and existing
volume on the county's roadway network indicates that those trips
would not lower the existing level of service "D" or better on 82nd
Avenue or any other road.
The traffic capacity for the segment of 82nd Avenue adjacent to
this site is 690 trips (peak hour/peak season/peak direction) at
Level of Service (LOS) "D", while the existing traffic volume on
this segment of 82nd Avenue is 123 trips (peak hour/peak season/
peak direction). The 3 additional peak hour/peak season/peak
direction trips created by the most intense use of the subject
property under the proposed zoning district would increase the
total peak hour/peak season/peak direction trips for this segment
of 82nd Avenue to approximately 126.
Based on the above analysis, staff determined that 82nd Avenue and
all other roads can accommodate the additional trips without
decreasing their existing levels of service.
- Water
Using the subject property for 3 residential units will result in
water consumption at a rate of 3 Equivalent Residential Units
(ERU), or 750 gallons/day. This is based upon a level of service
of 250 gallons/ERU/day. The subject property is serviced by the
South County Reverse Osmosis Plant which has a capacity of
71
JULY 239 1996
� � r
approximately 2,000,000 gallons/day and can accommodate the demand
generated by the proposed zoning district.
- Wastewater
Currently, wastewater lines do not extend to the site. However, if
lines were extended and connected to the subject property, it would
be serviced by.the West Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant. Based
upon the most intense use allowed under the proposed zoning
district, development of the property will have a wastewater
generation rate of approximately 3 Equivalent Residential Units
(ERU), or 750 gallons/day. This is based upon the level of service
standard of 250 gallons/ERU/day. The West Regional Wastewater
Treatment Plant currently has a remaining capacity of more than
250,000 gallons/day and can accommodate the additional wastewater
generated by the proposed zoning district.
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 3 unit residential development would be anticipated to house
approximately 7 people (2.3 X 3). 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 17 (7 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 850,000
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. The
subject property is located within the M-1 Drainage Basin. Since
the site is located within 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 standard
applies, since the property lies within a floodplain. Consistent
with Drainage Policy 1.2, "all new buildings -shall have the lowest
habitable floor elevation no lower than the elevation of the 100 -
year flood elevation as shown on the Federal Emergency Management
Agency's Flood Insurance Rate Map, or as defined in a more detailed
study report." Since the subject property lies within Flood Zone
AE, which is a special flood hazard area located within the 100 -
year floodplain, any development on this property must have a
minimum finished floor elevation that meets the criteria listed in
section 930.07 (1) (a) 8 of the county LDRs.
Besides the minimum elevation requirement, on-site retention and
discharge standards would also apply to any development on the
subject property. With the most intense use of this site under the
72
JULY 239 1996 �GG'K
BOOK 9 rp*.;r ,r 6150
proposed zoning, the maximum area of impervious surface will be
approximately 13,068 square feet, or 0.3 acres. The maximum runoff
volume, based on that amount of impervious surface and the 25
year/24 hour design storm, will be approximately 24,281 cubic feet.
In order to maintain the county's adopted level of service, and
given the IRFWCD's maximum discharge rate of two inches in 24
hours, the applicant will be required to retain approximately
17,025 cubic feet of runoff on-site.
Based upon staff's analysis, the drainage level of service
standards will be met by limiting off-site discharge to the
IRFWCD's maximum discharge rate of two inches in twenty-four hours,
and requiring retention of the 17,025 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 zoning classification
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.
The concurrency requirements for drainage, roads, solid waste,
water, wastewater, and parks have been met for the proposed
rezoning. Based upon its analysis, staff has determined that there
is adequate public facility capacity to serve the most intense use
allowed under the proposed rezoning. For that reason, staff has
issued a conditional concurrency certificate to the applicant.
Consistency with Comprehensive Plan
Rezoning requests are reviewed for consistency with all policies of
the comprehensive plan. Rezoning requests must also be consistent
with the overall designation of land uses as depicted on the Future
Land Use Map, which includes agricultural, residential,
recreational, conservation, and commercial and industrial land uses
and their densities. Commercial and industrial land uses are
located in nodes throughout the unincorporated areas of Indian
River County.
The goals, objectives and policies are the most important parts of
the comprehensive plan. Policies are statements in the plan which
identify the actions which the county will take in order to direct
the community's development. As courses of action committed to by
the county, policies provide the basis for all county land
development related decisions. While all comprehensive plan
policies are important, some have more applicability than others in
73
JULY 23, 1996
LOS
Project
(Acres per
Demand
Surplus
Park Type
1000 00Rulation)
Acres
Acreacre
Urban District
5.0
0.030
179.404
Community (south)
1.25
0.008
7.763
Beach
•'1.5
0.009
64.221
River
1.5
0.009
25.218
The concurrency requirements for drainage, roads, solid waste,
water, wastewater, and parks have been met for the proposed
rezoning. Based upon its analysis, staff has determined that there
is adequate public facility capacity to serve the most intense use
allowed under the proposed rezoning. For that reason, staff has
issued a conditional concurrency certificate to the applicant.
Consistency with Comprehensive Plan
Rezoning requests are reviewed for consistency with all policies of
the comprehensive plan. Rezoning requests must also be consistent
with the overall designation of land uses as depicted on the Future
Land Use Map, which includes agricultural, residential,
recreational, conservation, and commercial and industrial land uses
and their densities. Commercial and industrial land uses are
located in nodes throughout the unincorporated areas of Indian
River County.
The goals, objectives and policies are the most important parts of
the comprehensive plan. Policies are statements in the plan which
identify the actions which the county will take in order to direct
the community's development. As courses of action committed to by
the county, policies provide the basis for all county land
development related decisions. While all comprehensive plan
policies are important, some have more applicability than others in
73
JULY 23, 1996
M M
reviewing rezoning requests. Of particular applicability for this
request are the following policies.
- 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
residential uses with densities up to 8 units/acre. In addition,
that policy states that these residential uses must be located
within an existing or future urban service area.
Since the subject property is located within an area designated as
M-1 on the county's future land use plan map and is located within
the county's urban service area, and the applicant proposes to
develop the property with residential uses no denser than 8
units/acre, the proposed request is consistent with Policy 1.13
- Future Land Use Element Objective 4 and Policies 2.5 and 4.1-4.4.
This objective and these policies all involve encouraging and
concentrating development within the urban service area. Growth
patterns, as well as the comprehensive plan, indicate that the area
of the subject property will eventually be dominated by urban uses.
By converting the subject property from an agricultural to an urban
zoning district, the county would encourage efficient use of land
within the urban service area. For that- reason, the proposed
request implements Future Land Use Element Objective 4 and Policies
2.5 and 4.1-4.4.
While these objectives and policies are particularly applicable to
this request, other comprehensive plan policies also have
relevance. For that reason, staff evaluated the subject request
for consistency with all plan policies. Based upon that analysis,
staff determined that the request is consistent with the
comprehensive plan.
Compatibility with the Surrounding Area
Staff' s position is that granting the request to rezone the subject
property to RS -3 will result in development which will be
compatible with surrounding areas.
Although agriculturally zoned, land to the north, east and west of
the site is used primarily for residential purposes. For that
reason, development under the proposed zoning district is
anticipated to be compatible with those properties.
Although there are groves south of the site, several factors work
to mitigate potential incompatibilities between those properties.
The first factor is the 60 feet of physical separation provided by
the 8th Street road right-of-way. Additionally, there is a
vegetative buffer located south of 8th Street, between the subject
property and the grove.
With respect to zoning, the county's policy has always been to
retain agricultural zoning on property rather than changing it when
the underlying land use designation increases. This not only
reflects the county's policy of using agricultural zoning as a
"holding" category, but also recognizes that urbanization occurs
incrementally with various tracts remaining agricultural for longer
periods.
74 BUNK
JULY 239 1996
rl � 98 P�,a.652
Two factors, however, indicate that urban type zoning districts
would be appropriate for agriculturally zoned land in this portion
of the county. The first factor is the underlying designation on
the future land use map. This area is within the urban service
area and is deemed appropriate for residential development with
densities of up to 8 units/acre, among the highest densities
allowed by the plan.
Equally important is the development pattern in that portion of the
county. That portion of the county is located near four large
mobile home parks and three of the county's largest and fastest
developing commercial/ industrial nodes. Additionally, that area
has convenient access to the county's transportation system. These
factors indicate a trend toward continued urbanization in that
portion of the county.
For these reasons, staff feels that the requested RS -3 zoning would
be compatible with development in the surrounding area.
Potential Impact on Environmental Quality
The site has been cleared, and contains no environmentally
important land, such as wetlands or 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
The requested zoning is compatible with the surrounding area,
consistent with the comprehensive plan, meets all concurrency
criteria, and will have no negative impacts on environmental
quality. The subject property is located in an area deemed suited
for low density residential uses and meets all applicable rezoning
criteria. For these reasons, staff supports the request to rezone
the subject property from A-1 to RS -3.
RLCOMMMMATION
Based on the analysis, staff and the Planning and Zoning Commission
recommend that the Board of County Commissioners approve this
request to rezone the subject property from A-1 to RS -3.
Chairman Adams opened the public hearing and asked if anyone
wished to be heard in this matter. There being none, she closed
the public hearing.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Tippin, the Board unanimously adopted
Ordinance 96-17, rezoning from A-1 to RS -3 property
located on the north side of 8th street, between
82nd Avenue and 90th Avenue.
75
JULY 239 1996
ORDINANCE NO. 96- 17
AN ORDINANCE OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, AMENDING THE
ZONING ORDINANCE AND THE ACCOMPANYING ZONING MAP FROM A-1 TO
RS -3, FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED. ON THE NORTH SIDE OF 8TH
STREET, BETWEEN 82ND AVENUE AND 90TH AVENUE, AND DESCRIBED
HEREIN, AND PROVIDING FOR EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission, sitting as the
local planning agency on such matters, has held a public hearing
and subsequently made a recommendation regarding this rezoning
request; and
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River
County, Florida, did publish and send its Notice of Intent to
rezone the hereinafter described property; and
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners has determined that
this rezoning is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan of
Indian River County; and
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners has held a public
hearing pursuant to this rezoning request, at which parties in
interest and citizens were heard;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED, by the Board of County
Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, that the zoning of
the following described property situated in Indian River County,
Florida, to -wit:
THE EAST 156.35 FEET OF THE SOUTH 339.37 FEET OF THE EAST
FIVE ACRES OF THE WEST 20 ACRES OF TRACT 15, SECTION 11,
TOWNSHIP 33 SOUTH, RANGE 38 EAST, INDIAN RIVER COUNTY,
FLORIDA, LESS ROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY, CONTAINING ONE NET ACRE.
Be changed from A-1 to RS -3.
All with the meaning and intent and as set forth and described in
said Land Development Regulations.
76 MCI
JULY 239 1996` ��
BOOK 9S PA,E654
ORDINANCE NO. 96-17
Approved and adopted by the Board of County Commissioners of
Indian River County, Florida, on this 23rd day of July, 1996.
This ordinance was advertised in the Vero Beach Press -Journal
on the lith day of July, 1996 for a public hearing to be held on
the 23rd day of July, 1996 at which time it was moved for adoption
by Commissioner Eggert , seconded by Commissioner
Ti ppi n , and adopted by the following vote:
Chairman Fran B. Adams Aye
Vice -Chairman Carolyn K. Eggert Aye
Commissioner Richard N. Bird Aye
Commissioner Kenneth R. Macht Aye
Commissioner John W. Tippin Aye
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
BY: , OOIVL.- � 41n 14t -n
Fran B. Adams, Chairman
ATTEST BY:
Jef Xey K. Barton lerk
Acknowledgement by the Department of State of the State of F710-r"id'a
this 5th day of August 1996.
Effective upon filing with the Department of State.
This ordinance was filed with the Department of State on the
following date: July 31. 1996
u\v\j\stokes.ord
Edi fllYv Cn A06rOved
Admin. Dale
Legal
Budget
Dept,
76a
JULY 239 1996
M
PUBLIC HEARING - HALL'S REQUEST TO REZONE APPROX. 2
ACRES FROM RM11-8 TO RS -6
�as 94
JAI -
PRESS -JOURNAL
r
Published Daily
Vero Beach, Indian River County, Florida
COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER: STATE OF FLORIDA
Before the undersigned authority Personally appeared Darryl K. Hicks who on
oath says that he is President of the Press4oumal, a daily newspaper published at Vero Beach
in Irullan�Rive/r\County, Florida, that the attached copy of advertisement, being
In the matter of 19% M N — 3
In the
fished in said newspaper In the issues of ;" , 9 q P
Court, was pub -
Affiant further says that the said Press J umal Is a newspaper published at Vero Beach, In
said Indian River. County, Florida, and that the said newspaper has heretofore been
contktuotlsly 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 Iranian River County, Florida,
for a period of one year nett preceding the first publication of the attached copy of
advert errant; and affiant further says that he has neither pard nor promised any Berson, firm
or corporation any discount, rebate, commission or refund for the purpose of securing this
advertisement for publication in said newspaper.
Swom jd timet before me I da� 4t&D. 19
SA'•.,,
• My Comm. (President)
Rt : BARBARA C SPRAGUE. NOTARY PUBI.at;.
June 29, 1gg Slate of
N• No.Cf300S Z Co NumMer CC3005;.
44. 72
'q,rF FLS.••"•�,`•, Notary: aARBARAC SPRAGVF
The BoardNO�Co—�tyB� "MUM
River County. Florida, wl� consider the
of
McHome R DIS1110 land from RMH m) to
(up to 8 udts/eae) to
"lac
Residential District (up to 6
" and Faustlne�p. suy�°oppsrtyr is Io-
Philip
cated on the north We of 45th Suset, between
51st Avenue and 58th Avenue, anted Contains ap.
Res in the
% section of S 21, T " o 32S.
Ran
.39E, lying and being in Indfern
Fbipda
A public dens ated have an which Parties in Interest and
apporardty to be heard, will
be held by the Board of Cq y � of
Indlart Rim Carats -
Won Chambers of �F Cot lo The
Build -
Ing, located at 1840 25th Street Bim, Flor
�► an Tuesday. ' to 23. n� 1q a.m The
property
AN ORDINANCE OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY,
FLORIDA, AMENDING THE NG
A ANY ZOONNNG MAPORDNANCE
OM
MjTo
T NORTH �E FOF 45TH STREET. BETWEEN
51ST AVENUE AND 58TH AVENUE, AND DE-
SCRIBED HEREIN. AND PROVIDING FOR EFFEC-
TIVE DATE.The
�y
the P reguar btu hhoouts�atle of-
fice 01 the to the Board of County Camrrds
slow .184025th Street, Vero Beach, Ronda
another dBoard
d County� adopt provided it is within the same genaral use
Anyone who
ish
sawhicmnude im etmdrt fyr® egs is
made, with Includes tastintony and evidence upon
which the appeal Is based.
Anyone who rids a special accommodation for
ft with Act (ADMuslt Aj)ct Coordinator the � at 587 8000
extension 223 at least 48 hours In advance of
meeftldian River County
BBoard
y F Of
B�Adarm�
iuly 11, 1995 1320859 1
Community Development Director Bob Keating presented staff's
recommendation for approval of the rezoning:
JULY 239 1996 77 600K
BOOK 9 r.Rq;
TO: James E. Chandler
County Administrator
D402RTMMT HEAD CONCURRENCE
Robert M. Re t ng, AIC
Community Develop t D ector
THROUGH: Sasan Rohani, AICP S 4
Chief, Long -Ran a Planning
FROM: John Wachtel
Senior Pl er, Long -Range Planning
DATE: July 9, 1996
RE: PHILIP AND FAUSTINE HALL'S REQUEST TO REZONE
APPROXIMATELY 2 ACRES FROM RMH-8 TO RS -6
(RZON 95-05-0010)
It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal
consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at its regular
meeting of July 23, 1996.
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
This is a request to rezone approximately 2 acres from RMH-8,
Mobile Home Residential. *District (up to 8 units/acre) to RS -6,
Single -Family Residential District (up to 6 units/acre). The
subject property consists of the northern 2 acres of a 5 acre
parcel. Located on the north side of 45th Street, between 51st
Avenue and 56th Avenue, that 5 acre parcel is owned by Philip and
Faustine Hall. The Halls intend to build 1 single-family residence
on the subject property, a use not permitted within the existing
RMH-8 zoning district.
Since the southern part of the 5 acre parcel contains 2 legally
established mobile homes and a legally established conventional
single-family house, and county Land Development Regulations (LDRs)
permit only one residence per parcel within single-family zoning
districts, the applicants will have to split the subject property
from the rest of the parcel prior to developing the subject
property.
On June 27, 1996, the Planning
recommend that the Board of
request to rezone the subject
Existing Land Use Pattern
and Zoning Commission voted 5-0 to
County Commissioners approve this
property to RS -6.
The subject property and properties to the east and west are zoned
RMH-8, and are vacant. Land to the south of the subject property
is also owned by the applicants. That land, containing 2 mobile
homes and a conventional single-family house, is also zoned RMH-8.
The land to the north of the subject property consists of citrus
groves and is zoned RS -6.
78
JULY 239 1996
Future Land Use Pattern
The subject property and all adjacent properties are designated M-
2, Medium -Density Residential -2, on the future land use map. The
M-2 designation allows residential uses with densities up to 10
units/acre.
Environment
According to County Flood Insurance Rate Maps, the subject property
is located in a Zone X; this indicates that the property is outside
of the 100 -year floodplain. As a site that has been cleared, the
subject property is not environmentally significant.
Utilities and Services
The site is within the Urban Service
Wastewater lines extend to the site from
Treatment Plant. Centralized potable
available to the site.
Transportation System
Area of the County.
the Gifford Wastewater
water service is not
The 5 acre parcel containing the subject property has access to
45th Street which is classified as a collector roadway on the
future roadway thoroughfare plan map. This segment of 45th Street,
a two-lane paved road with approximately 80 feet of existing public
road right-of-way, is not presently programmed for expansion.
ANALYSIS
In. this section, an analysis of the reasonableness of the
application will be presented. The analysis will include a
description of:
• concurrency of public facilities;
• compatibility with the surrounding area;
• consistency with the comprehensive plan; and
• 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, Drainage, and Recreation (Future Land Use
Policy 3.1). The adequate provision of these services is necessary
to ensure the continued quality of life enjoyed by the community.
The comprehensive plan also requires that new development be
reviewed to ensure that the minimum acceptable standards for these
services and facilities are maintained. For rezoning requests,
this review is undertaken as part of the conditional concurrency
determination application process.
As per section 910.07 of the County's Land Development Regulations
(LDR), conditional concurrency review examines the available
capacity of each facility with respect to a proposed project.
Since rezoning requests are not projects, County regulations call
for the concurrency review to be based upon the most intense use of
the subject property based upon the requested zoning district. For
residential rezoning requests, the most intense use (according to
the County's LDR's) is the maximum number of units that could be
built on the site, given the size of the property and the maximum
density under the proposed zoning district. The site information
used for the concurrency analysis is as follows:
79 E�cCK 9 S PAGE. 65
JULY 23, 1996
PUOK 658
1. Size of Area to be Rezoned: t2 acres
2. Existing Zoning Classification: RMH-8, Mobile home
Residential District (up
to 8 units/acre)
3. Maximum Number of Units with Existing Zoning: 16
4. Proposed Zoning Classification: RS -6, Single-family
Residential District (up
to 6 units/acre)
5. Maximum Number of Units with Proposed Zoning: 12
As per section 910.07(2) of the Concurrency Management Chapter of
the County's Land Development Regulations, projects which do not
increase density or intensity of use are exempt from concurrency
requirements. This rezoning request is exempt from concurrency
review because the requested zoning would not increase the total
number of potential units that the site could accommodate.
It is important to note that there will be no effect on service
levels for any public facility as a result of development under the
proposed zoning.
In this case, a detailed concurrency analysis will be done in
conjunction with site development. That concurrency analysis will
address facility service levels and demand.
Comoatibility with the Surrounding Area
Since land abutting the subject property on the north is zoned RS -
6, the request is for a, continuation of an existing zoning pattern.
Given the current RMH-8 zoning of the subject property, it is not
anticipated that a change to RS -6 would result in compatibility
problems with the surrounding areas. Under either the RMH-8 or RS -
6 zoning districts, development of the subject property would
produce similar impacts on adjacent property. Because of the lower
density, however, the impacts associated with the RS -6 zoning
district would be somewhat less.
For these reasons, staff feels that the RS -6 zoning district is
appropriate for the subject property and would result in
development compatible with the surrounding area.
Consistency with Comprehensive Plan
Rezoning requests are reviewed for consistency with all policies of
the comprehensive plan. Rezonings must also be consistent with the
overall designation of land uses as depicted on the future land use
map, which include agriculture, residential, recreation,
conservation, and commercial and industrial land uses and their
densities. Commercial and industrial land uses are located in
nodes throughout the unincorporated areas of Indian River County.
The goals, objectives and policies are. the most important parts of
the comprehensive plan. Policies are statements in the plan which
identify the actions which the County will take in order to direct
the community's development. As courses of action committed to by
the County, policies provide the basis for all County development
decisions. While all comprehensive plan policies are important,
some have more applicability than others in reviewing rezoning
requests. Of particular applicability for this request are the
following comprehensive plan policies.
80
JULY 239 1996
- Future Land Use Element Policy 1.14
Future Land Use Element Policy 1.14 states that single-family,
multiple -family, and mobile home residential uses with a density of
up to 10 units/acre are permitted in areas designated as M-2,
Medium -Density Residential -2, on the future land use map. Since
the subject property is designated M-2, Medium -Density Residential -
2, the requested. RS -6 .zoning is consistent with Future Land Use
Policy 1.14.
While the County's comprehensive plan controls density for all
residential areas in the County, the plan does not control housing
type. Consequently, single-family, multiple -family, or mobile home
development could be allowed in an area designated as M-2 on the
County land use plan; housing type is controlled by zoning. In
this case, the subject property was zoned RMH-8 based on existing
development patterns and with the intent that mobile home
development would provide a transition from industrial to the south
to single-family to the north.
As part of the staff analysis, all policies in the comprehensive
plan were considered. Based upon this analysis, staff determined
that the proposed rezoning is consistent with the comprehensive
plan.
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 zoning district. The site has been cleared, and contains
no environmentally important land, such as wetlands or 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
The proposed RS -6 zoning is consistent with the comprehensive plan,
compatible with all surrounding land uses, and would cause no
adverse impacts on the environment or the provision of public
services. For these reasons, staff supports the request to change
the zoning.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff and the Planning and Zoning Commission recommend that the
Board of County Commissioners approve this request to rezone the
subject property from RMH-8 to RS -6.
ATTACEMENTS
1. Application
2. Location Map
3. Ordinance
4. Unapproved minutes of the June 27, 1996 Planning and Zoning
Commission
�:^rn nac 1.1 Approved Dale l
Aurin.
q,
Af
u\v\j\muller.agn
Approved Agenda Item:
For: •7 --.2 3
By. �
81
JULY 239 1996 aooK 8 rf.
Fr— -1
ROOK F�; f. 66
Commissioner Macht inquired about the definition of "stick
building," and Director Keating explained that term refers to any
type of home except mobile homes. The home has to be stable,
however.
Chairman Adams opened the public hearing and asked if anyone
wished to be heard in this matter. There being none, she closed
the public hearing.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously adopted
Ord. 96-18, rezoning from RMH-8 to RS -6 property
located on the north side of 45th Street, between
51st Avenue and 56th Avenue.
ORDINANCE NO. 96-18
AN ORDINANCE OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, AMENDING THE
ZONING ORDINANCE AND THE ACCOMPANYING ZONING MAP FROM RMH- 8 TO
RS -6, FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE NORTH_ SIDE OF 45TH
STREET, BETWEEN 51ST AVENUE AND 56TH AVENUE, AND DESCRIBED -
HEREIN, AND PROVIDING FOR EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission, sitting as the
local planning agency on such matters, has held a public hearing
and subsequently made a recommendation regarding this rezoning
request; and
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River
County, Florida, did publish and send its Notice of Intent to
rezone the hereinafter described property; and
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners has determined that
this rezoning is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan of
Indian River County; and
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners has held a public
hearing pursuant to this rezoning request, at which parties in
interest and citizens were heard;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED, by the Board of County
Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, that the zoning of
the following described property situated in Indian River County,
82
JULY 239 1996
Florida, to -wit:
THE NORTH 2 ACRES OF THE WEST 5 ACRES OF TRACT 14 IN
SECTION 21, TOWNSHIP 32 SOUTH, RANGE 39 EAST ALL LYING IN
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA.
Be changed from RMH-8 to RS -6.
All with the meaning and intent and as set forth and described in
said Land Development Regulations.
Approved and adopted by the Board of County Commissioners of.
Indian River County, Florida, on this 23rd day of July, 1996.
This ordinance was advertised in the Vero Beach Press -Journal
on the lith day of July, 1996 for a public hearing to be held on .
the 23rd day of July, 1996 at which time it was moved for adoption
by Commissioner Eggert , seconded by Commissioner
Bird , and adopted by the following vote:
Chairman Fran B. Adams Aye
Vice -Chairman Carolyn K. Eggert Aye
Commissioner Richard N. Bird Aye
Commissioner Kenneth R. Macht A e
Commissioner John W. Tippin Aye
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
BY: �f—
Fran B. Adams, Chairman
ATTEST BY:
Jeff Barton,
Acknowledgement by the Department of State of the State of Florida
this 5th day of August , 1996.
Effective upon filing with the Department of State.
This ordinance was filed with the Department of State on the
following date: .111lu ',L, l9a6
u\v\j\ha11.ord
,
JULY 239 1996 83 BOOK98+;
BOOK rp-F(j
MODIFICATIONS TO PROPOSED BUDGET FOR 1996-97
County Administrator Jim Chandler updated the Board on the
additional budget cuts recommended by staff after last week's
budget workshop when the Board directed staff to reduce the budget
another $1.4 million in order to allow a budget that would not
increase the millage rate over last year:
84
JULY 239 1996
M M M
Indian River County 1996/97 Proposed Budget
Recommended Cuts:
TOTAL Gen'I Fund MSTU ESD
Total required cuts $1,457,558 $643,293 $705,543 $108,722
RECOMMENDAT
Sheriff (assumes cuts in Law Enforcement)
(1,178,511)
(471,404)
(707,107)
BCC - Audit fees
Total Constitutionals
(1,178,511)
(471,404)
(707,107)
0
Positions
'
(5,000)
(5,000)
No. County Library - PT position
(5,053)
(5,053)
(32,500)
Recreation Supervisor - FT position
(25,601)
(25,601)
Fire - Hydrant Maintenance
** Traffic Engineering Assistant - FT position
(31,812)
(12,725)
(19,087)
(15,576)
Fire - Mechanic -FT; net of maint. increase
(12,146)
ALS - Contingency
(10,000)
(12,146)
Total Positions
(74,612)
(17,778)
(44,688)
(12,146)
Agencies
Capital
New Horizons
(2,875)
** Public Works - Utility Vehicle
(17,335)
(6,934)
(10,401)
(16,335)
** Traffic Engineering - Auto
(15,000)
(6,000)
(9,000)
** Traffic Engineering - heavy truck
(30,000)
(12,000)
(18,000)
County Attorney - computers
(900)
(900)
BCC - Laser Printer
(500)
(500)
Personnel - Copier _
(2,000)
(2,000)
Youth Guidance - fax
(500)
(500)
Planning - computer rack system
(5,803)
(5,803)
Fire - gutters at Station #5
(1,000)
(1,000)
Fire - wall around dumpster
(2,000)
(2,000)
Fire - drafting pit
(10,000)
(10,000)
Fire - sealing of parking area
(900)
(900)
Fire - Sofas at various stations
(5,400)
(5,400)
Fire - folding dump tank
(1,200)
(1,200)
Fire - gas detector
(6,000)
(6,000)
Fire - remote control spotlight
(1,000)
_
(1,000)
Fire - rescue litters
(5.500)
rs; -nm
Other
BCC - Audit fees
(8,500)
(8,500)
Youth Guidance - Overtime w/ benefits
(1,253)
(1,253)
Court Reporting - Other Reporting Services
(5,000)
(5,000)
Fire - Roofing
(32,500)
(32,500)
Fire - Carpeting
(5,350)
(5,350)
Fire - Hydrant Maintenance
(150)
(150)
Fire - Contingency
(15,576)
(15,576)
ALS - Contingency
(10,000)
(10,000)
Total Other
(78,329)
(14,753)
0 (63,576)
Agencies
New Horizons
(2,875)
(2,875)
State Health Dept.
(16,335)
(16,335)
Sexual Assault Proaram
12.5001
r2 5nni
Total Recommendations ($1,458,200) ($554,479) ($794,999) ($108,722)
Difference - Required less recommended(1) ($642) $88,814 ($89,456) $0
** Reductions in Transportation Fund departments shown as 40/60 split between General Fund and
MSTU. The cuts reduce transfers out in those two funds.
(1) A reallocation of revenues between the General Fund and MSTU will be used to balance out the
differences in these two funds.
85 X001! P�c.
JULY 239 1996 98 663
BOOK f�664
-
Administrator Chandler noted that the $1,457,558 budget
reduction contained a reduction of $1,178,511 in the Sheriff's
budget, resulting in an overall increase in the Sheriff's budget of
$760,000 or the equivalent of 4% increase in expense levels over
the current year. In addition to the further cut in the Sheriff's
budget, other cuts were made totalling $279,689. The overall
increases in the BCC departmental sections by fund would be in the
range of 1.15 to 1.9 percent.
Administrator Chandler advised that 3 of the proposed full-
time positions were eliminated: Recreational Supervisor, Traffic
Engineering Assistant, Fire Dept. Mechanic. One part-time position
at the North County Library was also eliminated. In addition, 3
of the proposed replacement vehicles were eliminated from capital
expense. We also looked at making further capital cuts in the area
of the Fire Department. The overall reduction in the Emergency
Services District would be $108,722 to achieve a budget at the
current millage rate. Under the miscellaneous budgets, we were
able to reduce the BCC audit fees somewhat. The final 3 reductions
are in the budgets of New Horizons, State Health Dept., and Sexual
Assault Program.
Administrator Chandler stated that the total of the additional
reductions would enable us to consider a millage at the current
year's rate.
Commissioners Eggert and Macht questioned the Fire Department
budget cuts and Commissioner Macht asked if the $6,000 gas detector
was a safety requirement.
Administrator Chandler explained that all of the cuts in the
area of Emergency Services were reviewed by Director Wright.
Commissioner Macht asked if that applied throughout the
capital expenses, such as the archaic equipment being used by the
County Attorney's office.
Administrator Chandler stated that these recommendations were
made after discussing them with the head of the departments
involved.
Commissioner Bird questioned the reserve for contingencies,
and OMB Director Joe Baird advised that the contingencies are the
same as last year except for Emergency Services.
Commissioner Bird asked how much we have spent out of general
contingencies that was budgeted for 1996-97, and Director Baird
stated that we have spent $320,000 of the $650,000 budgeted for
contingencies.
Sheriff Gary Wheeler emphasized that his budget preparation
was the result of a lot of hard work on the part of his staff and
86
JULY 239 1996
the Office of Budget and Management. He clearly understood the
Commission's position in trying to provide the best services to the
people for their tax dollars. The new mall and adjacent plaza will
place a heavy demand on law enforcement services. Sheriff Wheeler
pointed out that a comparison of having some delays in the
provision of services by the Building and Planning Departments is
not equitable to delays in providing emergency services to the
community. He emphasized that he does not have any contingencies
in case of another hurricane coming through our county. Since he
has taken office, the county's population has increased by 10,000
people and the SR -60 corridor has developed significantly. Knowing
that a certain amount of population is going to generate a certain
amount of calls, his department tries to plan the same way as the
Planning Department does for traffic generating from new projects.
Sheriff Wheeler felt the budget reduction recommendations are
arbitrary because any further budget reduction will have a
substantial effect on the services they will be able to provide.
The proposed increase of $760,000 in his budget would not be
adequate to fund a 3% COLA increase, the continuation of the pay
plan, and overtime, which increased $100,000 this year. In order
to do that, they would have to find an additional $178,000 from
capital expense, such as new vehicles.
In conclusion, Sheriff Wheeler emphasized the need to provide
the best services at the lowest budget. He urged the Board to
budget an adequate amount of dollars that would enable his
department to continue to provide necessary services to the
community.
Chairman Adams opened the meeting for public discussion.
Earl Myers of 855 Starboard Drive, resident of the county for
many years, expressed his concern about the proposed reductions in
the Sheriff's funds resulting in reduced services to the community.
He compared Vero Beach and Indian River County to a small town in
Kansas where there was a large increase in the crime rate and law
enforcement response as a result of a new Target Store.
Bob Sabot, Ph.D., 756 10th Avenue, related how he got involved
in Crime Watch 7 years ago and now is head of the Neighborhood
Watch program. He believed that anything that can be done to
increase the budget in that area would be welcome, even if it means
raising the millage rate a bit.
Ben Elmo, resident of Sebastian, emphasized that the Sheriff's
Department sorely needs whatever the Sheriff is requesting. He
87 BOOK ��
JULY 239 1996
BOOK 98 'P!1'f.fl
believed that any further cuts would result in longer response
times by Sheriff's deputies, especially in light of the greater
demand as a result of the new mall and plaza opening up this fall
and winter. Mr. Elmo emphasized that the Sheriff is requesting
only 12 more positions.
Bill Koolage of Vista Gardens, resident of Indian River County
since 1921, felt the money being spent on the property being
purchased for the protection of scrub jays was abhorrent. He asked
that the Board look to the people to donate money for that purpose
rather than cutting the Sheriff's services to the community.
Dell Lockwood, P.O. Box 6383, Vero Beach, read into the record
the following letter dated 7/23/96:
Madam Chairman and Members of the Commission,
Thank you for listening to me.
I am Dell Lockwood, a resident of the county for 23 years.
I was a newspaper editor for more than 25 years in Miami, Key
West and Vero Beach. Applying the "tools of the trade" ethical
journalists use, including logic and fairness coupled with sound
investigation, I began months ago to assess the Sheriff's budget
you are now evaluating.
I attended the Citizens Police Academy sponsored by the
Sheriff's Department from January 17 to April 17 every Wednesday
evening. I wish every citizen concerned with community betterment
could share that same privilege.
Other budget -related meetings provided an even broader base
for my request to you as elected officials dedicated to the safety
and well being of our community.
My request is for you to please support the Sheriff in his
efforts to meet the emergency of an inevitable increased crime rate
and traffic problems in the SR -60 corridor growth explosion by
granting his request for 12 new deputies, their support personnel
and equipment to patrol that corridor which stretches from the
Indian River Mall to the outlet center beyond I-95.
As our community grows, so grows our need for effective law
enforcement protection. As Commissioner Bird said regarding the
SR -60 corridor, "I can't support (cutting) the whole $961,000.
That would be putting our heads in the sand."
In conclusion, Mrs. Lockwood stated that she preferred having
her taxes raised rather than having a decrease in the services
provided by the Sheriff.
Warren Holbert, resident of Sebastian and member of the
Sheriff's Volunteers, emphasized the need for adequate funding of
the Sheriff's Department.
88
JULY 239 1996
Stevie McCunn, resident of Vero Beach for 20 years, noted that
she is visually impaired and needs a volunteer driver to take her
to work two days a week in Central Files at the Sheriff's
Administration Complex. Without assistance from the Community
Services Aide Program (CSAP), she would not be able to do that.
She urged the Board to support the Sheriff's budget.
There being no others who wished to be heard in this matter,
the Chairman closed the public discussion.
Commissioner Eggert led discussion on the impact of
development along the SR -60 corridor and the possibility of going
to impact fees for law enforcement. She noted that DeBartolo
submitted an estimate of $380,000 to handle the mall but did not
address the other buildings such as Target. That estimate has
increased somewhat, and the mall has agreed to add some security
guards. Commissioner Eggert stated that she still stands committed
to helping the Sheriff solve the problems in providing for new
growth. She believed the Board needs to research and consider all
funding methods to provide law enforcement.
Commissioner Eggert was also concerned that by trying to
maintain last year's millage rate, Emergency Services and the
Sheriff's Department may not be able to give personnel pay
increases.
Chairman Adams emphasized that all departments and entities
have had to tighten their belts.
Commissioner Bird felt that trying to achieve last year's
millage level is an admirable goal, but he was not sure it was that
important a goal if we are going to knowingly cut ourselves short
on funding a very vital agency of the county that is going to be
stressed by the new development coming in.
Commissioner Tippin commented on what a terrible task it is to
provide services at the same level of taxes as last year. He
believed that a 4% increase for the Sheriff's budget would be
excessive when other government entities would be receiving less
than that.
Chairman Adams noted that a Motion was needed on the current
millage.
MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Tippin, SECONDED by
Chairman Adams for discussion, to support the
amended budget as submitted today that keeps the
millage rate the same as the current year.
89 BOOK 9 f',..
JULY 23, 1996
BOCK
Under discussion, Commissioner Macht emphasized that the
driving factor in dealing with the SR -60 growth is the reality that
it will not come on line for at least 5 or 6 months, and that
doesn't preclude a mid -course adjustment if experience proves that
crime increases to a point the Sheriff is not capable of dealing
with it. Then, the additional funding would go to contingency and
perhaps be funded through impact fees. He supported Commissioner
Tippin's motion to further reduce the budget by $1.45 million.
Commissioner Bird stated that he would have to vote against
the motion because he felt the cuts in the Sheriff's Department
were too severe.
Commissioner Eggert stated that is what she finds frustrating
because she would have liked to see a tenth of a mill added to
support the Sheriff's activities.
OMB Director Joe Baird advised that a tenth of a mill produces
$594,000.
THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION. The Motion
to approve the amended budget with no increase in
millage passed by a vote of 3-2, Commissioners Bird
and Eggert voting in dissention.
Chairman Adams announced that the preliminary budget hearing
is scheduled for September 4 at 5:01 p.m.
Deputy County Attorney Will Collins advised that once the TRIM
notices showing the millage rate are sent out in August, the
millage rate cannot be increased during the budget public hearings
in September unless new TRIM notices are sent out showing an
increased rate.
Sheriff Wheeler stated that he would do the best he could with
the monies budgeted for his department, but wanted the privilege of
coming back to the Commission if those funds run out.
26TH STREET PAVING AND DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS - 58TH
AVENUE TO 66TH AVENUE
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 7/10/96:
90
JULY 239 1996
I
TO: James Chandler
County Administrator C/
THROUGH: James W. Davis, P.E.
Public Works Director
FROM: Terry B. Thompson, P. E.O,'K
Capital Projects Manager
SUBJECT: 26th Street Paving and Drainage Improvements
58th Avenue to 66th Avenue
Pay Request No. 9 and Final Release
DATE: July 10, 1996
i - •► :11*1)( •1
Design for roadway and drainage improvements for 26th Street between 58th Avenue and
66th Avenue has been completed. Carter Associates, Inc. is requesting final payment and
release of retainage in the amount of $4,152.97.
Staff recommends that the Board approve final payment and release of retainage to Carter
Associates, Inc. Funding is from Account #111-214-541-033.13.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Tippin, the Board unanimously approved
final payment to Carter Associates, Inc. in the
amount of $4,152.97, as recommended by staff.
91 BOOK P>11,r
JULY 239 1996
r
BooK 9� Peer 6 t6
IEC1EadI
XXDXM D �
»vim PA
a
APP'sial J U L 1 0 1996
Z.=cAs=os1< pm 110.
PRO== NO ACCOUNT NO It
PROJECTt ROADWAY & .DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS - 261H S L' DEPT.
CONTRACTOR NMW/ADDRS86t Carter Associates, Inc.
1708 21st Street, Vero Beach, FL 32960
APPLZCATZON DATES FOR PERIOD YNDINa
STATZMZHT OF WORK
original Contract Price $ 36,465.00 as
Net Change orders f. 1.870.00
Current Contract Price $ 38,335.00
Work to Dates
Under original Contract $36,465.00
Under Change order S 1,870.00
Percent of Work Completed to date i
contractors Certification
Zbtal
to Date
Less 10% Rtatainags
Sub Total
Loss Prior Payments
BALANCE DUE TRIG PAYMENT
$ 1,418.77
39,753.77
= 0.00
39,753.77
= 35,600.80
4,152.97
The undersigned CCNTRhCTOR hereby certifies that all items and amounts on the
lace of this application for payment are aorreatl that all work has' been
Performed and/or materials aupplied in full accordance with the teras and
conditions of the contract.
The undersigned CONTRACTOR hereby swears tender penalty of perjury that (1) all
previoua progrena payments received from the OMOR on account of Work performed
under the contract referred to above have been applied by the undersigned to
discharge in full all obligations of the undersigned incurred in connection with
work covered by prior Applications for Payment. under said contract, being
Applications for Payment numbered 1 through 8 inclusive: and (2) all
materials and equipment Incorporated in said pro ect or otherwise listed in or
covered by this Application for Payment are free and clear of all liens, claims,
security interests and encumbrances.
Dated July 10, __, 1996,E CARTER ASSOCIATES INC.
Coso�
{
BY .Py
N Blum, Project Manager
OOUNT7t of INDIAN RIVaA
STATE OF FLORSDA
Before me this 1
h0th d y of July , 19:96, personally appeared
38—pones-Inand says (n)he n the Pro otvn me,—who
w
Mar. of the CONTRACTOR above
mentioned) that (s)he executed the above ApplLoatLon for Payment and statement
on behalf of said CONTRACTORr and that all of the statements contained herein are
true, correct and complete.
Notary c
my commiasion Expires
lCW1 FiYER MUNTY PUBLIC NCiMS
APPROVfP GATE
01Y. FEAD v
�PO� •
ACCT. •
92
JULY 239 1996
VY Plj OFFICIAL NOTARY S]E)tP-
0.4,P' ^ �, 9e,
ff *
.fs Q
KAREN L KUENN
COMMISSION NUM
CC354615
MY COMMISSION
10
20
MAR. 199
26TH STREET PAVING - WEST OF 66TH AVE. TO VILLAGE GREEN,
PHASE II - RESOLUTIONS I AND H
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 6/26/96:
TO: James Chandler
County Administrator
THROUGH: James W. Davis, P.
Public Works Direct
and t
Roger D. Cain, P.E. '
County Engineer
FROM: Michelle A. Gentile, CET
Civil Engineer
SUBJECT: Resolutions to Provide for the Paving and Drainage Improvements to and set
Public Hearing date for.
26th Street (Walker Avenue) West of 66th Avenue to Village Green, Phase II
DATE: June 26, 1996
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
The County Public Works Department has initiated a public improvement assessment for
road paving and drainage improvements to 26th Street (Walker Avenue) west of 66th
Avenue to Village Green, Phase II. All of the right-of-way has been obtained except for the
Bates Grove Property, which is currently being acquired by condemnation proceedings.
A separate resolution will need to be adopted to hold a Public Hearing to discuss the
advisability, cost and amount of the assessment against each property owner.
This Public Hearing has been scheduled for Tuesday, August 13, 1996, at 9:05 A.M. in the
County Commission Chambers.
An assessment roll and plat has been prepared and filed with the Clerk to the Board of
County Commissioners.
RECOMMENDATION AND FUNDING
It is recommended that the Board:
1) Adopt the resolution providing for the paving and drainage improvements for the
project subject to the terms outlined in the resolution. The applicable interest rate
shall be established by the Board of County Commissioners at , the time the final
assessment roll is approved.
2) Allocate $188,806.88 from Account No(s). 111-214-541-035.39, 111-214-541-035.51
and 315-214-541-066.31.
3) Adopt a resolution setting the time and place of the Public Hearing.
BOOK 8 F�rrE �����!
�L
JULY 23, 1996 93
B00K 98 F JE672
MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Tippin, to adopt Resolutions 96-77 and
96-78, to provide for the paving and drainage
improvements to 26th Street (Walker Ave.) West of
66th Avenue to Village Green, Phase II, and set
public hearing date for 9:05 a.m., Tuesday, August
13, 1996.
Under discussion, Public Works Director Jim Davis wanted the
Board to be aware that one parcel is not included in this price
because we have not been able to obtain right-of-way. He asked
that the Board not include the parcel in the assessment but rather
go to condemnation proceedings and pay fair market value.
Deputy County Attorney Will Collins explained that trying to
acquire this property became very complicated because the owners
have declared bankruptcy. Adoption of Resolution 96-78 would set
the public hearing date for the paving and drainage improvement
project. In the meantime, we can use our powers to acquire the
right-of-way.
THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION. The Motion
to adopt Resolutions 96-77 and 96-78 was approved
4-0, Commissioner Tippin having temporarily left
the room.
Providing (First Reso.) 2/19/96(ENG)RESI.MAG\gfk
RESOLUTION NO. 96-77
A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, PROVIDING FOR
CERTAIN PAVING AND DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS TO 26TH
STREET (WALKER AVENUE) BETWEEN 66TH AVENUE AND
VILLAGE GREEN, PHASE II, PROVIDING THE TOTAL
ESTIMATED COST, METHOD OF PAYMENT OF ASSESSMENTS,
NUMBER OF ANNUAL INSTALLMENTS, AND LEGAL
DESCRIPTION OF THE AREA SPECIFICALLY BENEFITED.
WHEREAS, the County Public Works Department has initiated
a Public Improvement for Road Paving and Drainage Improvement for
26th Street (Walker Avenue) between 66th Avenue and Village Green,
Phase II.
94
JULY 239 1996
No. 96-77
WHEREAS, the construction of paving and drainage
improvements by special assessment funding is authorized by Chapter
206, Section 206.01 through 206.09, Indian River County Code; and
cost estimates and preliminary assessment rolls have been completed
by the Public Works Department; and the total estimated cost of the
proposed paving and drainage improvements is TWO HUNDRED FIFTY
THREE THOUSAND FOUR HUNDRED FOURTEEN DOLLARS and SIXTY CENTS
($253,414.60); and
WHEREAS, the special assessment provided hereunder shall,
for any given record owner of property within the area specially
benefited, be in an amount equal to that proportion of fifty
percent (500) of the total cost of the project ($126,707.30) plus
tax collecor's fees and less credits for right-of-way, or
($64,607.72) which the number of acres owned by the given owner
bears to the total number of acres within the areas specially
benefited, and the remainder of the costs will be paid by Indian
River County; and
WHEREAS, the special assessment shall become due and
payable at the Office of the Tax Collector of Indian River County
ninety (90) days after the final determination of the special
assessment pursuant to Section 206.08, Indian River County Code;
and
WHEREAS, any special assessment not paid within said
ninety (90) day period shall bear interest beyond the due date at
a rate established by the Board of County Commissioners at the time
of preparation of the final assessment roll, and shall be payable
in two (2) equal installments, the first to be made twelve (12)
months from the due date and subsequent payments to be due yearly;
and
WHEREAS, after examination of the nature and anticipated
usage of the proposed improvements, the Board of County
Commissioners has determined that the following described
properties shall receive a direct and special benefit from these
improvement, to wit:
95 .
JULBOOK
Y 23, 1996 8 Fff, E x°73
L-
aOGK 9� FA j �' ,�
Igo. 96-_7_7,
Indian River Farms Company Subdivision, PBS 2112
West 10 Acres of Tract 15; East 13.94 Acres of
Tract 16; East 20.32 Acres of West 30.32 Acres of
Tract 15; East 10 Acres of -Tract 15; West 10 Acres
of Tract 16; East 13.94 Acres of West 23.94 Acres
of Tract 16; and
the south 1260 feet of the north 1290 feet of the
west 2577.5 feet of the NE h of Section 6, Township
33 South, Range 30 East, according to the last
general plat of the lands of the Indian River Farms
Company recorded in Plat Book 2, Page 25 of the
Public Records of St. Lucie County Florida.
Contains 3,247,675.2 square feet, or 74.556 Acres
now lying in Indian River County, Florida.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY
Com KISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, as follows:
1. The foregoing recitals are affirmed and ratified in
their entirety.
2. A project providing for paving and drainage
improvements to 26th Street (Walker Avenue) between 66th Avenue and
Village Green, Phase II; heretofore designated as Public Works
Project No. 8528 is hereby approved subject to the terms outlined
above and all applicable requirements of Chapter 206, et seq.
Indian River County Code.
The foregoing resolution was offered by Commissioner
Eggert vdn mored its acbpbm 9be mtim was seo ded
by' Commissioner Ti ppi n and, upon being put to a vote, the
vote was as follows:
Chairman Fran B. Adams Aye
Vice -Chairman Carolyn K. Eggert Aye
Commissioner John W. Tippin Absent
Commissioner Richard N. Bird Aye
Commissioner Kenneth R. Macht Aye
The Chairman thereupon declared the resolution passed and
adopted this
JULY 239 1996
23 day of July , 1996.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
By
F B. ADAMS, ChiFlrman
W
L
Time and Place (Second Reso.)
2/7/96(ENG) RES2.MAG'\gfk
RESOLUTION NO. 96- 78
A RESOLUTION OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY,
FLORIDA, SETTING A TIME AND PLACE AT WHICH
THE OWNERS OF PROPERTY ON 26TH STREET
(WALKER AVENUE) BETWEEN 66TH AVENUE AND
VILLAGE GREEN, PHASE Il, AND OTHER INTERESTED
PERSONS MAY APPEAR BEFORE THE BOARD OF
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AND BE HEARD AS TO
THE PROPRIETY AND ADVISABILITY OF MAKING
PAVING AND DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS TO SAID
PROPERTY AS TO THE COST THEREOF, AS TO THE
MANNER OF PAYMENT THEREFOR, AND AS TO THE
AMOUNT THEREOF TO BE SPECIALLY ASSESSED
AGAINST EACH PROPERTY BENEFITED THEREBY.
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County has,
by Resolution No. 96-77 , determined that it is necessary for the public welfare
of the citizens of the county, and particularly as to those living, working, and owning
property within the area described herein, that paving and drainage improvements
be made to said property; and
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners has caused an assessment roll
to be completed and filed with the Clerk to the Board; and
WHEREAS, Section 206.06, Indian River County Code, requires that the Board
of County Commissioners shall fix a time and place at which the owners of the
properties to be assessed or any other persons interested therein may appear before
the Board of County Commissioners and be heard as to the propriety and advisability
of making paving and drainage improvements to said .property, as to the cost thereof,
as to 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:
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.August
13, 1996, at which time the owners of the properties to be assessed and any
other interested persons may appear before said Commission and be heard in
regard to said property. The area to be improved and the properties to he
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 roll, the plans
and specifications for said improvements, and an estimate of the cost thereof
at the office of the Clerk to the Board any week day from 8:30 A.M. until 5:00
P.M.
JULY 239 1996 97 BooK 98 FAu 675
e �� F,+ L 676
RESOLUTION NO. 96- 7s
3. Notice of the time and place of this public hearing shall be given by the
Department of Public Works by two publications in the Vero Beach Press
Journal Newspaper a week apart. The last publication shall be at least one
week prior to the date of the hearing. The Indian River County Department
of Public Works shall give the owner of each property to be specially assessed
at least ten days notice in writing of such time and place, which shall be served
by mailing a copy of such notice to each of such property owners at his last
known address.
The resolution was moved for adoption by Commissioner Ea4ert , and the
motion was seconded by Commissioner Ti ppi n , and, upon being put to a vote,
the vote was as follows:
Chairman Fran B. Adams
Aye
Vice Chairman Carolyn K. Eggert
Aye
Commissioner John W. Tippin
Absent
Aye
Commissioner Richard N. Bird
Aye
Commissioner Kenneth R. Macht
The Chairman thereupon declared the resolution duly passed and adopted this
23 day of July , 1996.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
By j _ A Od22a�
MAN B. ADAMS,
Chairman
Attest
Jeffrey �B�arton, Clerk -
u
Attachment: ASSESSMENT ROLL
26stset.res
98
JULY 239 1996
N
PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT ROLL FOR PAVING AND DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS
w
TO:
\Q
Walker Avenue (26th Street)
TOTAL ACREAGE ........ 149.09
FROM 66th Avenue TO Village Green
Phase II
COST TO PROPERTY OWNERS .... $129,241.45
PROJECT NO. 8528
COST PER ACRE ........... $866.86867
NAME & ADDRESS
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
ACREAGE
COST/ACRE PRE -PAID ASSESSAIENTS
TOTAL COST
I . Frank Bates Groves Inc.
31 32 39 00001 0150 00001.0
9.58
$866.86867
$8,304.60
P.O. Box 651057
Ind. Riv. Farms Co. Sub. PBS
Vero Beach, FL 32965-1057
2 )12 W 10 A of TR 15
2. Seminole Venture, Inc.
31 32 39 00001 0160 00003.0
13.23
$866.86867
$11,468.67
P.O. Box 2069
Ind. Riv. Farms Co. Sub. PBS
Vero Beach, FL 32961
2) l2 E 13.94 A of TR 16
000
W
3. Caldwell, William W.
744 Beachland Blvd.
3132 39 00001 0150 00002.0
Ind. Riv. Farms Co. Sub. PBS
19.46
$866.86867
$16,869.26
Vero Beach, FL 32963
2)12 E 20.32 A of W 30.32 A
of TR 15
4. Pastore, Anthony R & Judith L
31 32 39 00001 0150 00003.0
9.59
$866.86867
$8,313.27
& Hammel, David G & Barbara F
Ind. Riv. Farms Co. Sub. PBS
91 Belchar Drive
2)12 E 10 A of TR 15
Sudbury, MA 01776
(OR BK 490 PP 68 1)
p
0
i
0
26THSTA.WK1
3
;l
1
PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT ROLL FOR PAVING AND DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS
TO:
Walker Avenue (26th Street) TOTAL ACREAGE ........ 149.09
I -ROM 66th Avenue TO Village Green Phase II COST TO PROPERTY OWNERS .... $129,241.45
PROJECT NO. 8528 COST PER ACRE ........... $866.86867
NAME & ADDRESS
S. Vero Beach Jaycees Inc.
P.O. Box 1671
Vero Beach, FL 32961-1671
6. Adamson, James R & Lora H
6760 26th Street
Vero Beach, FL 32960
7. Vista Prop of Vero Beach Inc
100 Vista Royale Blvd.
l0
i Vero Beach, FL 32962
00 F
tr'
t
NAME & ADDRESS
Vista Prop of Vero Beach Inc.
(Continued)
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
3132 39 00001 0160 00001.0
Ind. Riv. Farms Co. Sub. PBS
2}12W 10AofTR 16
3132 39 00001 0160 00002.0
Ind. Riv. Farms Co. Sub. PBS
2-12 E 13.94 A of W 23.94 A
of TR 16
06 33 39 00006 0000 00000.2
The South 1260 feet of the
North 1290 feet of the West
2577.52 feet of the NE 1/4 of
Section 6, Township 33 South,
Range 39 East, according to
the last general plat of the
lands of the Indian River Farms
Company recorded in Plat Book 2,
Page 25 of the Public Records of
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
St. Lucie County, Florida. Contains
3,247,675.2 square feet
or 74.55 Acres. Now lying in
Indian River County, Florida.
ACREAGE COST/ACRE PRE -PAID
9.59 $866.86867
13.08 $866.86867
ASSESSMENTS TOTAL COST
$8,313.27
$11,338.64
74.56 $866.86867 $64,633.73 COST $0.00
$15,625.00 ESCROW
$49,008.73 PRE -PAID
$0.00 ASSESSMENT DUE
Less Pre -Paid
149.09 $866.86867 $64,633.73
TOTAL FRONT COST PER TOTAL PRE -PAID
FOOTAGE FRONT FOOT ASSESSMENTS
$129,241.45
($64,633.73
$64,607.72
TOTAL COST
On
00
AWARD BID 6069 VERO BEACH HIGHLANDS LIFT STATION #1
REFURBISI MENT - AUTHORIZATION TO PURCHASE EQUIPMENT
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 7/11/96:
DATE: JULY 11, 1996
TO: JAMES E. CHANDLER
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
FROM: TERRANCE G. PINTO
DIRECTOR OF UTILITY SERVICES
H.T. "SONNY" DEAN
GENERAL SERVICES DIRECTOR
PREPARED MICHAEL C. HOTCHKISS, P.E. _P9
AND STAFFED ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEER
BY: DEPARTMENT OF UTILITY SERVICES
SUBJECT: VERO BEACH HIGHLANDS LIFT STATION #1 REFURBISHMENT
AWARD BID #6069 AND AUTHORIZATION TO PURCHASE
EQUIPMENT
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY PROJECT NO. US -96 -01 -CS
BACKGROUND
The Fero Beach Highlands Lift Station #1 was designed and built by
General Development Corporation in 1958. The design consisted of
a wet well to collect the influent coupled with a dry well to
house the pumps and valves; all enclosed within a concrete block
building. Even -though the building is vented, strong odors and
gases accumulate inside the building causing unfavorable working
conditions for maintenance crews. This scenario has led the
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) to ban that
particular lift station design from being constructed, as well as
require all existing enclosed lift stations to be replaced with an
open -design system. This project will refurbish the Vero Beach
Highlands Lift Station #1 to an acceptable standard.
In order to lower the cost for the project by eliminating sales
tax on major equipment, the County is providing the pumps and
control panel. The bid was advertised on June 7, 14 and 21, 1996.
The advertisement was mailed to fifteen (15) vendors. Five (5)
vendors responded. The bid opening date was July 5, 1996.
ANALYSIS
Included as an attachment is the bid tab of the submitted bids.
Florida Design out of Lake Park,, was the low bidder at
$69,090.00. However, they withdrew their bid due to gross errors
in estimates related with Trench Safety (see attached letter). TLC
Diversified Contracting out of West Palm -Beach was the next lowest
bidder at $78,278.00. Attached is a list of similar type projects
they have successfully completed. The budget for construction,
excluding the pump equipment, is $80,000.
99
JULY 239 1996 POOK 98 PA,U,U : 679
ago '08 F,,,i 6sp
In order to interface with the existing equipment, two ABS
submersible pumps and the associated control panel were chosen for
the new station. The cost _for the pump equipment is $11,546.00
(see attached for cost estimate).
RECOMMENDATION
The staff of 'the Department of Utility Services recommends that
the Board of County Commissioners:
• authorize the purchase of pumps and related equipment in the
amount of $11,546.00.
• award the bid to TLC Diversified Contracting as the lowest,
most responsive and responsible bidder meeting specifications
as set forth in the Invitation to Bid.
• approve the attached Agreement as to form, when all
requirements are met and approved by the County Attorney.
MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bird, that the Board approve staff's
recommendation as set out in the above memo.
Under discussion, Chairman Adams asked if we have anything
left over from other projects to do the fence, and Utilities
Director Terry Pinto stated that he would look into that.
Chairman Adams also questioned the price of the sod on a
square foot basis because the price seemed very high to her. She
requested staff to look into the County's annual bid for sod.
Director Pinto suggested that we go ahead with the contract
and if we see that we can decrease the cost of the sod, we will do
a change order and bring it back to the Board.
THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION. The Motion was
approved by a vote of 4-0, Commissioner Tippin having
temporarily left the room.
AGREEMENT IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD
100
JULY 239 1996
LAURELWOOD FORCE MAIN AND LIFT STATION
DATE:
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 7/12/96:
JULY 12, 1996
win
TO: JAMES E. CHANDLER
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
FROM: TERRANCE G. PINT
DIRECTOR OF UTI VICES
PREPARED ROBERT O. WISEMEN, P.E.
AND STAFFED ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEER
BY: DEPARTMENT OF UTILITY SERVICES
SUBJECT: LAURELWOOD FORCE MAIN AND LIFT STATION UP-GJRADE
PHASE I - 27TH AVENUE FORCE MAIN
CHANGE ORDER NO. 1
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY PROJECT NO. US -96 -03 -CS
BACKGROUND
On May 28, 1996, the Board of County Commissioners awarded the
construction of Phase I, of the.27th Avenue force main project to
Treasure Coast Contracting, Inc., in the amount of $121,724.70.
The construction is 80% complete. Field change orders were given
to the contractor to adjust the location of the force main due to
conflicts with existing utilities and drainage culverts.
ANALYSIS
To avoid conflict with other existing utilities as well as drainage
culverts
during construction, the force main was constructed closer to the
road. This relocation required more ductile iron pipe instead of
the PVC pipe that was originally proposed. Also the Florida
Department of Transportation requires that a six inch thick
asphaltic pavement be used in the restoration instead of the two
inch that was originally proposed. The total amount of the field
change orders (attached), which includes the relocation of a fire
hydrant, is $28,421.20. This adjusts the contract amount to
$150,145.90.
The staff of the Department of Utility Services recommends approval
of Change Order No. 1, in the amount of $28,421.20 which adjusts
the contract amount to $150,145.90.
101
JULY 23, 1996 BOOK 98 F'u.681
P00K. 98 PACE 6S2
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bird, the Board by a 4-0 vote
(Commissioner Tippin having temporarily left the
room) approved Change Order No. 1 for Treasure Coast
Contracting, Inc. in the amount of $28,421.20 which
adjusts the contract amount to $150,145.90, as set
out in staff's recommendation.
CHANGE ORDER #1 IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD
PETITION FOR WATER SERVICE IN PONDEROSA ESTATES
- RESOLUTIONS I AND H
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 7/19/96:
DATE: July 19, 1996
TO: JAMES E. CHANDLER
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
FROM: TERRANCE G. PINTO
DIRECTOR OF UTILI SERVICES
PREPARED JAMES D. CHAST
AND STAFFED MANAGER OF AS S PROJECTS
BY: DEPARTMENT OF UTILITY SERVICES
SUBJECT: PETITION FOR WATER SERVICE IN PONDEROSA ESTATES
UNIT ONE (60TH AVENUE, SOUTH OF 45TH STREET)
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY PROJECT NO. UW -96 -06 -DS
RESOLUTIONS I AND II
On March 16, 1996, the Indian River County Board of County
Commissioners approved the petition for water service and
authorized the staff of the Department of Utility Services to
proceed with the design engineering work in preparation for the
special assessment project for Ponderosa Estates Unit One (60th
Avenue, South of 45th Street) to supply potable water to its
residents.
Design has been completed by the Department of Utility Services
staff. We are now ready to begin the assessment process associated
with this project. (See attached agenda item and minutes of the
above meeting)
A_NALY S T S
Within the project area, there are 25 platted lots and 10 non -
platted parcels from .34 acres and upwards. The 9 non -platted
parcels along 45th Street which will benefit from the
improvement/ service, vary from 1.31 acres to 19.95 acres. The
owners' signing the petition represent 77% of the properties to be
served. The attached map displays the area to benefit from the
assessment project.
102
JULY 239 1996
top
Attached are Resolutions I and II for the assessment project. The
total estimated cost to be assessed is $85,303.50. The estimated
cost per square foot is $0.08640175267.
This project is to be funded through the assessment of property
owners along the proposed water line route. In the interim,
financing will be through the use of impact fee funds.
RECOMMENDATION
The staff of the Department of Utility Services recommends. that the
Board of County Commissioners approve the attached Resolutions,
which approve the preliminary assessment roll /and establish the
public hearing date.
Z"J A G
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Tippin, the Board unanimously approved
Resolutions 96-79 and 96-80, which approve the
preliminary assessment roll and establish the public
hearing date of 9:05 a.m., Tuesday, August 20, 1996.
Providing (First Reso.) 7/5/96(reso/ponderos)Vk/DC
RESOLUTION NO. 96-29
A RESOLUTION OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, PROVIDING
FOR WATER SERVICE TO PONDEROSA ESTATES UNIT ONE (60TH
AVENUE, SOUTH OF 45TH STREET/ PROVIDING THE TOTAL ESTI-
MATED 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. determined to defray the cost
thereof by special assessments against certain properties to be serviced by a
water main extension to Ponderosa Estates Unit One (60th Avenue, south of
45th Street), hereinafter referred to as Project No. UW -96 -06 -DS;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, as follows:
1. The County does hereby determine that a water line shall be installed to
benefit 35 lots in Ponderosa Estates Unit One, and that the cost 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 $85,303.50 or $0.08640175267 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.
JULY 23, 1996 103 9 683
Rco-K F,1r,F
BooK 98 pAu.684
RESOLUTION 96-79
3. A special assessment in the amount of $0.08640175267 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.
S. 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 Eggert , and
the motion was seconded by. Commissioner Bird , and, upon being put to a•
vote, the vote was as follows:
Chairman Fran B. Adams Aye
Vice Chairman Carolyn K. Eggert Aye
Commissioner Richard N. Bird Aye
Commissioner Kenneth R. Macht Aye
Commissioner John W. Tippin Aye
The Chairman thereupon declared the resolution duly passed and adopted
this 23 day of July, 1996.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
Attest:
By Som !L7 1
Fran B. Adams
Jeffrey Barton, Clerk Chairman
104
JULY 239 1996
Time and Place (Second Reso.)
RESOLUTION NO. 96- 80
7/5/96(reso/ponderos)Vk/DC
A RESOLUTION OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, SETTING A
TIME AND PLACE AT WHICH THE OWNERS OF PROPERTIES LOCATED
IN PONDEROSA ESTATES, UNIT ONE, 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, AS
TO THE COST THEREOF, AS TO THE MANNER OF PAYMENT
THEREFOR, AND AS TO.THE AMOUNT THEREOF TO BE SPECIALLY
ASSESSED AGAINST EACH PROPERTY BENEFITED THEREBY.
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County has,
by Resolution No. 96- 79 , 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 35 lots in Ponderosa Estates Unit One; and
WHEREAS, it has been determined that the cost to be specially assessed
with respect thereto shall be $0.08640175267 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 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,
August 20, 1996, 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 roll, 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.
105 98 685
JULY 239 1996 R00K ���cr.
pctll� 98 F,.IJE6S6
RESOLUTION 96-80
The resolution was moved for adoption by Commissioner Eggert , and _
the motion was seconded by Commissioner Bird , and, upon being put to a
vote, the vote was as follows:
Chairman Fran B. Adams Aye
Vice Chairman Carolyn K. Eggert Aye
Commissioner Richard N. Bird Aye
Commissioner Kenneth R. Macht Aye
Commissioner John W. Tippin Aye
The Chairman thereupon declared the resolution duly passed and adopted
this 23 day of July, 1996.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Attest:
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
By
Jeffrey K. Barton, Cler Fran B. AdamsChairman
Attachment: ASSESSMENT ROLL
PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT ROLL
'INDIAN RIVER COUNTY PROJECT NO. UW 96 - 06 - DS
PONDEROSA ESTATES WATER SERVICE (60 TH AVENUE, SOUTH
OF 45 TH STREET)
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
J. D. C.
JULY 1, 1996
PNDESTS1.WK4
106
JULY 239 1996
� � r
PONDEROSA ESTATES WATER SERVICE
PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT SUMMARY
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY PROJECT NO. UW -96 -06 -DS
PARCEL NO OWNER SQ. FEET ASSESSMENT
20 32 39 00001 0150 00003.0
GARRISON
38,000
3,283.27
20 32 39 00001 0160 00001.0
JACKSON INC.
87;120
7,527.32
20 32 39 00001 0160 00002.0
JACKSON
87,120
7,527.32
20 32 39 00001 0160 00003.0
JACKSON
87,120
7,527.32
20 32 39 00001 0160 00004.0
BISHOP
64,600
5,581.55
20 32 39 00001 0160 00005.0
ZIMMERMAN
57,000
4,924.90
29 32 39 00001 0010 00001.0
NOURI
87,120
7,527.32
29 32 39 00001 0030 00001.0
BRACKETT
87,120
7,527.32
29 32 39 00001 0030 00004.0
MILLER
63,525
5,488.67
29 32 39 00001 0040 00002.0
BISHOP
22,649
1,956.91
29 32 39 00001 0040 00003.0
HANEY
17,105
1,477.90
29 32 39 00003 0000 00001.0
LABARRE
14,602
1,261.64
29 32 39 00003 0000 00002.0
QUINONES
14,670
1,267.51
29 32 39 00003 0000 00003.0
JAYNES
17,534
1,514.97
29 32 39 00003 0000 00005.0
CARLTON
17,534
1,514.97
29 32 39 00003 0000 00006.0
ROBINSON
17,534
1,514.97
29 32 39 00003 0000 00008.0
STEELE
15,594
1,347.35
29 32 39 00003 0000 00009.0
SIMON
15,568
1,345.10
29 32 39 00003 0000 00010.0
GILES
15,568
1,345.10
29 32 39 00003 0000 00012.0
HICKERSON
17,651
1,525.08
29 32 39 00003 0000 00013.0
HENDREN
17,417
1,504.86
29 32 39 00003 0000 00015.0
ROSSMELL
23,450
2,026.12
29 32 39 00003 0000 00017.0
MARTIN
17,588
1,519.63
29 32 39 00003 0000 00018.0
NOVAKOWSKI
20,199
1,745.23
29 32 39 00003 0000 00020.0
MORGAN
16,282
1,406.79
29 32 39 00003 0000 00021.0
FARLESS
28,007
2,419.85
29 32 39 00003 0000 00024.0
KENNISON
19,612
1,694.51
TOTAL ESTIMATED SQ. FOOTAGE
TO BE ASSESSED
987,289
TOTAL ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST
INCLUDING ENGINEERING AND ADMINISTRATION 85,303.48
AND AMOUNT TO BE ASSESSED ROUNDED TO 85,303.50
ESTIMATED ASSESSMENT COST PER SQ. FT. $ 0.08640175267
JULY 01, 1996
J. D. C.
PNDESTS2.WK4
�
107 BOOK 9p PA,F687JULY 239 1996
BCC,K 98 Fv"�E 688
rrrrrr
PARCEL # 20 32 39 00001 0150 00003.0 - SQ. FT. 38,000 ASSESSMENT 3,283.27
OWNER GARRISON, EUGENE
2802 SANDERS DR.
TAMPA, FL. 33611
LEGAL IND RIV FARMS CO SUB PBS 2-12 E 100 FT OF S 440 FT OF
TR 15, LESS RD R / W & CANAL
rrrrrrswrwrrrr
PARCEL # 20 32 39 00001 0160 00001.0 SQ. FT. 87,120 ASSESSMENT 7,527.32
OWNER JACKSON BROS GROVES INC
P. O. BOX 307
VERO BEACH, FL. 32961- 0307
LEGAL IND RIV FARMS CO SUB PBS 2 -12 TR 16 LESS
W 10 AC & LESS S 440 FT OF E 960 FT &
LESS E 264. FT OF N 165 FT THEREOF
rrr:rrr •rrrrwrrrrrrrr
PARCEL # 20 32 39 00001 0160 00002.0 SQ. FT. 87,120 ASSESSMENT 7,527.32
OWNER JACKSON, RAYMOND A & ELLA D.
P. O. BOX 654
VERO BEACH, FL. 32961 - 6547
LEGAL IND RIV FARMS CO SUB PBS 2 - 12 S 440 FT
OF E 480 FT OF TR 16 (OR BK 498 PP 846 )
rrr �
PARCEL # 20 32 39 00001 0160 00003.0 SQ. FT. 87,120 ASSESSMENT 7,527.32
OWNER JACKSON, THEODORE & MARY D.
5850 45 TH ST RTE 4
VERO BEACH, FL 32967
LEGAL IND RIV FARMS CO SUB PBS 2 - 12 S 440 FT
OF W 480 FT OF E 960 FT OF TR 16
rrrrrwrwrrrrrrw •r""�r*rr�r
PARCEL # 20 32 39 00001 0160 00004.0 SQ. FT. 64,600 ASSESSMENT 5,581.55
OWNER BISHOP, JOHN C. & ELIZABETH L.
5960 45 TH ST
VERO BEACH, FL 32967
LEGAL IND RIV FARMS CO SUB PBS 2 - 12 E 170 FT
OF W 330 FT OF S 440 FT OF TR 16, LESS
RD R / W & CANAL
rrrwrwwwwwwrwwrr,rwrrrrrrrrwtr*rrr r*"*****r't'�r
PARCEL # 20 32 39 00001 0160 00005.0 • SQ. FT. 57,000 ASSESSMENT 4,924.90
OWNER ZIMMERMAN , JOSEPH
P O BOX 650566
VERO BEACH, FL 32965 - 0566
LEGAL IND RIV FARMS CO SUB PBS 2 -12 E 150
FT OF W 160 FT OF S 440 FT OF TR 16,
LESS RD R / W & CANAL
PARCEL # 29 32 39 00001 0010 00001.0 SQ. FT. 87,120 ASSESSMENT 7,527.32
OWNER NOURI , HASSAN & ANN MILDRED
12622 ALSWELL LANE
ST LOUIS, MO 63128
LEGAL IND. RIV. FARMS CO SUB PBS 2 -12 TRS 1 &
2 IN N 1 / 2, LESS CANAL (OR BK 473 PP 222 )
rrrrrwwwwwwwwwrrwrwrwwwwrwr rwwrrrr rrrrrrrrrs r*tiewswwrr+wrn►r
108
JULY 239 1996
PARCEL # 29 32 39 00001 0030 00001.0 SQ. FT. 87,120 ASSESSMENT 7,527.32
OWNER BRACKETT , SANDRA D.
P.O. BOX 965
VERO BEACH, FL 32961 - 0965
LEGAL IND. RIV. FARMS CO SUB PBS 2 - 12 E 1 / 2 OF
TR 3 IN N 1/ 2, LESS S I A
PARCEL # 29 32 39 00001 0030 00004.0 SQ. FT. 63,525 ASSESSMENT 5,488.67
OWNER MILLER, MARGARET H.
12680 N HIGHWAY A I A# 1- A
VERO BEACH, FL 32963
LEGAL IND RIV. FARMS CO .SUB PBS 2 - 12 N 1 / 2 -OF
W 1/2 OF TR 3 IN N 1/2 LESS S 1 A THERE
SUBJECT TO EASEMENT OF INGRESS & EGRESS
OVER E 15 FT THEREOF
PARCEL # 29 32 39 00001 0040 00002.0 SQ. FT. 22,649 ASSESSMENT 1,956.91
OWNER BISHOP, JOHN C & ELIZABETH T.
4475 60 TH AV
VERO BEACH, FL 32967
LEGAL IND. RIV. FARMS CO SUB PBS 2 -12 N 304.46
FT OF W 130.57 FT OF TR 4 INN 1/ 2, LESS
CANAL LESS S 101 FT
PARCEL # 29 32 39 00001 0040 00003.0 SQ. FT. 17,105 ASSESSMENT 1,477.90
OWNER HANEY , JULIANA C
4455 60 TH AV
VERO BEACH, FL 32967
LEGAL IND RIV FARMS CO SUB PBS 2 -12 S 131 FT
OF N 334.46 FT OF W 130.57 FT OF TR 4
IN N 1/2
PARCEL # 29 32 39 00003 0000 00001.0 SQ. FT. 14,602 ASSESSMENT 1,261.64
OWNER LABARRE , ANTHONY H & DONNA L.
4476 60 TH AV
VERO BEACH, FL 32967
LEGAL PONDEROSA ESTATES UNIT 1 PBI 6 - 81 LOT 1
& N 22 FT OF LOT 2 ( OR BK 448 PP 777 )
PARCEL # 29 32 39 00003 0000 00002.0 SQ. FT. 14,670 ASSESSMENT 1,267.51
OWNER QUINONES, JOSE G
P O BOX 2124
VERO BEACH, FL 32961-2124
LEGAL PONDEROSA ESTATES UNIT 1 PBI 6 - 81 LOT 2
LESS N 22 FT & N 1 / 2 OF LOT 3 (OR BK 42 PP 453 )
PARCEL # 29 32 39 00003 0000 00003.0
OWNER JAYNES , STANLEY E & RUTH
4456 60 TH AV
VERO BEACH, FL 32967
LEGAL PONDEROSA ESTATES UNIT 1
OF LOT 3 & ALL OF LOT 4
SQ. FT. 17,534 ASSESSMENT 1,514.97
E.
PBI 6-81 S1/2
JULY 239 1996 109 BooK 98 P,� F.689
RorK 98 P��r,F ffl
PARCEL # 29 32 39 00003 0000 00005.0 SQ. FT. 17,534 ASSESSMENT 1,514.97
OWNER CARLTON , ROBERT M & PATRICIA A.
4450 60 TH AV
VERO BEACH, FL 32967
LEGAL PONDEROSA ESTATES UNIT 1 PBI 6 - 81 LOT 5
& N 1 / 2 OF LOT 6 (OR BK 438 PP 697 )
PARCEL # 29 32 39 00003 0000 00006.0 SQ. FT. 17,534 ASSESSMENT 1,514.97
OWNER ROBINSON, DANIEL C. & DEBORAH F.
4426 60 TH AV
VERO BEACH, FL 32967
LEGAL PONDEROSA ESTATES UNIT 1 PBI 6 - 81 S 1 / 2
OF LOT 6 & ALL LOT 7
PARCEL # 29 32 39 00003 0000 00008.0 SQ. FT. 15,594 ASSESSMENT 1,347.35
OWNER STEELE , RICHARD B. & ELIZABETH J .
4366 60 TH AV
VERO BEACH, FL 32967
LEGAL PONDEROSA ESTATES UNIT 1 PBI 6 - 81 LOT 8
&N 30 FT OFLOT 9
PARCEL # 29 32 39 00003 0000 00009.0 SQ. FT. 15,568 ASSESSMENT 1,345.10
OWNER SIMON , CHRISTOPHER & JODI
4356 60 TH AV
VERO BEACH, FL 32967
LEGAL PONDEROSA ESTATES UNIT 1 PBI 6 - 81 LOT 9
LESS N 30 FT & LOT 10 LESS S 30 FT (OR BK 454 PP 602 )
PARCEL # 29 32 39 00003 0000 00010.0 SQ. FT. 15,568 ASSESSMENT 1,345.10
OWNER GILES , THOMAS M & TERESA H.
P O BOX 1391
VERO BEACH, FL 32961-1391
LEGAL PONDEROSA ESTATES UNIT 1 PBI 6 - 81 S 30
FT OF LOT 10 & LOT 11 (OR BK 503 PP 608 )
..... ...,►......*..... �,r............
PARCEL # 29 32 39 00003 0000 00012.0 SQ. FT. 17,651 ASSESSMENT 1,525.08
OWNER HICKERSON , ROBERT E & VIRGINIA
4316 60 TH AV
VERO BEACH, FL 32967
LEGAL PONDEROSA ESTATES UNIT 1 PBI 6 - 81 LOT 12
& N 45.8 FT OF LOT 13 (OR BK 456 PP 564 )
PARCEL # 29 32 39 00003 0000 00013.0 SQ. FT. 17,417 ASSESSMENT 1,504.86
OWNER HENDREN , TIMOTHY A & CAROLYN C.
4308 60 TH AV
VERO BEACH, FL 32967
LEGAL PONDEROSA ESTATES UNIT 1 PBI 6 - 81 S 44 FT
OF LOT 13 & ALL LOT 14 (OR BK 494 PP 205 )
110
JULY 239 1996
PARCEL # 29 32 39 00003 0000 00015.0 SQ. FT. 23,450 ASSESSMENT 2,026.12
OWNER ROSSMELL , JOESPH C & CATHERINE E.
4315 60 TH AV
VERO BEACH, FL 32967
LEGAL PONDEROSA ESTATES UNIT 1 PBI 6-81 LOTS
15 & 16
PARCEL # 29 32 39 00003 0000 00017.0 SQ. FT. 17,588 ASSESSMENT 1,519.63
OWNER MARTIN, LUKE N & LUISA
4325 60 TH AV
VERO BEACH, FL 32967
LEGAL PONDEROSA ESTATES UNIT 1 PBI 6-81 LOT 17
& S 1/2 OF LOT 18 (OR BK 496 PP 692 )
.PARCEL # 29 32 39 00003 0000 00018.0 SQ. FT. 20,199 ASSESSMENT 1,745.23
OWNER ' NOVAKOWSKI , VINCENT A.
4345 60 TH AV
VERO BEACH, FL 32967
LEGAL PONDEROSA ESTATES UNIT 1 PBI 6 - 81 N 1 / 2
OF LOT 18, ALL LOT 19 & S 20 FT OF LOT 20
PARCEL # 29 32 39 00003 0000 00020.0 SQ. FT.
16,282 ASSESSMENT 1,406.79
OWNER MORGAN, JEFFREY CRAIG & KIMBERLY ANN
4365 60 TH AV
VERO BEACH, FL 32967
LEGAL PONDEROSA ESTATES UNIT 1 PBI 6-81 LOT
20
LESS S 20 FT & S 54.9 FT OF LOT 21 (OR BK 443 PP 814 )
PARCEL # 29 32 39 00003 0000 00021.0 SQ. FT.
28,007 ASSESSMENT 2,419.85
OWNER FARLESS , GARY
4445 60 TH AV
-
VERO BEACH, FL 32967
LEGAL PONDEROSA ESTATES UNIT 1 PBI 6-81 N
34.90 FT OF LOT 21 & ALL OF LOTS 22 & 23
(OR BK 484 PP 873 )
PARCEL # 29 32 39 00003 0000 00024.0 SQ. FT.
19,612 ASSESSMENT 1,694.51
OWNER KENNISON , BRUCE G & VALERIE
4451 60TH AV
VERO BEACH, FL 32967
LEGAL PONDEROSA ESTATES UNIT 1 PBI 6 - 81 LOT
24
& S 60.4 FT OF LOT 25 (OR BK 399 PP 664 )
TOTAL ESTIMATED SQUARE FOOTAGE 987,289
TOTAL ESTIMATED COST TO BE ASSESSED 85,303.48
_ ROUNDED TO 85,303.50
JULY 239 1996 BOOK 98 Fn ),jf 691
L
pcc� 98 PAGE 692
RESOLUTION APPOINTING VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD
MEMBERS AND PROVIDING FOR PER DIEM COMPENSATION
FOR VAB MEMBERS
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 7/16/96:
TO: The Board of County Commissioners
FROM: William Q. Collins II - Deputy County Attorney
DATE: July 16, 1995
SUBJECT: Resolution Appointing Value Adjustment Board Members and
Providing for Per Diem Compensation for Value Adjustment Board
Members
Pursuant to Chapter 194, Florida Statutes, the Board is advised to:
1. Appoint by Resolution three members of the Board to serve on the
Value Adjustment Board for 1996, with the two remaining members
designated as alternates.
2. Provide by resolution for per diem compensation to the Value
Adjustment Board members. The amount of such compensation is
established by statute if both the County Commission and School Board
elect to allow such compensation. The School Board has made such an
election. Two-fifths of the expenses are borne by the School Board
and three-fifths by the County Commission. An appropriate resolution
is attached for your approval.
RECOMMENDATION:
1. Appoint Board members and alternates.
2. Approve the Attached Resolution. '
3. Suggest available dates after August 21st for organizational meeting
with School Board.
Chairman Adams, Commissioner Bird, and Commissioner Macht
volunteered to serve on the Value Adjustment Board and
Commissioners Eggert and Tippin agreed to serve as alternates.
By consensus, the Board scheduled the VAB organization meeting
for 8:45 a.m., Wednesday, August 21, 1996, in Commission Chambers.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously adopted
Resolution 96-81, appointing the 1996 Value
Adjustment Board members and providing for statutory
per diem compensation.
112
JULY 239 1996
RESOLUTION NO. 96-81
A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, APPOINTING THE 1996 VALUE
ADJUSTMENT BOARD MEMBERS, AND PROVIDING FOR STATUTORY PER
DIEM COMPENSATION. -
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners is required to appoint
three members to the Value Adjustment Board by Florida Statutes, Section
194.015; and
WHEREAS, the School Board of Indian River County has appointed
its membership to the Board with allowance of per diem compensation for
such members in accordance with Florida Statutes, Section 194.015 (1995);
and
WHEREAS, the cited statute requires a specific election from both
the County Commission and the School Board in order to allow such
compensation,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of County
Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, that:
1. The foregoing recitals are hereby ratified and acknowledged;
2. Commissioners Adams, Bird, and Macht are appointed to the 1996
Value Adjustment Board with Commissioners Tippin and Eggert as alternates;
and
3. The above-named members of the 1996 Value Adjustment
Board, or- their duly authorized replacement, may receive per diem
compensation for services provided on the board as allowed by law for State
employees, pursuant to the above cited statute.
The foregoing resolution was offered by Commissioner
Eggert who moved its adoption. The motion was seconded by Commissioner
Bird and, upon being put to a vote, the vote was as follows:
Chairman Fran B. Adams Aye
Vice Chairman Carolyn K. Eggert Aye
Commissioner Richard N. Bird Aye
Commissioner John W. Tippin Aye
Commissioner Kenneth R. Macht Aye
113
JULY 23, 1996 MR 98 FACE 693
J
P00K 98 WA E 694
RESOLUTION NO. 96-81
The Chairman thereupon declared Resolution No. 96-81 duly passed
and adopted this 23rd day of July, 1996.
ATTEST:
Jeffr arton, C1
, j f
SMALL COUNTY COALITION
BOARD OF COUNTY COW11SSIONERS
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
By '
Fran B. Adams, Chairman
APPROVED AS TO FORM
AND, LEGAL
�SUF�FICIE#VCY
BY
WILLIAM G. COLLINS II
DEPUTY COUNTY ATTORNEY
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 7/19/96:
SMALL
COUNTY
COALITION 312 East Georgia St.
Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Legislative Network Tel. 9042243180 Fax 904/222.3683
To: County Commissioners and County Staff
From: Warren Yeager, Chairman, Small County Coalition Legislative Network
Re: !996-97 Resolutions and Upcoming Meeting
Date: July 19, 1996
Time to Adopt Your Resolution of Participation
In preparation for next year, I have included a copy of the Resolution of Participation for 1996-97. The
resolution is being sent to all eligible counties for consideration at an upcoming meeting. The participation
fee is calculated based on the same formula that was adopted last year.
•r
Each county should schedule this resolution for consideration at one of your upcoming commission
meetings and FAX a copy of the adopted resolution to the Coalition Office at 904-222-3663. -
114
JULY 239 1996
Small County Coalition Meeting Scheduled September 18 in Lake City
Enclosed is a flier outlining plans for the annual meeting of the Small County Coalition. We will hold the
meeting at the Lake City Holiday Inn on 1-75 and US 90. We will arrange a bud'et lunch.
Please plan now to have your county represented in accordance with the By -taws. Two commissioners are
authorized to vote on behalf of each participating county. We are currently arra ging the program. If you
would like to have an issue put on the agenda contact Chris Doolin or. Bob Jones at the Coalition office.
(904-224-3180)
Materials Included with this packet
• Copy of 1996-97 Resolution - Please schedule consideration of the resolution at an upcoming meeting.
• Flier announcing upcoming Coalition meeting.
• List of 1995-96 Small County Coalition Officers and Regional Contacts.
• Small County Coalition Participation Report
• Overview of Legislative Response to the Small County Coalitions Issues
• Small County Coalition Operating Bylaws
Summary
Now is the time to organize for next year. I encourage each eligible county to join the Coalition in 1996-
97. The Coalition and our lobbyists have proven that they are effective and reliable in representing our
interests. They are cooperative and professional and have the interests of the small counties as their
primary consideration. With so many new legislators, we will need to have a strong organized voice for
small and rural counties in Tallahassee. I strongly urge your participation!
Dedicated to Small Counties and Rural Issues
Commissioner Macht explained that the participation fee would
be $2500, and Commissioner Bird suggested that we forego it this
year and reconsider it next year. The Board agreed.
Commissioner Macht suggested that we notify them of our
decision.
JULY 239 1996 115 600F 98 u F 695
L__
POCK 98 p4a696
NORTH TUNGLE TRAIL - LIER LETTER OF CONCERN
The Board reviewed the following letter dated 7/15/96:
July 15, 1996
7 4
C
Lier Groves, Inc.
P.O. Box 7
Wabasso, FI. 32970
Chairman Fran Adams
Indian River County Commission
Vero Beach, Florida
Dear Fran,
LLzr
�:r•Irit;t•„ _
_R
. Ernur •Derv,_
R; `Y r�
Future plans for North Jungle Trail have been published in the Press -
Journal over the past couple months. Meetings have taken place with
County officials and representatives from DOT, U.S. Fish & Wildlife,
and Indian River County Historical Society.
The most recent non -publicized meeting took place July 10, 1996
and appears to have included these same previously mentioned
representatives. Plans involving property owners along the North
end of Jungle Trail were discussed. Simply put, the Liers find it
offensive to read about these plans and meetings in the newspaper.
Lier Groves has not been notified of these meetings or sent any
information that may be pertinent. Yet, we are a property owner
along North Jungle Trail which may be impacted by such future plans
being discussed.
We kindly request the Indian River County Commission review this
matter. The Liers hope to be contacted for future meetings and
discussions. It would seem to be of benefit to all parties to be
informed of the situation.
Respectfully,
Julie A. Lier,
Asst. Sec. Treas.
116
JULY 239 1996
177
Community Development Director Bob Keating explained that the
unpublicized meeting was basically a staff meeting with the
applicants to try to nail down which lands were being proposed for
acquisition. He assured the Board that everyone will be invited to
the public hearing.
SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL DISTRICT
Chairman Adams announced that immediately following
adjournment, the Board will reconvene as the District Board of
Commissioners of the Solid Waste Disposal District. Those Minutes
are being prepared separately.
ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL BOARD
Chairman Adams announced that immediately following the
adjournment of the Solid Waste Disposal District, the Board will
reconvene as the Board of Commissioners of the Environmental
Control Board. Those Minutes are being prepared separately.
There being no further business, on Motion duly made, seconded
and carried, the Board adjourned at 11:38 a.m.
ATTEST:
&; Z'� t � �— - -) —
. Barton, Clerk
Minutes approved 9 --DA -9
JULY 239 1996
-tn97a.*,--6
O&Iam'e�2
Fran B. Adams, Chairman