HomeMy WebLinkAbout11/12/1996� MINUTMATTACHED
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
A G E N D A
TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 12,1996
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)
James E. Chandler, County Administrator
Charles P. Vitunac, County Attorney
Jeffrey K. Barton, Clerk to the Board
9:00 a.m. 1. CALL TO ORDER BACKUP
PAGES
2. INVOCATION Stan Boling
3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - Comm. Richard N. Bird
4. ADDITIONS to the AGENDA/EMERGENCY ITEMS
1.
Item
5-B,
Proclamation Honoring Richard N. "Dick " Bird.
2.
Item
5-C,
comments by Commissioner Bird.
3.
Item
7-N,
Wal-Mart Developer's Agreement.
4.
Item
7-0,
Dedication of South County Park to Richard N. "Dick" Bird.
5.
Item
7-P,
AGC Scrub LAAO site changes to be initialed.
6.
Item
12,
Auction of County Courthouse
7.
Item
13-C, general comments by Commissioner Bird.
5. PROCLAMATION and PRESENTATIONS
Presentation of Proclamation Designating November 17,
1996 as Retired Educators Day in Indian River County 1
6. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Regular Meeting of October 15, 1996
7. CONSENT AGENDA
A. Received & Placed on File in Office of Clerk to the
Board:
1)
IRC Tax Collector's 1996 (Unused) Fee Report
2)
IRC Tax Collector's letter of transmittal for 1995/
1996 unused fees as of Sept. 30, 1996, in the
amount of $1,503,985.55
3)
IRC Tax Collector's Annual Financial Report for
FY Ending 9/30/96
4)
IRC Sheriff s letter of transmittal for Fund 016,
General Fund; Fund 112, Special Law Enforce-
ment; Interest Income; Housing of Broward Co.
Inmates; and Multi -Agency Forfeiture Fund in
the total amount of $73,196.23
50QK 99 1-t)v 659
Fr_ I
Buda 99 f-'660
BACKUP
7. CONSENT AGENDA (cont'd )• PAGES
A. Received & Placed on File in Office of Clerk to the
Board: (cont'd.):
5) IRC Property Appraiser's Annual Report
for the Year Ending Sept. 30, 1996
6) Report of Convictions for October, 1996
B. Approval of Warrants
(memorandum dated October 31, 1996) 2-9
C. Peter Zervalis to Request an Extension of Site Plan
Approval to Construct a Single Family Dock Prior
to Construction of a Single Family Residence
(memorandum dated November 6, 1996) 10-13
D. Cancellation of Outstanding Taxes - Property Pur-
chased for County Use
(memorandum dated October 30, 1996) 14-23
E. Declare Equipment Surplus for Sale
(memorandum dated November 1, 1996) 24-29
F. Award Bid #7005 / Annual Bid for Temporary
Labor (Rd. & Bridge)
(memorandum dated November 1, 1996) 30-37
G. Miscellaneous Budget Amendment #004
(memorandum dated November 6, 1996) 38-40
H. Authorization Re: Execution & Recordation of
Demolition Liens
(memorandum dated November 1, 1996) 41-47
I. Request for Chairman's Signature for Local Law
Enforcement Block Grant in Amount of $77,_424.00
(letter dated November 1, 1996) 48-60
J. Request for Chairman's Signature for Church Arson
Prevention Program Grant in Amount of $4,600.00
(letter dated October 23, 1996) 61-66
K. Trash, Junk, and Scrap Disposal Policy
(memorandum dated November 6, 1996) 67-68
L. A Resolution of the Board of County Commissioners
of Indian River County, Florida, Accepting the Certi-
ficate of the County Canvassing Board 69-72
M. R -O -W Acquisition, 5th St. S.W.
(memorandum dated November 5, 1996) 73-76
8. CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS and
GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES
None
BACKUP
9:05 A.M. 9. PUBLIC ITEMS PAGES
A. PUBLIC HEARINGS
1. Sidney M. Banack, Jr., Request to Amend the
Comprehensive Plan and to Redesignate
Approx. 15.02 Acres from M-1 to C/I, and to
Rezone that 15.02 Acres from A-1 to CG
(memorandum dated October 29, 1996) 77-104
2. Thomas B. Hammond's Request to Amend
the Comprehensive Plan to Redesignate
Approx. 15.2 Acres from L-1 to M-1, and
to Rezone Approx. 30.3 Acres from A-1 to
RMH-8
(memorandum dated October 30, 1996) 105-129
3. Jessie L. Baldwin and Others' Request to Amend
the Comprehensive Plan to Redesignate Approx.
4.6 Acres from M-1 to C/I, and to Rezone Approx.
7 Acres from RS -6, RM -6 and CL to CG
(memorandum dated November 4, 1996) 130-154
4. County Initiated Request to Amend the Compre-
hensive Plan to Redesignate Approx. 111 Acres
from L-2 to C-1, and to Rezone from RM -6 to
CON -1
(memorandum dated October 29, 1996) 155-172
5. County Initiated Request to Amend the Compre-
hensive Plan to Redesignate Approx. 10 1. 8 Acres
from M-1 and AG -2 to C/I; to Amend the Com-
prehensive Plan to Redesignate Approx. 118.4
Acres from C/I to PUB; and to Expand the Urban
Service Area by 29.5 Acres
(memorandum dated November 6, 1996) 173-203
B. PUBLIC DISCUSSION ITEMS
None
10. COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S MATTERS
None
11. DEPARTMENTAL MATTERS
A. Communiij Development
Request for a Board Resolution Supporting an
IRLNEP/SJRV;MD Indian River Lagoon Blue -
way CARL Project Application
(memorandum dated November 5, 1996) 204-205
B. Emergency Services
None
C. General Services
None
11. DEPARTMENTAL MATTERS (cont'd ):
D. Leisure Services
None
E. Office of Management and Budget
Interlocal Agreement with Palm Beach Health
Facilities Authority to Enable Adult Communi-
ties Total Services, Inc. (ACTS) to Issue Bonds
(memorandum dated November 6, 1996)
F. Personnel
None
BOOK PAIN
PAGES
G. Public Works
Gifford Park Baseball Field Lighting
(memorandum dated November 5, 1996)
H. Utilities
1. No. Co. RO Plant Contract Inspection Services
(memorandum dated November 4, 1996)
2. 26th St. Water Main Project - Final Pay Request
(memorandum dated November 4, 1996)
3. Correctional Facility Water and Sewer Final
Change Order and Pay Request
(memorandum dated October 31, 1996)
4. Master Plan, Continuing Consulting Services
(memorandum dated November 4, 1996)
5. West Reg. Wastewater Treatment Plant, Change
Order No. 4
(memorandum dated November 4, 1996)
6. Hammock Lakes S/D Developer's Agreement
(memorandum dated October 23, 1996)
12. COUNTY ATTORNEY
None
13. COMMISSIONERS ITEMS
A. Chairman Fran B. Adams
B. Vice Chairman Carolyn K. Eggert
206-219
220-247
248-252
253-269
270-282
283-293
294-316
317-324
BACKUP
13. COMMISSIONERS ITEMS (cont'd )• PAGES
C. Commissioner Richard N. Bird
D. Commissioner Kenneth R. Macht
E. Commissioner John W TinPin
14. SPECIAL DISTRICTSBOARDS
A. Emergency Services District
None
B. Solid Waste Disposal District
1. Approval of Minutes - Meeting of 10/15/96
2. Agreement with Harris Sanitation for
Recycling Service to the Schools and
County Buildings
(memorandum dated October 24, 1996) 325-328
C. Environmental Control.Board
1. Approval of Minutes - Meeting of 10/1/96
2. In -Depth Update on Chip Harvestors Site
(memorandum dated November 4, 1996) 329-333
15. ADJOURNMENT
Anyone who may wish to appeal any decision which may be made at this meeting will need
to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made which includes the testimony and
evidence upon which the appeal will be based.
Anyone who needs a special accommodation for this meeting may contact the county's
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) coordinator at 567-8000 x408 at least 48 hours in advance
f meeting.
Meeting broadcast live on TCI Cable Channel 13 - rebroadcast 5: 00 p.m. Thursday through
5: 00 p. m. Friday
Falcon Cable Channel 35 - rebroadcast Friday evening
BOCK 9 F'�1
INDEX TO MINUTES
NOVEMBER 12, 1996
REGULAR MEETING OF BOARD OF COUNTY CONMSSIONERS
ADDITIONS
TO THE AGENDA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1
PROCLAMATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2
5-A
- Retired Educators Day - November 17, 1996 . . . .
2
5-B
- Proclamation Honoring Richard "Dick" Bird . . . .
3
5-C
- Comments by Commissioner Bird . . . . . . . . . .
4
APPROVAL
OF MINUTES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5
CONSENT AGENDA
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5
A.
Reports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5
B.
List of Warrants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5
C.
Peter Zervalis - Extension of Site Plan Approval to
Construct a Single Family Dock Prior to
Construction of a Single Family Residence . . . . .
11
D.
Cancellation of Outstanding Taxes - Property
Purchased for County Use . . . . . . . . . . . . .
12
E.
Declare Equipment Surplus for Sale . . . . . . . .
19
F.
Bid #7005 - Annual Bid for Temporary Labor - Road &
Bridge - Labor Finders . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
24
G.
Miscellaneous Budget Amendment #004 . . . . . . . .
25
H.
Authorization - Execution and Recordation of
Demolition Liens . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
27
I.
Local Law Enforcement Block Grant - $77,424 -
Request for Chairman's Signature . . . . . . . . .
28
J.
Church Arson Prevention Program Grant - $4,600 -
Request for Chairman's Signature . . . . . . . . .
29
K.
Trash, Junk and Scrap Disposal Policy . . . . . . .
30
L.
Resolution Accepting the Certificate of the County
Canvassing Board . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
31
M.
Right -of -Way Acquisition - 5th Street SW -
Houdyshell, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
34
N.
Wal-Mart Developer's Agreement . . . . . . . . . .
35
O.
Dedication of South County Park to Richard N.
"Dick" Bird . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
36
P.
AGC Industrial Tract Scrub LAAC Site Option
Agreement - Approval for Chairman to Initial
Changes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
36
1
� r �
PUBLIC HEARING - SIDNEY M. BANACK, JR. - REQUEST TO AMEND THE
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND TO REDESIGNATE APPROXIMATELY 15.02
ACRES FROM M-1 TO C/I AND TO REZONE THAT 15.02 ACRES FROM
A-1 TO CG . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
PUBLIC HEARING - THOMAS B. HAMMOND - REQUEST TO AMEND THE
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND TO REDESIGNATE APPROXIMATELY 15.2
ACRES FROM L-1 TO M-1 AND TO REZONE APPROXIMATELY 30.3
ACRES FROM A-1 TO RMH-8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
PUBLIC HEARING - JESSIE L. BALDWIN AND OTHERS - REQUEST TO
AMEND THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND TO REDESIGNATE
APPROXIMATELY 4.6 ACRES FROM M-1 TO C/I AND TO REZONE
APPROXIMATELY 7 ACRES FROM RS -6, RM -6 AND CL TO CG . . . 65
PUBLIC HEARING - COUNTY INITIATED - REQUEST TO AMEND THE
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND TO REDESIGNATE APPROXIMATELY 111
ACRES FROM L-2 TO C-1 AND TO REZONE THAT 111 ACRES FROM
RM -6 TO CON -1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78
PUBLIC HEARING - COUNTY INITIATED - REQUEST TO AMEND THE
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND TO REDESIGNATE APPROXIMATELY 101.8
ACRES FROM M-1 AND AG -2 TO C/I; TO AMEND THE
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TO REDESIGNATE APPROXIMATELY 118.4
ACRES FROM C/I TO PUB; AND TO EXPAND THE URBAN SERVICE
AREA BY 29.5 ACRES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86
RESOLUTION SUPPORTING AN IRLNEP/SJRWMD INDIAN RIVER LAGOON
BLUEWAY CARL PROJECT APPLICATION . . . . . . .
. . . . .
105
INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT WITH PALM BEACH HEALTH FACILITIES
AUTHORITY TO ENABLE ADULT COMMUNITIES TOTAL
SERVICES,
INC. (ACTS) TO ISSUE BONDS . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . .
107
GIFFORD PARK BASEBALL FIELD LIGHTING - FLORIDA POWER
& LIGHT -
CITY OF CORAL SPRINGS . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . .
108
NORTH COUNTY RO PLANT CONTRACT INSPECTION SERVICES
. . . . .
109
26TH STREET WATER MAIN PROJECT - FINAL PAY REQUEST -
TRI -SURE
CORPORATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . .
111
CORRECTIONAL FACILITY WATER AND SEWER FINAL CHANGE
ORDER AND
PAY REQUEST - DRIVEWAYS, INC. . . . . . . . .
. . . . .
111
MASTER PLAN CONTINUING CONSULTING SERVICES -
BROWN &
. CALDWELL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . .
113
WEST REGIONAL WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT - CHANGE ORDER NO. 4
- J. J. KIRLIN, INC . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . .
114
HAMMOCK LAKES SUBDIVISION - DEVELOPER'S AGREEMENT
- OFFSITE
UTILITIES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . .
115
AUCTION OF OLD COUNTY COURTHOUSE - KARLIN DANIEL CONTRACT . .
116
GENERAL COMMENTS BY COMMISSIONER BIRD . . . . . . .
. . . . .
117
SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL DISTRICT . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . .
118
ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL BOARD . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . .
118
2
99915" 66 vQ09
November 12, 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, .1
November 12,
1996, at 9:00 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; Charles P. Vitunac, County Attorney; and Patricia
"PJ" Jones, Deputy Clerk.
Chairman Adams called the meeting to order. Planning Director
Stan Boling gave the Invocation, and Commissioner Bird led the
Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag.
ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA
Commissioner Eggert requested six additions to today's Agenda:
1. Item 5-B, Proclamation Honoring Richard N.
"Dick" Bird.
2. Item 5-C, Comments by Commissioner Bird.
3. Item 7-N, Wal-Mart Developer's Agreement.
4. Item 7-0, Dedication of South County Park to Richard N.
"Dick" Bird.
5.
Item
7-P,
AGC Scrub
LAAC Site
Changes to be Initialed.
6.
Item
12,
Auction of
Old County
Courthouse.
Commissioner Bird requested the addition of Item 13-C, general
comments.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously added the
above items to the Agenda.
NOVEMBER 12, 1996
1
800K 99 pg�
0,666
BOOK 99 PAu 667
PROCLAMATIONS
5-A - Retired Educators Day - November 17, 1996
Chairman Adams presented the Proclamation to Dan Thweatt.
Dan Thweatt, President of Indian River County Chapter of
Florida Retired Educators, accepted the award in recognition of all
retired educators. Mr. Thweatt reported that retired educators
volunteer in many areas in the community. From June to September
of 1996, his group volunteered 4,786 service hours, including
representation before the Legislature resulting in a 3% increase to
retired employees each year.
PROCLAMATION
DESIGNATING NOVEMBER 17, 1996 AS
RETIRED EDUCATORS DAY
IN INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
WHEREAS, the educational system within our county and state is
a vital part of our society, providing education for young and old
alike; and
WHEREAS, from this system comes many of our professional
people, including lawyers, doctors, business administrators and
others; and
WHEREAS, a very important part of the educational system is
the educator who spends much time conveying his or her knowledge to
the students; and
WHEREAS, we have many retired educators living in our county
who have spent most of their lives giving of themselves to this
system and its students; and
WHEREAS, the Retired Educators of Florida plan to celebrate a
State Retired Educators Day on November 17, 1996 in honor of those
years of service:
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT PROCLAIMED BY THE INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS that November 17, 1996 be designated
as
RETIRED EDUCATORS DAY
in Indian River County, and the Board urges all residents to join
in saluting the retired educators for their valuable contributions
to our educational system.
Dated this 12 day of November, 1996.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
Fran B. Adams, Chairman
NOVEMBER 12, 1996 2
5-B - Proclamation Honoring Richard "Dick" Bird
Chairman Adams, in honor of his last meeting as a sitting
Commissioner, presented Commissioner Bird with the following
Proclamation and Retirement Award, as well as a birthday gift and
cake as today is also his birthday:
Arl
WHEREAS, nia4ARD N. "DICK" BIRD has announccb his retirementfrom tale lnbian River
Count4 Coarb of Counttt Commissioners. anb we wish to express our appreciation for his outstanbins career
on behalf of local Sovernment: anb
WHEREAS, DiCK was elected bt, the citizens of inbian River Countti to the Doarb of Countm
Commissioners in November. 1980. anb he was clecteb Chairman of the Boarb b4 his fellow Commissioners
in 19S.1991 anb 1993: anb
WHEREAS, listeb below are some of his accomplishments burins his tenure as Count4
Commissioner, he serveb with bistinction as Chairman of the Marine AbvisorM Narrows Watersheb Action
Committee. Countti Parks anb Recreation Committee. Deach Acquisition Committee. Fairgrounbe Abvisorti
Committee. Firearms Range Committee. Count4 Golf Course Feasibiiit4 Stub, Committee. anb was a member
of the Private inbus" Council. Co"-wibe Recreation Stubti Committee: Count, Fair Association Boarb of
Directors: PropertH Appraisal Abjustment Boars. Cit4 of Vero Beach Recreation Committee. Ciwcou"N Dicttcic
Path Committee. Council of the Governors Constituent for Chtlbren: AbvisoN Committee for the Center for
Dusiness Development: Metropolitan Planning Committee.lnblan River Arts Council. Vpper St johns Technical
Abvisor4 Committee: Vpper St johns Recreation Abvisorti Council anb the Treasure Coast Regional liannins
Council: anb
WHEREAS. DiCK assisteb in the planning. bevelopment anb successful completion of both
Count,-owneb Sanbribse Golf Club courses: he also heapeb in the planning anb bevelopment of the Gifforb
Park South C0unt4 Regional Park. Golben Sanbs anb Treasure Shores Parks: he assisteb in the aboption of the
lnbian River Count, Comprehensive l.anb We Plan anb the t.anb Development Regulations. anb aibcb the
Gifforb communit4 in acquiring the Gifforb CommunitH Center. anb
WHEREAS, he has workeb bilige►niti to improve municipavcount4 recreation anb bevelopeb
our cunvWparks sMstem for the enjotiment of our ree bents anb tourists. DiCK also participateb in marti civic
organizations to afforb a better waM of life to the people living in lnbian River Cow"N:
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT PROCLAIMED bm tic Doarb of CountM Commissioners
of lnbian River Count4. Floriba that the Boarb expresses its beep appreciation for the services RICHARD N.
'DICK' BIRD has performeb on behalf of lnbian River Countm anb his matni accomplishments are a tribute
to his bebication to public service.
BE iT PVRTH£R PROCLAIMED that our heartfelt wishes for his success in future
cnbeavors So with him.
Dateb this a bail of November. 1996.
BOARD OF COVNTV COMMISSIONERS
INDIAN RIVER COVNTY, FLORIDA
`6 OA-"�A
I=ran B. Abarrts. Chaitwvtart
NOVEMBER 12, 1996 3��� P�a16,68
M0A
JnbiFm Tstwer (EMMtLIlk�w Xe" 9",Wa
chis to to certifg that
is herebg presenteb this
for outstanbing performance ana faithful
service to
for Mkrlewn, gears of service
an this 1s1� bag !�Ydvewza 1g 9s
Fran B. Adams, Chairman
Board of Cpunty Commissioner&
99 iAu3
Commissioner Bird's wife, Wendy, introduced the Bird family to
the audience.
Alma Lee Loy, a former county commissioner, praised
Commissioner Bird as a very special man who contributed to building
a better Indian River County through his many and varied
contributions, especially his perseverance and expertise in the
area of parks. Ms. Loy thanked Commissioner Bird for his efforts
and wished him good luck as he continues accepting challenges.
Commissioner Bird responded that he had just followed Ms.
Loy's lead.
5-C - Comments by Commissioner Bird
Commissioner Bird expressed his thanks to the people of Indian
River County. He felt it had been a great honor to serve them for
16 years.
NOVEMBER 12, 1996 4
Commissioner Bird also expressed his thanks to the dedicated,
hardworking staff who helped him to accomplish all his goals and
wished good luck to the remaining and new commissioners.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
The Chairman asked if there were any corrections or additions
to the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of October 15, 1996. There
were none.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by
Commissioner Eggert, the Board unanimously approved
the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of October 15,
1996, as written.
CONSENT AGENDA
Commissioner Bird requested that Item 7-M be pulled for
discussion.
A. Reports
Received and placed on file in the office of the Clerk to the
Board:
1. Indian River County Tax Collector's 1996
(Unused) Fee Report.
2. Indian River County Tax Collector's letter of transmittal
for 1995/1996 unused fees as of September 30, 1996, in
the amount of $1,503,985.55.
3. Indian River County Tax Collector's Annual Financial
Report for Fiscal Year Ending 9/30/96.
4. Indian River County Sheriff's letter of transmittal for
Fund 016, General Fund; Fund 112, Special Law
Enforcement; Interest Income; Housing of Broward County
Inmates; and Multi -Agency Forfeiture Fund in the total
amount of $73,196.23.
5. Indian River County Property Appraiser's Annual Report
for the Year ending September 30, 1996.
6. Report of Convictions for October, 1996.
B. List of Warrants
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of October 31, 1996:
NOVEMBER 12, 1996 5 ma 7
Boot 9 w -,E 671
TO: HONORABLE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
DATE: OCTOBER 31, 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 October 25 to October 31, 1996.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Tippin, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously approved
the list of Warrants as issued by the Clerk to the
Board for the period from October 25, 1996 through
October 31, 1996, as recommended by staff.
CHECK
NAME
CHECK
CHECK
NUMBER
DATE
AMOUNT
0017968
RODDENBERRY, ALFRED
10/25/96
516.28
0017969
SMITH, BRADFORD DDS
10/25/96
166.00
0017970
BARTON, JEFFREY K -CLERK
10/28/96
97.60
0017971
BARTON, JEFFREY K -CLERK
10/28/96
89.55
0017972
ATLANTIC COASTAL TITLE CORP
10/28/96
60.00
0017973
ATLANTIC COASTAL TITLE CORP
10/28/96
59.00
0203586
HODDE, STEVE
5/30/96
.00
0210118
ADAMS, DONALD S AND EDITH B
10/01/96
.00
0211363
SCHARF, ALAN F
10/17/96
.00
0211934
A B C- C L I 0, INC
10/31/96
114.06
0211935
AERO PRODUCTS CORP
10/31/96
230.75
0211936
ARMFIELD-WAGNER APPRAISAL
10/31/96
150.00
0211937
AT YOUR SERVICE
10/31/96
726.08
0211938
ATCO TOOL SUPPLY
10/31/96
129.04
0211939
A M BEST COMPANY
10/31/96
804.95
0211940
AGRICULTURE RESOURCES AND
10/31/96
128.85
0211941
A T & T
10/31/96
47.87
0211942
ALL FLORIDA BEVERAGE & OFFICE
10/31/96
56.10
0211943
AMERICAN SOCIETY OF CIVIL
10/31/96
140.00
0211944
AMERICAN AIR FILTER
10/31/96
1,643.52
0211945
ADAMS, COOGLER, WATSON &
10/31/96
114.20
0211946
A T & T
10/31/96
47.08
0211947
ALLIED MEDICAL SERVICES
10/31/96
91.88
0211948
ADAMS, DONALD S AND EDITH -8
10/31/96
258.00
0211949
AMERICAN LIBRARY PREVIEW
10/31/96
689.58
0211950
ATTENDING PHYSICIAN STATEMENTS
10/31/96
20.01
0211951
ATLANTIC COASTAL TITLE CORP
10/31/96
124.00
0211952
AMERICAN LIBRARY ASSOCIATION
10/31/96
675.91
0211953
ALLEN, CHERI
10/31/96
162.69
0211954
ALLCOMM NETWORKS INC
10/31/96
44,640.50
0211955
BAKER & TAYLOR, INC
10/31/96
2,235.91
0211956
BARTON, JEFFREY K -CLERK
10/31/96
216.00
0211957
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
10/31/96
3,800.42
0211958
BLACKHAWK QUARRY COMPANY
10/31/96
112.22
0211959
BRUGNOLI, ROBERT J PHD
10/31/96
300.00
0211960
BELLSOUTH MOBILITY_
10/31/96
50.76
0211961
BARTON, JEFFREY K- CLERK
10/31/96
169,574.50
0211962
BARTON, JEFFREY K -CLERK
10/31/96
7,171.75
0211963
BARTON, JEFFREY K -CLERK
10/31/96
6.00
NOVEMBER 12, 1996
6
m m m
CHECK
NAME
CHECK
CHECK
NUMBER
DATE
AMOUNT
0211964
BRODART CO
10/31/96
12.71
0211965
BLAIS ELECTRIC, INC
10/31/96
134.20
0211966
BILLING SERVICE, INC
10/31/96
60.55
0211967
BESANCON, MARK
10/31/96
30.00
0211968
BARLOW, MYONG HUI
10/31/96
300.00
0211969
BOOKS ON TAPE
10/31/96
627.98
-0211970
BAKER & TAYLOR ENTERTAINMENT
10/31/96
32.24
0211971
BELLSOUTH
10/31/96
6,596.43
0211972
BEAZER HOMES FLORIDA, INC
10/31/96
762.50
0211973
BASSOFF, JESSICA
10/31/96
40.38
0211974
BREVARD COUNTY BCC
10/31/96
53.40
0211975
BARKER, BONNIE
10/31/96
26.45
0211976
BRAUGHTON, DON
10/31/96
30.00
0211977
CARTER ASSOCIATES, INC
10/31/96
14,616.39
0211978
CHANDLER EQUIPMENT CO, INC
10/31/96
573.92
0211979
CLEMENTS PEST CONTROL
10/31/96
19.00
0211980
COLLINS, WILLIAM G II
10/31/96
110.29
0211981
COMMUNICATIONS INT, INC
10/31/96
1,070.48
0211982
CONSOLIDATED ELECTRIC SUPPLY
10/31/96
33.75
0211983
CLINIC PHARMACY
10/31/96
1,544.99
0211984
CUSTOM CARRIAGES, INC
10/31/96
1,428.46
0211985
COOGAN, MAUREEN AND
10/31/96
540.20
0211986
CINDY'S PET CENTER, INC
10/31/96
67.18
0211987
CRAFTS & STUFF
10/31/96
46.00
0211988
CROSSROADS ANIMAL HOSPITAL
10/31/96
15.00
0211989
C4 IMAGING SYSTEMS, INC
10/31/96
1,537.00
0211990
CLIFFORD, MIKE
10/31/96
275.00
0211991
CORPORATION OF THE PRESIDENT
10/31/96
122.75
0211992
CIT GROUP/COMMERCIAL SERVICES,
10/31/96
1,463.25
0211993
CARROLL, CATHERINE A LILLY
10/31/96
300.00
0211994
CANNON, C J
10/31/96,
150.00
0211995
CENTRAL A/C & REFRIG SUPPLY,
10/3'1/96
18.90
0211996
DARTNELL CORPORATION, THE
10/31/96
59.60
0211997
DAVES SPOR'T'ING GOODS
10/31/96
272.38
0211998
DEMCO INC
10/31/96
490.18
0211999
DICTAPHONE CORPORATION
10/31/96
142.60
0212000
DIRECTOR, KENNETH L MD
10/31/96
675.00
0212001
DOCTOR'S CLINIC
10/31/96
6,406.19
0212002
DUN & BRADSTREET
10/31/96
473.25
0212003
DIXON, PEGGY C
10/31/96
66.50
0212004
DATA SUPPLIES, INC
10/31/96
1,243.12
0212005
DISCOUNT AUTO PARTS
10/31/96
51.03
0212006
FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF
10/31/96
300.00
0212007
DIVOTS SPORTSWEAR, INC
10/31/96
507.12
0212008
DEZZUTTI, JOHN
10/31/96
48.00
0212009
ENVIROMETRICS, INC
10/31/96
2,090.00
0212010
EVANS, FLOYD
10/31/96
25.00
0212011
EBSCO SUBSCRIPTION SERVICES
10/31/96
4.00
0212012
EMERGENCY MEDICINE ASSOCIATES
10/31/96
119.00
0212013
ENVIRONMENTAL SYSTEMS
10/31/96
603.33
0212014
EXPEDITER INC, THE
10/31/96
22.62
0212015
ECONOMIC RESEARCH INSTITUTE
10/31/96
99.50
0212016
ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITIES COUNCIL
10/31/96
2,561.00
0212017
FEDERAL EXPRESS CORP
10/31/96
31.00
0212018
FIRESIDE THEATRE, THE
10/31/96
21.94
0212019
FLORIDA BAR, THE
10/31/96
15.00
0212020
FLORIDA EAST COAST RAILWAY CO
10/31/96
7,419.95
0212021
FLORIDA SOD COMPANY
10/31/96
98.00
0212022
FLORIDA BAR
10/31/96
170.00
0212023
F P & L
10/31/96
11,219.26
0212024
FLORIDA RIBBON & CARBON
10/31/96
1,521.28
0212025
FLORIDA TODAY/USA TODAY
10/31/96
78.00
0212026
FLORIDA TIRE RECYCLING, INC
10/31/96
727.20
0212027
FIRST AMERICAN TITLE CORP
10/31/96
10,000.00
0212028
FLORIDA PUBLIC PERSONNEL ASSOC
10/31/96
90.00
0212029
FALCON CABLE TV
10/31/96
20.90
0212030
FLORES, JESSE
10/31/96
6.00
0212031
FALZONE, MA'T'THEW
10/31/96
35.63
0212032
FLORIDAFFINITY, INC
10/31/96
8,253.50
0212033
FLORIDA AUTO SUPPLY
10/31/96
244.74
0212034
FINKLIN, WILLIE JR
10/31/96
61.75
NOVEMBER 12, 1996 7
99 �'Aa 672
BOOK 99 Ff 673
CHECK NAME
CHECK
CHECK
NUMBER.
DATE
AMOUNT
0212035
FRIENDS OF THE LIBRARY OF
10/31/96
41.92
0212036
FIRE ENGINEERING
10/31/96
24.95
0212037
FAMILY HISTORY RESEARCHERS AND
10/31/96
37.75
0212038
FLORIDA HERITAGE FOUNDATION
10/31/96
16.95
0212039
GATOR LUMBER COMPANY
10/31/96
81.90
0212040
GAYLORD BROTHERS, INC
10/31/96
1,383.26
0212041
GEORGE W FOWLER CO
10/31/96
119.99
0212042
GLIDDEN COMPANY, THE
10/31/96
373.94
0212043
GLISSON & SONS
10/31/96
650.00
021.2.044
GOODKNIGHT LAWN EQUIPMENT, INC
10/31/96
32.10
0212045
GRAYBAR ELECTRIC CO, INC
10/31/96
44.63
0212046
GENERAL MEDICAL CORP
10/31/96
141.24
0212047
GOODYEAR TIRE COMPANY
10/31/96
261.73
0212048
GREENE, ROBERT E
10/31/96
1,736.98
0212049
GOODYEAR TIRE & RUBBER
10/31/96
39.00
0212050
GNB TECHNOLOGIES
10/31/96
349.80
0212051
GOETSCHEL FUNDING COMPANY
10/31/96
400.00
0212052
GENEALOGICAL SOCIETY OF
10/31/96
15.00
0212053
HARRISON COMPANY, THE
10/31/96
73.45
0212054
HICKMAN'S BRAKE & ALIGNMENT
10/31/96
197.98
0212055
HIGHSMITH, INC
10/31/96
66.97
0212056
HILL DONNELLY CORPORATION
10/31/96
90.59
0212057
HOLIDAY BUILDERS, INC
10/31/96
1,000.00
0212058
HERITAGE BOOKS, INC
10/31/96
1,380.00
0212059
HACH SUPPLY
10/31/96
106.35
0212060
HUNT, RON
10/31/96
30.00
0212061
HORIZON NURSERY
10/31/96
18.00
0212062
HELP WANTED USA
10/31/96
361.40
0212063
HAGEN, SARAH
10/31/96
38.00
0212064
HAND, MARGARET KNAPP
10/31/96
300.00
0212065
HILL, MARGARET
10/31/96
261.00
0212066
HEINZE, ELIZABETH
10/31/96
15.00
0212067
HARTSFIELD, DEBBIE
10/31/96
15.00
0212068
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
10/31/96
54,638.75
0212069
INDIAN RIVER ACE PAINT
10/31/96
6.40
0212070
INDIAN RIVER BATTERY
10/31/96
743.90
0212071
INDIAN RIVER COMMUNITY COLLEGE
10/31/96
198.83
0212072
INDIAN RIVER MEMORIAL HOSPITAL
10/31/96
199.50
0212073
INGRAM
10/31/96
300.81
0212074
INDIAN RIVER FARMS
10/31/96
95.00
0212075
INTERSTATE BILLING SERVICE
10/31/96
33.28
0212076
INDIAN RIVER MEMORIAL HOSPITAL
10/31/96
6,593.27
0212077
ROY CLARK
10/31/96
1,275.00
0212078
I B M CORP-DVU
10/31/96
2,685.99
0212079
IZOD GOLF & TENNIS
10/31/96
1,952.20
0212080
IRVINE MECHANICAL, INC
10/31/96
583.16
0212081
INSTITUTE OF TRANSPORTATION
10/31/96
237.05
0212082
INFORMATION/REFERENCE GROUP
10/31/96
1,825.21
0212083
HOMELAND IRRIGATION CENTER
10/31/96
59.42
0212084
JANIE DEAN CHEVROLET, INC
10/31/96
199.40
0212085
J A WEBSTER, INC
10/31/96
36.92
0212086
J J PLASTICS, INC
10/31/96
198.10
0212087
JAY I KISLAK FOUNDATION INC
10/31/96
19.95
0212088
JOBE, JENNIFER
10/31/96
92.63
0212089
KEATING, ROBERT M
10/31/96
92.80
0212090
KELLY, CHAD
10/31/96
500.00
0212091
KIMLEY-HORN & ASSOCIATES, INC
10/31/96
14,869.80
0212092
POWELL, MARY D
10/31/96
11.80
0212093
K & S RIP RAP SERVICES
10/31/96
630.00
0212094
KELLY TRACTOR
10/31/96
211.60
0212095
KING, TOM
10/31/96
30.00
0212096
KURTZ, ERIC C MD
10/31/.96
57.00
0212097
KIRBY AUTO SUPPLY
10/31/96
321.42
0212098
KAPLAN D.C.,KAREN
10/31/96
19.00
0212099
KRIETZKY, DAVID
10/31/96
30.00
0212100
KOMARNICKI, WALLY
10/31/96
85.50
0212101
KNAPSTEIN, CAROL
10/31/96
15.00
0212102
LEISURE ARTS, INC
10/31/96
21.90
0212103
LDDS WORLDCOM
10/31/96
153.06
0212104
LESCO, INC
10/31/96
220.30
0212105
LLOYD, JOHN RALPH
10/31/96
48.00
0212106
MACMILLAN OIL COMPANY
10/31/96
1,368.95
NOVEMBER 12, 1996 8
CHECK
NAME
CHECK
CHECK
NUMBER,
DATE
AMOUNT
0212107
MCCORKLE RADIOLOGY
10/31/96
111.00
0212108
INDIAN RIVER COMMUNITY COLLEGE
10/31/96
15,131.00
0212109
MICKLER'S ANTIQUARIAN BKS
10/31/96
1,667.35
0212110
MILNER DOCUMENT PRODUCTS
10/31/96
890.00
0212111
MACMILLAN BUS INSURANCE
10/31/96
500.00
0212112
MEDICAL RECORD SERVICES, INC
10/31/96
18.00
0212113
MCMASTER-CARR SUPPLY COMPANY
10/31/96
80.03
0212114
M D MOODY & SONS
10/31/96
954.51
0212115
MURRAY,,HELEN LMHC
10/31/96
80.00
0212116
MR BOB PORTABLE TOILET
10/31/96
176.12
0212117
MRI -NET, INC
10/31/96
450.00
0212118
MILLIMAN, JESSE
10/31/96
80.00
0212119
MINOTTY, D. MICHAEL
10/31/96
15.00
0212120
MAYER, ARTIE
10/31/96
30.00
0212121
MAXFLI GOLF DIVISION
10/31/96
300.00
0212122
NOLTE, DAVID C
10/31/96
157,026.00
0212123
NORTH SOUTH SUPPLY
10/31/96
158.47
0212124
NICOSIA, ROGER J DO
10/31/96
1,500.00
0212125
NATIONAL AMBULANCE BUILDERS,
10/31/96
16,697.62
0212126
NAN MCKAY & ASSOCIATES, INC
10/31/96
1,675.00
0212127
NEW HORIZONS OF THE TREASURE
10/31/96
30,249.58
0212128
NOLEN, VICKIE L
10/31/96
77.19
0212129
NORTON, LLOYD F
10/31/96
300.00
0212130
OFFICE PRODUCTS & SERVICE
10/31/96
52.54
0212131
OFFICE PRODUCTS & SERVICE
10/31/96
438.47
0212132
OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS
10/31/96
23.16
0212133
OFFICE DEPOT, INC
10/31/96
1,002.44
0212134
OCLC FOREST PRESS
10/31/96
650.00
0212135
O'BRIEN, DAVID
10/31/96
33.00
0212136
PAN AMERICAN ENG CO
10/31/96
500.00
0212137
PARKS RENTAL
10/31/96
205.61
0212138
PERKINS DRUG, INC
10/31/96
79.34
0212139
PETTY CASH
10/31/96
87.30
0212140
PITNEY BOWES, INC
10/31/96
214.50
0212141
POSTMASTER
10/31/96
320.00
0212142
PUBLIX SUPERMARKET
10/31/96
70.00
0212143
PROCTOR CONSTRUCTION
10/31/96
500.00
0212144
PAVCO CONSTRUCTION, INC
10/31/96
10,048.00
0212145
PARKER, LLOYD
10/31/96
155.00
0212146
PAGE, LIVINGSTON
10/31/96
26.00
0212147
PINEWOODS ANIMAL HOSPITAL
10/31/96
15.00
0212148
PRIMARY CARE OF THE TREASURE
10/31/96
24.00
0212149
PEEK TRAFFIC
10/31/96
612.50
0212150
PARKER MEDICAL SYSTEMS, INC
10/31/96
202.50
0212151
PECHTER MD, RICHARD
10/31/96
21.00
0212152
PROGUIDE
10/31/96
112.51
0212153
PERUGINI CONSTRUCTION
10/31/96
1,570.00
0212154
QUALITY BOOKS, INC
10/31/96
3,462.23
0212155
RADIO SHACK ACCT RECEIVABLE
10/31/96
228.40
0212156
RAWLS, WILLIAM CARLTON
10/31/96
16.35
0212157
ROGERS, WILLIAM J
10/31/96
26.00
0212158
REED REFERENCE PUBLISHING CO
10/31/96
203.25
0212159
RANGER CONSTRUCTION IND, INC
10/31/96
741.16
0212160
R & G SOD FARMS
10/31/96
60.00
0212161
RUBBER STAMP EXPRESS
10/31/96
114.48
0212162
REARDON, RICK
10/31/96
208.00
0212163
RHODE ISLAND FAMILIES
10/31/96
50.00
0212164
RESEARCH INSTITUTE OF
10/31/96
2,431.70
0212165
SAFETY KLEEN CORP
10/31/96
81.00
0212166
SCOTTY'S, INC
10/31/96
1,441.17
0212167
SEBASTIAN BUSINESS SUPPLY, INC
10/31/96
65.22
0212168
SEBASTIAN, CITY OF
10/31/96
150.00
0212169
SENTINEL COMMUNICATIONS
10/31/96
773.75
0212170
SEXUAL ASSAULT ASSISTANCE
10/31/96
4,087.75
0212171
SHELL OIL COMPANY
10/31/96
80.14
0212172
SIRS, INC
10/31/96
3,858.51
0212173
SOUTHERN CULVERT, DIV OF
10/31/96
8,669.78
0212174
STATE ATTORNEY
10/31/96
6,391.96
0212175
ST JOHN'S RIVER WATER MGMT
10/31/96
300.00
0212176
S R SCHOLARLY RESOURCES, INC
10/31/96
140.72
0212177
SIMON & SCHUSTER CONSUMER
10/31/96
1,088.06
NOVEMBER 12, 1996 9
600K 99 E'AGE 6-14
CHECK
NAME
CHECK
CHECK
NUMBER
DATE
AMOUNT
0212178
SCHOMMER, ALAN R
10/31/96
500.00
0212179
SIGNS IN A DAY
10/31/96
119.00
0212180
SUPERVISOR OF ELECTIONS
10/31/96
30,631.43
0212181
SOUTHERN JANITOR SUPPLY
10/31/96
508.42
0212182
SHADY OAK ANIMAL CLINIC
10/31/96
58.00
0212183
STAFF DIRECTORIES LIMITED
10/31/96
75.05
0212184
SORIANO, RAFAEL
10/31/96
30.00
0212185
SEXTON, HILDY
10/31/96
80.00
0212186
SUN BELT MEDICAL SUPPLY, INC
.10/31/96
189.89
0212 187
SHERMPST, ROGER
10/31/96
9i0.08
0212188
SELIG CHEMICAL IND
10/31/96
203.50
0212189
SOLINET
10/31/96
320.95
0212190
STEWART INDUSTRIES
10/31/96
1,503.77
0212191
SHOWCASE PROPERTIES
10/31/96
500.00
0212192
SOUTHEAST LIBRARY BINDERY,INC
10/31/96
779.10
0212193
SOUTHERN LOCK AND SUPPLY CO
10/31/96
110.86
0212194
SESSIONS, ALESIA
10/31/96
205.00
0212195
SOUTHWIND GRAPHICS
10/31/96
25.00
0212196
STAGGS, JANET
10/31/96
15.00
0212197
SHARKMART INC
10/31/96
500.00
0212198
SCHMUCKER, DARREN
10/31/96
30.00
0212199
SAGER COMPUTER SALES
10/31/96
175.00
0212200
TAYLOR RENTAL CENTER
10/31/96
134.65
0212201
TEN-8 FIRE EQUIPMENT, INC
10/31/96
218.74
0212202
TRODGLEN PAVING, INC
10/31/96
5,879.50
0212203
TAYLOR, ED
10/31/96
19.14
0212204
TREASURE COAST BUSINESS
10/31/96
320.00
0212205
USI, INC
10/31/96
55.81
0212206
UNIVERSITY PRODUCTS, INC
10/31/96
145.00
0212207
UNIVERSITY OF MIAMI PRESS
10/31/96
58.90
0212208
VERO BEACH PRESS JOURNAL
10/31/96
99.00
0212209
VERO BEACH PRESS JOURNAL
10/31/96
449.10
0212210
VERO BEACH PRESS JOURNAL
10/31/96
707.52
0212211
VERO BEACH, CITY OF
10/31/96
1,118.13
0212212
VERO BEACH, CITY OF
10/31/96
9,175.00
0212213
VERO LAWNMOWER CENTER, INC
10/31/96
83.45
0212214
VERO RADIATOR WORKS
10/31/96
45.00
0212215
VETROL DATA SYSTEMS, INC
10/31/96
209.00
0212216
VERO BEACH, CITY OF
10/31/96
1,632.80
0212217
VERO BEARING & BOLT
10/31/96
107.90
0212218
VANSTAR
10/31/96
1,801.12
0212219
WAL-MART STORES, INC
10/31/96
888.29
0212220
WALL STREET JOURNAL
10/31/96
164.00
0212221
WORLD ALMANAC EDUCATION
10/31/96
7.87
0212222
WRITER'S DIGEST BOOKS
10/31/96
989.92
0212223
WILLHOFF, PATSY
10/31/96
26.00
0212224
WORLDWATCH LIBRARY
10/31/96
30.00
0212225
WPC INDUSTRIAL CONTRACTOR INC
10/31/96
90,426.40
0212226
WALKER, KEITH
10/31/96
208.00
0212227
WORKSRIGHT SOFTWARE INC
10/31/96
1,500.00
0212228
WOLFE, MEGAN
10/31/96
38.00
0212229
WINTERFELD, GARY
10/31/96
30.00
0212230
WHITTINGTON, MEGAN
10/31/96
190.00
0212231
WRIGHT CONSTRUCTION CORP.
10/31/96
500.00
0212232
RODDENBERRY, ALFRED
10/31/96
516.28
0212233
FIRST NATIONWIDE MORTGAGE
10/31/96
31.50
0212234
TOZZOLO BROTHERS
10/31/96
15.16
0212235
BELLUM INTERNATIONAL, INC DBA
10/31/96
46.07
0212236
JULIN, PAUL
10/31/96
19.72
0212237
REPOFF, SCOTT
10/31/96
11.87
0212238
HODDE, STEVE
10/31/96
40.96
0212239
0212240
CL ARE, LORI LYNN
LEDBETTER, JOHN
10/31/96
10/31/96
105,20
0212241
MCKILLOP, KEVIN T
10/31/96
52.53
105.08
0212242
KASPER, JACQUELINE
10/31/96
40.00
0212243
CROTTY, M PATRICK
10/31/96
120.02
0212244
ESTEVES, MRS ALEXANDER
10/31/96
53.94
0212245
CONK, SHIRLEY G
10/31/96
52.59
0212246
POLK, MYHOA
10/31/96
105.20
0212247
ENGEL JR, JOHN p
10/31/96
73.08
NOVEMBER 12, 1996 10
CHECK
NAME
CHECK
CHECK
NUMBER
DATE
AMOUNT
0212248
PAGANO, GERARD A
10/31/96
105.80
0212249
AUSBY, CYNTHIA M
10/31/96
12.63
0212250
KARSON, THERESA
10/31/96
5.96
0212251
COASTAL ORTHOPAEDICS CENTER
10/31/96
250.00
861,021.06
C. Peter Zervalis' Request for Extension of Site Plan Approval to
Construct Single Family Dock Prior to Construction of Single Family
Residence
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of November 6, 1996:
TO: James E. Chandler
County Administrator
DI ION HEAD CONCUR ENCE:
obe ta ' A
Community Devel pmen7irector
THROUGH: Stan Boling, AICP
Planning Director
FROM: Eric Blad
Staff Planner, Current Development
DATE: November 6, 1996
SUBJECT: PETER ZERVALIS TO REQUEST AN EXTENSION OF SITE PLAN
APPROVAL TO CONSTRUCT A SINGLE FAMILY DOCK PRIOR TO
CONSTRUCTION OF A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE
It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal
consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at its regular
meeting of November 12, 1996.
Pursuant to the provisions of section 971.41(7), on June 23, 1995,
the Technical Review Committee granted administrative permit use
and conditional minor site plan approval to construct a single-
family dock, prior to construction of a single-family residence on
lot 22 of Sandpointe West S/D.
The applicant has filed a request to extend the site plan approval
expiration date. The request was filed prior to the expiration
date of the minor site plan. Pursuant to site plan regulations,
the request may be considered by the Board of County Commissioners.
Although the LDRs have been amended since the time of project
review and approval, the members of the Technical Review Committee
(TRC) concur that subsequent amendments as applied to the subject
project are not significant enough to require any revisions or
redesign of the project. All TRC staff members have recently
approved the applicant's request for site plan extension.
As allowed under provisions of the LDR
a full one year extension of the s9
date. Pursuant to Chapter 914 of tt
Commissioners may deny, approve,
conditions the* requested site plan
objections to the Board granting the
approved site plan substantially
requirements.
NOVEMBER 12, 1996
11
s, Mr. Zervalis is requesting
to plan approval expiration
Le LDRs, the Board of County
)r approve with additional
extension. Staff has no
request since the previously
conforms to existing LDR
ADO PAA � f
mom �Au 677
Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners approve Mr.
Zervalis' request for a one year extension of the conditional site
plan approval, with all original site plan approval conditions to
remain in effect. The new site plan expiration date will be June
23, 1997.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Tippin, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously approved
the request of Peter Zervalis for a one year
extension of the conditional site plan approval,
with all original site plan approval conditions to
remain in effect, expiring June 23, 1997, as
recommended by staff.
D. Cancellation of Outstanding Taxes - Property Purchased for County.
Use
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of October 30, 1996:
TO: }Booa�rd� ofy�County Commissioners
y,4L)j
` 9 "' 1c .
FROM: Lea R. Keller, CLA, County Attorney's Office
THRU: Charles P. Vitunac, County Attorney
DATE: October 30, 1996
RE: CANCELLATION OF OUTSTANDING TAXES
PROPERTY PURCHASED FOR COUNTY USE
The County recently acquired some property and, pursuant to Section
196.28, Florida Statutes, the Board of County Commissioners is allowed
to cancel and discharge any taxes owed on the portion of the property
acquired for public purposes. Such cancellation must be done by
resolution of the Board with a certified copy being forwarded to the Tax
Collector and copies sent to the Property Appraiser.
REQUESTED ACTION: Board authorize the Chairman to sign the
attached resolutions cancelling taxes upon lands the County recently
acquired.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Tippin, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously adopted
Resolution 96-136 cancelling certain delinquent
taxes upon publicly owned lands, pursuant to Section
196.28, Florida Statutes (Dodgertown, Inc. - 26th
Street and 58th Avenue R/W).
NOVEMBER 12, 1996 12
� � r
Re: R/W - 26th St. & 58th Ave.
Parcel $33-32-39-00001-0130-00001.0
Dodgertown, Inc.
RESOLUTION NO. 96- 136
A RESOLUTION OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA,
CANCELLING CERTAIN DELINQUENT TAXES UPON PUBLICLY
OWNED LANDS, PURSUANT TO SECTION 196.28, FLORIDA
STATUTES.
WHEREAS, Section 196.28, Florida Statutes, allows the Board of County
Commissioners of each County to cancel and discharge any and all liens for
taxes, delinquent or current, held or owned by the county or the state,
upon lands heretofore or hereafter conveyed to or acquired by any agency,
governmental subdivision, or municipality of the state, or the United States,
for road purposes, defense purposes, recreation, reforestation, or other
public use; and
WHEREAS, such cancellation must be by resolution of the Board of
County Commissioners, duly adopted and entered upon its minutes properly
describing such lands and setting forth the public use to which the same are
or will be devoted; and
WHEREAS, upon receipt of a certified copy of such resolution, proper
officials of the county and of the state are authorized, empowered, and
directed to make proper entries upon the records to accomplish such
cancellation and to do all things necessary to carry out the provisions of
Section 196.28, F.S.;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that:
1. Any and all liens for taxes, delinquent or current, against the property
described in 0. R. Book 1125, Page 1290, which was recently acquired by
Indian River County for right of way on 26th Street at 58th Avenue are
hereby cancelled, pursuant to the authority of Section 196.28, F.S.
2. The Clerk to the Board of County Commissioners is hereby directed to
send a certified copy of this resolution to the Tax Collector and the
Property Appraiser.
The resolution was moved for adoption by Commissioner Ti , ,
and the motion was seconded by Commissioner Rjrd Rin
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
The Chairman thereupon declared the resolution duly passed and adopted
this 12 day of November , 1996.
J. K. ,B�n, Clerk
Attachment: Legal Description
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
By ��11Q.tic. /3
Fran B. Adams, Chairman
Inaycir
n = ;r �c AGrrovad
NOVEMBER 12, 1996 13 B®0t 99 P�,7
The East 35 feet of the West 60 feet; and the North 50 feet of the South
80 feet; of Tract 13, INDIAN RIVER FARMS COMPANY'S SUBDIVISION
of Section 33, Township 32 South, Range 39 East, according to the Plat —
thereof, as recorded in Plat Book 2, at Page 25, of the Public Records
of St. Lucie County, Florida; said lands now situate, lying and being in
Indian River County, Florida.
TOGETHER with all the tenements, hereditaments and appurtenances thereto belonging or in anywise
appertaining. r63
t0
TO HAVE AND TO HOLD the same in fee simple forever.
AND grantor hereby covenants with grantee that grantor is lawfully seized of said land in fee simple, that
grantor has good right and lawful authority to sell and convey said land; that grantor hereby fully warrants the
title to said land and will defend the same against the lawful claims of all persons whomsoever; and that said
land is free of all encumbrances, except taxes for the year in which this deed is given; and restrictions.
ATLANTIC COASTAL TITLE CORPORATION
A Full Service, Florida Title Insurance Agency
NOVEMBER 12, 1996
14
79RESOLUTION
96-136
This instrument was prepared incident to
the issuance of a title insurance contract
and is to be returned to. ►E TMREyEK 9AASn'r
DOCUMENTARY STAMPS = NpIANq��culTcauril
Leonard L. Spangler, Jr. DEED $1155 ,o'0 ER co., FLA
Atlantic Coastal Title Corporation NOTE $
c
3850 20th Street, Suite 6
Vero Beach, Florida 32960 JEFFREY K. A�RTt1N, f'LERK
n
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
c
a [L:IREP0Rn96023401.WD1I
C
ACTC File Number: 96023401
` Parcel ID Number: 33-32-39-00001-0130-00001.0
ti
GENERAL WARRANTY DEED
Q
This deed, made as of this 16th day of September, 1996, by Dodgertown, Inc., a Florida
I
corporation (as Grantor); and Indian River County, a Political Subdivision of the State
of Florida, whose postoffice address is: 1840 25th Street, Vero
w
Beach, Florida 32960
(as Grantee);
-,
(Wherever used herein, the terms gm tor' and 'grantee" shall Include singular and plural, heirs, legal
representatives, and assigns of irrdhn LWA and the successors and assigns of corporations. partnerships or other
entities, wherever the context so admits
N
N
y
or requires.)
WITNESSETH:
That the grantor, for and in consideration of the sum of $10.00 in hand paid by grantee, the receipt whereof
is hereby acknowledged, does hereby bargain,
grant, sell, alien, remise, release, convey and confirm unto the
grantee forever, all the right, title, interest, claim and demand which the said grantor has in and to the following
described parcel of land, to wit:
The East 35 feet of the West 60 feet; and the North 50 feet of the South
80 feet; of Tract 13, INDIAN RIVER FARMS COMPANY'S SUBDIVISION
of Section 33, Township 32 South, Range 39 East, according to the Plat —
thereof, as recorded in Plat Book 2, at Page 25, of the Public Records
of St. Lucie County, Florida; said lands now situate, lying and being in
Indian River County, Florida.
TOGETHER with all the tenements, hereditaments and appurtenances thereto belonging or in anywise
appertaining. r63
t0
TO HAVE AND TO HOLD the same in fee simple forever.
AND grantor hereby covenants with grantee that grantor is lawfully seized of said land in fee simple, that
grantor has good right and lawful authority to sell and convey said land; that grantor hereby fully warrants the
title to said land and will defend the same against the lawful claims of all persons whomsoever; and that said
land is free of all encumbrances, except taxes for the year in which this deed is given; and restrictions.
ATLANTIC COASTAL TITLE CORPORATION
A Full Service, Florida Title Insurance Agency
NOVEMBER 12, 1996
14
ON MOTION by Commissioner Tippin, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously adopted
Resolution 96-137 cancelling certain delinquent
taxes upon publicly owned lands, pursuant to Section
196.28, Florida Statutes (John W. Tippin et ux -
Oslo Road R/W).
Re: R/W - Oslo Road
Parcel #22-33-39-00001-0150-00002.0
John W. Tippin st ux
RESOLUTION NO. 96-137
A RESOLUTION OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA,
CANCELLING CERTAIN DELINQUENT TAXES UPON PUBLICLY
OWNED LANDS, PURSUANT TO SECTION 196.28, FLORIDA
STATUTES.
WHEREAS, Section 196.28, Florida Statutes, allows the Board of County
Commissioners of each County to cancel and discharge any and all liens for
taxes, delinquent or current, held or owned by the county or the state,
upon lands heretofore or hereafter conveyed to or acquired by any agency,
governmental subdivision, or municipality of the state, or the United States,
for road purposes, defense purposes, recreation, reforestation, or other
public use; and
WHEREAS, such cancellation must be by resolution of the Board of
County Commissioners, duly adopted and entered upon its minutes properly
describing such lands and setting forth the public use to which the same are
or will be devoted; and
WHEREAS, upon receipt of a certified copy of such resolution, proper
officials of the county and of the state are authorized, empowered, and
directed to make proper entries upon the records to accomplish such
cancellation and to do all things necessary to carry out the provisions of
Section 196.28, F.S.;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that:
1. Any and all liens for taxes, delinquent or current, against the property
described in O. R. Book 1124, Page 2079, which was recently acquired by
Indian River County for right of way along Oslo Road are hereby
cancelled, pursuant to the authority of Section 196.28, F.S.
2. The Clerk to the Board of County Commissioners is hereby directed to
send a certified copy of this resolution to the Tax Collector and the
Property Appraiser.
The resolution was moved for adoption by Commissioner Tippin
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 John W. Tippin Aye
Commissioner Kenneth R. Macht Aye
The Chairman thereupon declared the resolution duly passed and adopted
this 12 day of November , 1996.
Attest:
J. K: on, Clerk
r /J-)
Attachment: Legal Description
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
By[��t..-�
Fran B. Adams, Chairman
_ • —T-- rc T96;
,) i
NOVEMBER 12, 1996 15 6
-9—f,
4y,}
4 '
4Z 1
328, 06'
1
CD Proposed R/W o
328,07'
a
a
CD Existing R/ W ru
CD (N.T.S.)
In l(') -
0
M Section Line
Z LEGAL DESCRIPTION-----------------
x
O
W
The North 70 feet of the South 120 feet of the South 5 acres of the East 10
uiazres of the West 20 acres of Tract 15, Section 22, 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 St.
Lucie County, Florida.
Containing 22,964,9 square feet, More or less, and now lying in Indian River
County, Florida.
o1A
hereby certify that I an a registered Professional Surveyor and Mapper PREPARED FOR INDIAN RIVER COUNTY a ^
n she state of Florida, that this sketch was made under my immediate ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT
t it is accurate and correct. I Further certify that this sketch meets the
andards as described in Chapter 61G17 of the Florida Administrative Codotee, THIS IS NOT A SURVEY aj
SKETCH TO ACCOMPANY LEGAL DESCRIPTION W
.S.M Reg. #4094 1840 25th St., Vero Bench, FL 32960
Surveyor (407) 567-8000
Date ,� 0
z
ON MOTION by Commissioner Tippin, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously adopted
Resolution 96-138 cancelling certain delinquent
taxes upon publicly owned lands, pursuant to Section
196.28, Florida Statutes (Mary Ellen Rosenello -
Property Donation).
Re: Property Donation
Parcel #25-33-39-00003-0022-00005.0
Mary Ellen Rosenello
RESOLUTION NO. 96- as
A RESOLUTION OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA,
CANCELLING CERTAIN DELINQUENT TAXES UPON PUBLICLY
OWNED LANDS, PURSUANT TO SECTION 196.28, FLORIDA
STATUTES.
WHEREAS, Section 196.28, Florida Statutes, allows the Board of County
Commissioners of each County to cancel and discharge any and all liens for
taxes, delinquent or current, held or owned by the county or the state,
upon lands heretofore or hereafter conveyed to or acquired by any agency,
governmental subdivision, or municipality of the state, or the United States,
for road purposes, defense purposes, recreation, reforestation, or other
public use; and
WHEREAS, such cancellation must be by resolution of the Board of
County Commissioners, duly adopted and entered upon its minutes properly
describing such lands and setting forth the public use to which the same are
or will be devoted; and
WHEREAS, upon receipt of a certified copy of such resolution, proper
officials of the county and of the state are authorized, empowered, and
directed to make proper entries upon the records to accomplish such
cancellation and to do all things necessary to carry out the provisions of
Section 196.28, F.S.;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD' OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that:
1. Any and all liens for taxes, delinquent or current, against the property
described in 0. R. Book 1123, Page 939, which was recently acquired by
Indian River County by donation are hereby cancelled, pursuant to the
authority of Section 196.28, F.S.
2. The Clerk to the Board of County Commissioners is hereby directed to
send a certified copy of this resolution to the Tax Collector and the
Property Appraiser.
The resolution was moved for adoption by CommissionerT;p pj n ,
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 John W. Tippin Aye
Commissioner Kenneth R. Macht Aye
The Chairman thereupon declared the resolution duly passed and adopted
this - 12 day of November , 1996.
J. K. trar n, Clerk
Attachment: Legal Description
NOVEMBER 12, 1996
17
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
By & c.D
Fran B. Adams, Chairman
ina:n Riva Ca 4rroved Date
Adr n SC? )itqG
Legal n
E �c;aet
D:Gt.
Risk Mgr.
D®9K
RESOLUTION 96-138
j 1
Quitclaim Deed'
kk
t�tn Parcel #25-33-39-00003-0022-00005.0
3i f! p This QUITCLAIM DEED, executed thisa,y- day of 11;5t,
A.D. 1996,
between -
^� C Cn MARY ELLEN ROSENELLO, whose address is 115 South White Horse Pike,
' al Audubon, NJ 08106, GRANTOR, and INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, a political
subdivision of the State of Florida, the address of which is 1840 25th
C Street, Vero Beach, FL 32960, GRANTEE,
=° J W I T N E S S E T H:
'C
'3 That GRANTOR, for and in consideration of the sum of TEN DOLLARS, and other
good and valuable consideration, in hand paid by GRANTEE, the receipt of
which is hereby acknowledged, has granted, bargained, and sold to the
GRANTEE, and GRANTEE's heirs and assigns forever, all the right, title,
interest, claim, and demand which the said GRANTEE has in and to the
following described parcel of land, lying and being in Indian River County,
Florida, to -wit:
Lot 5, Block V of DIXIE HEIGHTS UNIT NO. 2, according to the plat
thereof, as recorded in Plat Book 4, Page 83, of the public records of
Indian River County, Florida.
Note: This property is not the Homestead of Grantor.
TO HAVE AND TO HOLD the same together with all and singular the appurtenances
thereunto belonging or in anywise appertaining, and all the estate, right,
title, interest, lien, equity, and claim whatsoever of the said GRANTOR,
either in law or equity, to the use, benefit, or behoof of the said GRANTEE
forever.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the said GRANTOR has signed and sealed these presents the
day and year first above written.
-ol",
C. <
L&J
W Hess /r1RRY 6r. SC40V T
prints name:
q
W tnesd ieurvi
_/
Miry Ellen Rosenello
printed name: 5#6'ee DOCUMENTARY STAMPS
(t DFFD= b
STATE OF MBW--dERSEY��S""~ \� r , NnTE $
COUNTY OF Q �.,.�r�r`c�� t ( e,�, ` JFFFRFY K. AARVIN, CLERK
NTY
The foregoing
me or produced
INDIAN RIVER COU
instrument was acknowledged before me this ,a S kk day
1996, by MARY ELLEN ROSENELLO. She is personally known
as identification.
APPROVED AS TO FORM
AND�GAL SUFFICIENCY
OKI
BY
y�
BY TERRENCE P. O'PRIrN
ASST. COUNTY ATTORNEY
NOVEMBER 12, 1996
I
NOTARY PUPLtC
e1ig ,
printed name:
Commission VNot I Seal
Patride A. Frey, Notary Public
'�'PMladelphia, Philadelphia County
Commission Expires Jan. 4.199"
18
of
to
-99 pAu
E. Declare Equipment Surplus for Sale
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of November 1, 1996:
DATE: November 1, 1996
TO: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
THRU: James E. Chandler, County Administrator
H.T. "Sonny" Dean, Director General Servic
FROM: Fran Boynton Powell, Purchasing Manage
SUBJ: Declare Equipment Surplus for Sale
BACKGROUND:
The following equipment (attached list) has been declared surplus to the
needs of the County.
ANALYSIS:
Staff recommends that authority be granted by the Board of County
Commissioners to declare these items surplus and authorize its sale.
FUNDING:
The monies received from this sale will be returned to the appropriate
accounts.
RECOMMENDATION:
This list will be included with the Surplus Property Sale open to the public
as per Florida State Statutes.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Tippin, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously approved
including the list attached to staff's memorandum
with the Surplus Property Sale, as recommended by
staff.
COURTROOM D FURNISHINGS
QUANTITY DESCRIPTION ASSET NUMBERS
1 JURY ROOM TABLE, BEIGE FORMICA 7576
1 SECRETARIAL CHAR ROSE FABRIC, 5 PRONG BASE NO TAG
10 HEARING ROOM CHAIRS, GRAY TWEED FABRIC WITH NO TAGS
OAK ARMS AND LEGS
1 SWIVEL CHAIR, OAK BASE, GRAY TWEED FABRIC
2 CONFERENCE TABLES, GRAY TRIM WITH PUTTY
COLOR FORMICA TRIM
5 SLED BASE SIDE CHAIRS
5 CHROME SLED BASE CHAIRS, WICKER SEAT
2 COURTROOM ATTORNEY TABLES
3 TANDEM COURTROOM CHAIRS, BEIGE FABRIC, SLED
NO TAG
NO TAGS
NO TAGS
NO TAGS
7691, 7692
7610, 7612, NO TAG
NOVEMBER 12, 1996 19 BOOK 9 P,4410-1'yla
LIM
cry
cc
rb✓J
ma
PROGRAM m*FfXRPn037%*
wx
wwKliwxwKKKKwwKwwwKKrwKrxxKMKxKwxwwrxwxi
nAT9
11/04/9A
TIME
I
JURY
r COUNTY COURTROOM - "D'•
r
10/08/85 516 ^'
wr FLO ✓ MADISON
1965 JURY
PAGE i
643.75
xxwwwwwwrwwwKrwrwwxxrxrrrwxxxwrwwwwwwwx
-rx 007558-000000 FURNITURE / CHAIR
JURY
CHAIR
7/03/96 4/01/85 P
ASSET* SEGO CLASS DESCRIPTION/
DESCRIPTION/
LAST INV.DATE
AO. DATE HOW
CHO DATE
FUNCTION
FLEET 0 MANUFACTURER
YEAR COMMENT
ASSET VALUE
I.D. 0
JAM 0* ***ON* 4442"#4lk-xi}rw
011MYk wMw}} m*4lAf_*_O".91"k±JiilM**M��M—w i�rrwxMwxxx4yrKxxwxrwwww'�wxKKKAwxrwx#rwwww
K
18314 COUNTY COURTROOM - "D"
M31NifMMMMMifiUtifMMifk.11kN34lft}+�M+iM+s�f..l+litMl!tl+li4++lrM+-4f!llM±�wilitl�l�»>!»+4+�if3�M+�1l+lL�M4Sl+il.M�±LKiltl3!•+kK+lief+lt+
lNiltf+1M!��+�Ktl+lw��+ll�+Stl+lwi�wwxxwwMS�r xw
-•ww-603847-A00046-AIR-HiAi-L-DfiHUi1ZIIIFiEFt-----DEWUMIDIGIiR-------- -----•=.103<V6---W"A
0:;
—S}3 '
-ry S___—.GBCQ-GASIS----
--L981--GViD&NCE R0GD/-4CI-FLOOR-47>
—•—.Oif--802'2040593
•
CARDUCGLr:6LD6-F
19d---3Oi39r@P--P--0862
wr F60 KODAK -
982--MIGGIN6-4,1
- ELIOIOGC�AFMiC-L
•CU664-Si,Lu5-fiRBJE�+...:.
7: o.'f/9d
10 eo92
P—v@t48
.+16
rr F60—KOAK--------�--- -
--1901--JILSS:NG-i.�7r--
--.03-523SY4�--
' ww 007546-000000 FURNITURE / CHAIR
ATTORNEY CHAIR
7/03196
4/01/85
F'
10/09/95
316
4
rr FLO, MADISON
1985 IN FRONT OF PUPLIC SEATING
525.00
N/A
'e ♦K 007547-000000 FURNITURE / CHAIR
ATTORNEY CHAIR
7/03/96
4/01,85
P
10/09/85
516
I" wr FLO ,, MADISON
1985 WITNESS STAND
525.00
N/A
M
xr 007548-000000 FURNITURE / CHAIR
ATTORNEY CHAIR
7/03/96
4/01/85
P
10/09/85
516
rw FLA + MADISON
1985 **NO TAGrw
55.00
N/A
r
r ww 007349-0 FURNITURE / CHAIf.
00000
ATTORNE'! CHAIR
7/03/ 96
4/01/85
P
30/09:85
516 11
I- rw FLO / MADISON
1985 IN FRONT OF PUBLIC SEATING
.+25.00
N/A
rx 007550-000000 FURNITURE / CHAIR
ATTORNEY CHAIR
7/03/96
4101/85
P
10/09/85
516
rr FLO / MADISON
1985 W/*7692
525.00
N/A
4
ww 007551-000000 FURNITURE / CHAIR
ATTORNEY CHAIR
7/03/96
4/01/85
P
10/09/85
516
rw FLO MADISON
1985 IN FRONT OF PUBLIC SEATING
525.00
N/A
.y
a rw 007552-000000 FURNITURE / CHAIR
ATlOR•NE'! CHAIR
7/03/96
4/01185
P
10/09/85
Slb a
rw FLO d MADISON
1985 **NO TAG*,*
525.00
N/A
•d
rw 007553-000000 FURNITURE / CHAIR
ATTORNEY CHAIR
7/03/96
4/01/95
P
10/09/85
516 N
wx FLO i MADISON
1985 W/07691
525.00
N/A
;y
ww 007584-000000 FURNITURE / CHAIR
ATTORNEY CHAIR
7/03/96
4/01/85
P
10/09/85
516 'd
rx FLO / MADISON
1985 W/07692
525.00
N/A
~
W
rw 007535-000000 FURNITURE / CHAIR
ATTORNE'f CHAIR
7/03/96
4/01/85
P
10/09/85
516
wx FLO./ MADISON
1985 W/67691
525.00
N/A
r.
�. wx 007,56-000000 FURNITURE / CHAIR
JUDGES CHAIR
7/03/96
4/01/65
P
10/08/85
$16
f- La + PIRDLSOH
�u
IYkT.'r
a.-rvo•vv
n,n ,ry
r
rr 007557-000000 FURNITURE / CHAIR
JURY
CHAIR
7/03/96 4/01/85 P
10/08/85 516 ^'
wr FLO ✓ MADISON
1965 JURY
ROOM
643.75
N/A
-rx 007558-000000 FURNITURE / CHAIR
JURY
CHAIR
7/03/96 4/01/85 P
10/08/85 516
ww FLO MADISON
1985 JURY
ROOM
643.76
N/A
�� ✓
1
O
N
IC
ON
0A
1�
N
p.�
W
E -
11
I,]
wN FL• ✓ MADISON
rNNMNMNwwYMNwwYwYwwYMYNrYwrwrYY WfwYMNYr
JURY
ROOM
I
PROMAM **F **
r"
w
1985
4/96 TIME
9145105
_
7/03/96 4/01/85 P
r
COUNTY COURTROOM - D" r
-
rr FLi ✓ MADISON
1965
PAGE 2
ROOM
rNrrwYrwwrrrwwrwwrwwwNrrrwYrrYrYrYNwrrN
N/A
510
I. rr 007567-000000 FURNITURE / CHAIR
ASSET• SEG* CLASS DESCRIPTION/
JURY
DESCRIPTION/ 'LAST INV.DATE
AG. DATE HOW
CHO DATE
FUNCTION
FLEET • MANUFACTURER
YEAR
COMMENT
ASSET VALUE
I.D. i
N/A
rNYM wMMMwwNNrYrrNrrNNMwr wrwr rNrwwrwrwYNwwrrNrrrYrwNwwwNMrrwrrrwrrrrNrrMMrr rw rNYwNwrrrMNYYYYNYwYYYYwNrrwrNMYrwMYrwYYYNNrwrwwrrrrrwwNr
rr 0075..68-000000 FURNITURE / CHAIR
1835
COUNTY COURTROOM - "D"
CHAIR
7/03/96 4/01/85 P
10/08/85
rrrwrrrrrNwrYMrwrrrwrrrrrwrrrrrrrwwrrrwrrrrrrrrrrwwrrNrYrwwwrrMMMMMMNMwwrrrrrrwMMrrwYNwwwrwwYwrrwwMNNrrNYrwwwwrwYNNNwrNwwrlfwYMNrrwrr
�e rr FLi ✓ MADISON
rr 007559-000000 FURNITURE / CHAIR
JURY
JURY CHAIR 7/03/96
4/01/65 P
10/08/85
516
rr FL• MADISON
1985
*NNO TAG**
643.76
N/A
N/A
rr 007560-000000 FURNITURE / CHAIR
rw 007609-000000 FURNITURE / CHAIR
JURY CHAIR 7/03/96
4/01/85 P
10/08/85
516
rY FLi ! MADISON
1985
JURY ROOM
643.76
N/A
�. rw 007561-000000 FURNITURE / CHAIR
N/A
JURY CHAIR 7/03196
4/01/85 P
10/08/83
516 >�
rw FLi MADISON
1985
**NO TAG**
643.76
N/A
M
790.00
N/A
r
rw 007614-000000 FURNITURE / CHAIR
Yr 007562--000000 FURNITURE / CHAIR
PUBLIC SEATING BENCH
JURY CHAIR 7/03/96
4/01/85 P
10/08/85
516
rN FLi MADISON
1985
**NO TAG**
643.76
N/A
N/A
wN FL• ✓ MADISON
1965
JURY
ROOM
643.76
N/A
m
1.
rw 007566-000000 FURNITURE / CHAIR
1985
JURY
CHAIR
_
7/03/96 4/01/85 P
10/08/85
510
-
rr FLi ✓ MADISON
1965
JURY
ROOM
643.76
N/A
510
I. rr 007567-000000 FURNITURE / CHAIR
1985
JURY
CHAIR
7/03/96 4101/BS P
10/00/85
Sld
rw FLi MADISON
1985
JURY
ROOM
643.76
N/A
515 '*
rr 0075..68-000000 FURNITURE / CHAIR
1985
JURY
CHAIR
7/03/96 4/01/85 P
10/08/85
516
�e rr FLi ✓ MADISON
1985
JURY
ROOM
643.76
N/A"„
516 ^
�. rr 007571-000000 FURNITURE / CHAIR
JURY CHAIR
7/03/96
4/01/85
P 10/08/85
516
j• rw FLi MADISON
I•
1985
JURY ROOM
643.76
N/A
rw 007572-000000 FURNITURE / CHAIR
JURY CHAIR
7/03/96
4/01/85
P 10/08/85
510
rN FL• ✓ MADISON
1985
"NO TAG**
643.76
N/A
rw 007573-000000 FURNITURE / CHAIR
JURY CHAIR
7/03/96
4/01/85
P 10/08/85
515 '*
rw FLi r MADISON
1985
JURY ROOM
643.76
N/A
r
�I
rw 007575-000000 FURNITURE / CHAIR
JURY CHAIR
7/03/96
4/01/85
P 10/08/85
516 ^
rw FLi ✓ MADISON
1985
**NG TAG**
643.76
N/A
r
rw 007609-000000 FURNITURE / CHAIR
4 SEAT CHAIR
7/03/96
4/01/65
P 10/08/85
516
rY FLi MADISON
1985
IN FRONT OF JUDGES BENCH
1.114.88
N/A
q
ww 007613-000000 FURNITURE / CHAIR
PUBLIC SEATING BENCH
7/03/96
4/01/85
P 10/09/85
St. a
rr FLi ✓ SOUTHERN SEATING
1985
790.00
N/A
r
rw 007614-000000 FURNITURE / CHAIR
PUBLIC SEATING BENCH
7/03/96
4/01/85
P 10/09/85
516
�w NM FLi ,/ SOUTHERN SEATING
1985
790.00
N/A
j
�. Nw 007615-000000 FURNITURE / CHAIR
PUBLIC SEATING BENCH
7/03196
4/01185
P 10/09/85
$16
rY FLi ,/ SOUTHERN SEATING
1985
790.00
N/A
ca
r
r -
cc
wrYMYrwrrNwrwYYrrrYYMYMrYYI{YNMYYYYYMYYw
PJWGRAM YY Yr
w
w
COUNTY COURTROOM - "D"
w
PAGE 3
wwrYMrwrwYYYYYYMwrYYwrwYYrwrrwrwwrwrrMY
ASSET# SEO# CLASS DESCRIPTION/
DESCRIPTION/
LAST INV.DATE
AG. DATE NOW
CHO DATE
FUNCTION
FLEET S MANUFACTURER
YEAR
COMMENT
ASSET VALUE
I.D. #
rYYYYYYYYYYYYY YY YYYYYwYYwwYYYYwrwwYYYYYYYYMMrYYYMYYYYr rrrrwMYMMYrMYY YY YYwYYwYrYYMNYYYYwwrrNrwYYwYYMrrrrYYwwwMYYY YYYYwwwYwrrrwrMYrrrw
1835
COUNTY COURTROOM - "D"
wwrwwwrYwrrwrYawwrwwYwwwwYwwwrwwwwwwrwrwrrrYrwwwrwwwrrwrrwwrwrrwNwrwrrrwwrrrrrNwwrrrwYrrrYwrwYYYYr+�wwY+�NNrYNwwNrwwwwNrNwwrwYwwNwwrsr
rw 007616-000000 FURNITURE / CHAIR
PUBLIC SEATING BENCH
7/03/96
4/01/65
P
10/09/85
516
ww FL#,/ SOUTHERMN SEATING
1985
790.00
N/A
ww 007617-000000 FURNITURE / CHAIR
PUBLIC SEATING BENCH
7/03/96
4/01/85
P
10/09/85
516
ww FL#,/ SOUTHERN SEATING
1985
790.00
N/A
rr 007618-000000 FURNITURE / CHAIR
PUBLIC SEATING BENCH
7/03/96
4/01/85
P
10/09/85
516
ww FLO I SOUTHERN SEATING
1965
790.00
N/A
A
M
rr 007619-000000 FURNITURE / CHAIR
PUBLIC SEATING BENCH
7/03/96
4/01/85
P
10/09/65
516
ww FLO SOUTHERN SEATING
1985
790.00
N/A
wr 007620-000000 FURNITURE / CHAIR
PUBLIC SEATING BENCH
7/03/96
4/01/85
P
10/09/8;.
516
rr FL# r SOUTHERN SEATING
1965
790.00
N/A
1°
M
r
rw 007621-000000 FURNITURE / CHAIR
PUBLIC SEATING BENCH
7/03/96
4/01/85
P
10/09/85
516
rr FLO v SOUTHERN SEATING
"
1985
790.00
N/A
y
l+ rw 007622-000000 FURNITURE / CHAIR
PUBLIC SEATING BENCH
7iO3/96
4/01/85
P
10/09/85
516
�+ rr FLO./ SOUTHERN SEATING
1985
790.00
N/A
�+
d
�rr 007623-000000 FURNITURE / CHAIR
JURY CHAIR
7/03/96
4/01/95
P
10/09/85
516
Nw FLO ,� MADISON
1985
JURY BOX
551.20
N/A
J
Yw 007624-000000 FURNITURE / CHAIR
JI1RY CHAIR
7/03/96
4/01/85
P
10/09/85
516 w
Yr FLO ✓ MADISON
Y
1985
JURY BOX
551.20
N/A
1
ww 007625-000000 FURNITURE / CHAIR
JURY CHAIR
7/03/96
4/01/85
P
10/09/85
516
�+ ww FLS / MADISON
1965
IN FRONT OF JURY BOX
551.20
N/A
:- rn 007626-000000 FURNITURE / CHAIR
JURY CHAIR
7/03/96
4/01;85
P
10/09/83
516
�rw FLOC/ MADISON
1985
JURY BOX
551.20
N/A
w
M
�" rw 007627-000000 FURNITURE / CHAIR
JURY CHAIR
7/03/96
4/01/85
P
10/09/85
516 `^
ww FL# MADISON
1985
JURY BOX
551.20
N/A
+I
Nw 007626-000000 FURNITURE / CHAIR
JURY CHAIR
7/03/96
4/01/85
P
10/09/85
516
N
rr FLS ✓ JURY ROOM CHAIR
1985
**NO TAG**
551.20
N/A
m
rr 007629-000000 FURNITURE / CHAIR
JURY CHAIR
7/03/96
4/01/55
P
10/09/85
516 +`
ww FLO ✓ MADISON
1985
JURY BOX
551.20
N/A
wr 007630-000000 FURNITURE / CHAIR
JURY CHAIR
7/03/96
4/01/85
P
10/09/85
516
rw FL# i MADISON
1985
JURY BOX
551.20
N/A
rr 007632-000000 FURNITURE / CHAIR
JURY CHAIR
7/03/96
4/01/95
P
10/09/85
516 1
I+ ww FLS ,i MADISON
1985
**NO TAG**
551.20
N/A
1
I i
rrwwwrrwwwwwwwrwrrwMwwrYrrrwwN»rWlrwwwr
1 5
IN FROM OF .JURY BOX
PROGRAM rrF G rw
VATE 11/04/94TIME
_
924 i S
r COUNTY COURTROOM - "D" r
1985
JURY CHAIR
JURY BOX
PASE 4
4/01/65
551.20
rwrwwrrrrrwwwwwMNMwwMMMMrrwrrrrrrrwrM»w
10/09/85
N/A
516
ASSETO BEG# CLASS DESCRIPTION/
DESCRIPTION/ -.',LAST INV.DATE
AQ. DATE HON
CHG DATE
FUNCTION 'I
FLEET O MANUFACTURER
YEAR COMMENT --,'
ASSET VALUE
I.D. O
.I
wwwK w�wwrw+wwrwwwwrrrwrwwrrrrwrrrwwwwrorrwrrrrrrrwrrrwwrwrwwwrwwwrrrrw»rwwww»rrwrrwrwwwswwwwwwwwwwrwrrwwwrwwwrrrrrrwwrrrrwrrwwrrrwrr •)
'
1635 COUNTY COURTROOM - "D"
ATTORNEYS TAHLE
7/03/96
4
+f
rw�lrr w rrrwrrrrrw is It
10/09/85
rr 007633-000000 FURNITURE / CHAIR
JURY CHAIR 7/03/96
4/01/85 P
10/09/85
516
rw FLO MADISON
1985 IN FRONT OF JURY BOX
551.20
N/A
N/A
»w 007692-000000 FURNITURE / TABLE
rr 007634-000000 FURNITURE / CHAIR
JURY CHAIR 7/03/96
4/01/65 P
10/09/85
516
rw FLO MADISON
0 TAG**
1988 **?40551.20
N/A
"
21500.00
y
a
rw 007636-000000 FURNITURE / CHAIR
JURY CHAIR 7/03/96
4/01/85 P
10/09/85
51a '
rw FLO MADISON
1985 JURY BOX _— �—
551.20
N/A
I' rw 007637-,(X=00 FURNITURE / CHAIR
_
JURY CHAIR 7/03,06
4/01/85 P
10/09/85
516
ww FLO MADISON
1965 **NO TAG**
551.20
N/A
10/09/85
ww 007638-500000 FURI4ITURE / CHAIR
JURY CHAIR 7/03/96
4/01/65 P
10/09/85
516 +
rw FLO MADISON
1985 JURY BOX
551.20
N/A
`
m
I- rr 007639-000000 FURNITURE / CHAIR
JURY CHAIR 7/03/96
4/01/65 P
10/09/85
516
ha)
m. y
>ma
C:D
O
ca
- -- rte. MADISON
1 5
IN FROM OF .JURY BOX
551.0
N/A
_
t�
' »w 007640-000000 FURNITURE / CHAIR
'� rw FLO MADISON
1985
JURY CHAIR
JURY BOX
7/03196
4/01/65
551.20
P
10/09/85
N/A
516
—-
-
— -
fh
rr 007691-000000 FURNITURE / TAHLE /
ATTORNEYS TAHLE
7/03/96
4/01/85
P
10/09/85
rilb
N
�b rr FLO CUSTOM MADE
1985
2.500.00
N/A
»w 007692-000000 FURNITURE / TABLE
ATTORNEYS TABLE
7/03/96
4/01/85
P
10/09/85
516
j- ww FLO CUSTOM MADE
1985
21500.00
N/A
i± rr 007693-000000 OFFICE EQUIP/FIXTURES
- MISC.
SEAL OF FLORIDA PLAGUE
7/03/96
4/01/6S
P
10/09/85
516
rw FLO HAND MADE
.198;
901.00
N/A
-n+. e�i_nnnee,c nttnrn i rr
FLO
1989
*r* 'c
wlakk473.!0
ZE8 71,03196•-19"31,09-P
---
12029089
510
t0�1UDTn
rw FLO
1989
nunrnnirc:
-PITGRSERV i6E8 7/96
'w GYC 7103,96
4Z-7 CW
3"875 99
R-04/33,90
TVi BAMERAY'PAB,IMIKE
616- '^
___
_LOCATION TOTAL VALUE—
42980.71
TOTAL FIXED ASSETS----
60
0
z
BOOK 99 FSE 689
F. Bid #7005 - Annual Bid for Temporary Labor - Road & Bridge -
Labor Finders
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of November 1, 1996:
DATE: November 1, 1996
TO: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
THRU: James E. Chandler, County Administrator
H.T. "Sonny" Dean, DirectoAs Department of General Servi
FROM: Fran Boynton Powell, Purchasing Managerf�/
SUBJ: Award Bid #7005/Annual Bid for Temporary Labor
Road & Bridge
BACKGROUND:
Bid Opening Date:
Advertising Dates:
Specifications Mailed to:
Replies:
No Bids:
BID TABULATION
Labor Finders
Vero Beach, FL
RECOMMENDATION:
October 2, 1996
September 18, 25, 1996
Nine (9) Vendors
One (1) Vendor
One (1)
HOURLY TOTAL
$ 8.61
$ 9.19 after 09/01/97
1. Staff recommends awarding the bid to Labor Finders as the sole bidder responding to this
Invitation to Bid.
2. Establish an Open End Contract for a twelve month period from the date of award with a not
to exceed amount of $20,000.00. Last year's expenditures for this service totaled $20,717.74.
3. Authorize the Purchasing Manager to renew this contract subject to satisfactory performance,
zero cost increase, vendor acceptance, and the determination that renewal is in the best interest of
the County.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Tippin, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously awarded Bid
#7005 to Labor Finders; approved establishing an
open end contract for a 12 month period from the
date of award with a not -to -exceed amount of
$20,000; and authorized the Purchasing Manager to
renew this contract subject to satisfactory
performance, zero cost increase, vendor acceptance,
and the determination that renewal is in the best
interest of the County, as recommended by staff.
CONTRACT WILL BE ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE
CLERK TO THE BOARD WHEN EXECUTED AND RECEIVED
NOVEMBER 12, 1996 24
G. Miscellaneous Budget Amendment #004
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of November 6, 1996:
TO: Board of County Commissioners
DATE: November 6, 1996
SUBJECT: MISCELLANEOUS BUDGET AMENDMENT 004
CONSENT AGENDA
FROM: Joseph A. Baird
OMB Budget DirectorE�-
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
The attached budget amendment is to appropriate funding for the following:
1. On August 13, 1996 the Board of County Commissioners approved the postage and
printing of information brochures on tax abatement. The costs for this project are being
charged in the current fiscal year. The attached entry appropriates funding for this carry
forward project.
2. The remount of a second ambulance approved by the Board of County Commissions April
9, 1996 has been completed in the current fiscal year. The attached entry appropriates
funding for this carry forward project.
3. The attached entry sets up the budget for the Health Insurance fund.
4. The Economic Development grant is extended through December 31, 1996. This entry
appropriates funding for the completion of this grant's task.
5. The attached entry allocates the funds from the Substancq Abuse Grant. ;
6. At the October 1, 1996 meeting, the Board of County Commissioners approved funding
from the General Fund contingency account for payment of the FRS for funding
Commissioner Bird's retirement at the ESCOC level. The attached entry reflects this
funding.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners approve the attached budget amendment.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Tippin, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously approved
Miscellaneous Budget Amendment #004, as recommended
by staff.
TO: Members of the Board
of County Commissioners
FROM: Joseph A. Bair
OMB Director
: I:1 11 1 121 0 I I
DATE: November 6. 1996 _
Entry
Number
Funds/Department/Account Name
Account Number
Increase
Decrease
1.
EXPENSE
General Fund/BCC Operations/Postage
001-101-511-034.21
$9,663
1 $0
General Fund/Reserve for Contingency
001-199-581-099.91
$0
$9,66311
BOOK 99 FA�,�go
NOVEMBER 12, 1996 25
TO: Members of the Board
of County Commissioners
FROM: Joseph A. Baird
OMB Director (:-
BOOK 99 PAGE 691
11,190-140241 - IN 10 mgllffl�1�4
DATE: November 6. 1996
Entry
Number
Funds/Department/Account Name
Account Number
Increase
Decrease
2.
EXPENSE
ESD/ALS/Automotive
114-253-526-066.42
$16,600
$0
ESD/ALS/Cash Forward September 30
114-253-526-099.92
$0
$16,600
3
REVENUE
Health Insurance/Insurance Charges
504-000-395-020.00
$5,288,731
$0
EXPENSE
Health Insurance/Other Professional
504-127-519-033.19
$1,500
$0
Health Insurance/Other Contractual
504-127-519-033.49
$337,128
$0
Health Insurance/Insurance Claims
504-127-519-034.58
$4,259,800
$0
Health Insurance/Other Insurance
504-127-519-034.59
$390,303
$0
Health Insurance/Other Current Charges and
Obligations
504-127-519-034.99
$300,000
$0
4
REVENUES
M.S.T.U. / EDA Grant
004-000-331-053.00
$9,165
$0
EXPENSES
M.S.T.U./EDA/Regular Salaries
004-223-515-011.12
$6,402
$0
M. S.T.U./EDA/Soc. Security Matching
004-223-515-012.11
$557
$0
M.S.T.U./EDA/Retirement
004-223-515-012.12
$1,777
$0
M.S.T.U./EDA/Insurance-Life & Health
004-223-515-012.13
$2,888
$0
M.S.T.U./EDA/Medicare Matching
004-223-515-012.17
$132
$0
M.S.T.U./EDA/Interdept. Charges
004-223-515-036.99
$464
$0
M.S.T.U./Reserve for Contingency
004-199-581-099.91
$0
$3,055
5.
EXPENSE
Drug Abuse Fund/Substance Abuse
Council Grant
121-110-562-088.69
$20,778
$0
Drug Abuse Fund/Sherifrs Drug Task Force
121-110-521-088.93
$81,993
$0
Drug Abuse Fund/New Horizons
Counseling Grant
121-110-562-088.70
$47,093
$0
Drug Abuse Fund/Teens Acting Responsibly
Global Education (T.A.R.G.E.T.)
121-110-569-088.56
$57,915
$0
Drug Abuse Fund/Reserve for Contingency
121-110-581-099.91
$0
$207,779
6.
General Fund/BCC Operations/Other Current
Charges and Obligations
001-101-571-034.99
$3,282
$0
General Fund/Reserve for Contingency
001-199-581-099.91
$0
$3,282
NOVEMBER 12, 1996
26
H. Authorization - Execution and Recordation of Demolition Liens
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of November 1, 1996:
TO: The Board of County Commissioners
FROM: �/, William G. Collins II - Deputy County Attorney
DATE: W November 1, 1996
SUBJECT: Authorization re Execution and Recordation of Demolition Liens
On July 9, 1996 the Board of County Commissioners adopted Resolution No.
96-76 which provided for the demolition of certain unsafe structures and for
the recovery of costs associated with the demolitions.
Certain of those structures outlined in Resolution No. 96-76 have now been
demolished, and the County Building Official has furnished the final figures
relating to the demolition costs to the County Attorney's Office for
preparation of liens.
Presented herewith are six demolition liens for your consideration. It is
requested that the Board authorize the Chairman to execute each such lien and
for the Clerk to the Board to return same to the County Attorney's Office for
recordation in the Public Records of Indian River County, Florida.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Tippin, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously approved
the Liens to be filed against Viola Rhunette Girven
and Brandon Kiewan; Curtis Lee Brown, Sr.; Thomas D.
Blackburn and James A. Williams; Charles I. Newbold
and Jerylean S. Newbold; Lugene Cobb, Willie James
Byron, Nellie C. Shivers and Clemon Cobb; and Eddie
R. Jordan, Lucille Brown, Carl Jordan, Frank Jordan,
Jr. and Lillie B. Collins; authorized the Chairman
to execute each such lien and the Clerk to the Board
to return same to the County Attorney's Office for
recordation in the Public Records, pursuant to
recommendations by staff.
LIENS WILL BE RECORDED IN THE PUBLIC RECORDS
COPIES ARE ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD
NOVEMBER 12, 1996 27 BOO ��'€
BOOK 99 PAA 69
I. Local Law Enforcement Block Grant - $770424 - Request for
Chairman's Signature
The Board rP,&',Rwed a letter of November 1, 1996:
,Obertff9
* CO :4
GARY C. WHEELER 9 INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
MEMBER FLORIDA SHERIFFS' ASSOCIATION
MEMBER OF NATIONAL SHERIFFS- ASSOCIATION
4055 41st AVENUE VERO BEACH. FLORIDA 32960-1808
PHONE (561) 569-6700
November 1, 1996
The Honorable Fran B. Adams, Chairman
Board of County Commissioners
Indian River County Administration Building
1840 25th Street
Vero Beach, Florida 32960-3394
Dear Commissioner Adams:
Please find attached the award documents for the Local Law Enforcement Block Grant (LLEBG)
in the amount of $77,424.00. This grant award requires a 10% cash match in the amount of
$8,602.00 for which we have earmarked the Broward County Prisoner Revenue monies.
The LLEBG is a non-competitive pass-through grant which will be used to purchase equipment;
there will be no continuing obligation to the county as a result of this grant. It's acceptance
requires the signature of the County's Chief Executive Officer. We are requesting your signature
on three documents: 1) the Award Document, 2) the Special Conditions document, and 3) the
Request For Payment. The Special Conditions, as outlined, will be met prior to obligation of
funds.
I am requesting that this grant acceptance package be placed on the consent agenda of the Board
of County Commissioner's November 12, 1996, meeting. Should you have any questions, please
feel free to contact me at ext. 404, or Sandy Shields at ext. 396.
Sincerely,
v
Gary C. Wheeler, Sheriff
ON MOTION by Commissioner Tippin, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously approved
the Award Document, the Special Conditions document,
and the Request for Payment, and authorized the
Chairman to execute these documents, pursuant to
staff's recommendations.
GRANT DOCUMENTS ARE ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE
CLERK TO THE BOARD
NOVEMBER 12, 1996 28
T. Church Arson Prevention Program Grant - $4,600 - Request for
Chairman's Signature
The Board reviewed a letter of October 23, 1996:
sheriff
GARY C. WHEELER • INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
MEMBER FLORIDA SHERIFFS' ASSOCIATION
MEMBER OF NATIONAL SHERIFFS' ASSOCIATION
4055 41 St AVENUE VERO BEACH, FLORIDA 32960-1808
PHONE (561) 569-6700
October 23, 1996
The Honorable Fran B. Adams, Chairman
Board of County Commissioners
Indian River County Administration Building
1840 25th Street
Vero Beach, Florida 32960-3394
Dear Commissioner Adams:
Please find attached the award documents for the Church Arson Prevention Program Grant in the
amount of $4,600.00.
The award documents and Grant Special Conditions require your signature. Please sign as
indicated and return to my office for processing. If you have any questions, feel free to contact
me at ext. 404, or Sandy Shields at ext. 396.
Sincerely,
Gary C. Wheeler, Sheriff
Indian River County
ON MOTION by Commissioner Tippin, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously approved
the Award documents and Grant Special Conditions
document and authorized the Chairman to execute
these documents, pursuant to staff's
recommendations.
DOCUMENTS ARE ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE
CLERK TO THE BOARD
s
NOVEMBER 12, 1996 29 BOOK 99 i'Au 9
BOOK 99 f.,�� 695
K. Trash, Junk and Scrap Disposal Policy_
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of November 6, 1996:
TO: James E. Chandler
Coun Administrator
FROM: RoA Baker
Personnel Director
DATE: November 6, 1996
RE: Trash, Junk, and Scrap Disposal Policy
BACKGROUND
Attached is a proposed policy regarding the proper disposition of
all trash, junk, and scrap in Indian River County, which shall be
incorporated into the Administrative Policy Manual.
Since no written policy or guidelines previously existed, county
materials were being disposed of by all departments using
different, unorthodox disposal methods.
This proposed policy also prohibits employees from removing any
material from county property.
RECOMMENDATION•
The Board of County Commissioners approve the attached revisions
to the Administrative Policy Manual effective November 12, 1996.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Tippin, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously approved
the revisions to the Administrative Policy Manual
effective November 12, 1996, as recommended by
staff.
SECTION NUMBER DATE EFFECTIVE
ADMINISTRATIVE
PERSONNEL AM -902.1 11-12-96
POLICY
MANUAL SUBJECT PAGE
* TRASH, JUNK, AND SCRAP DISPOSAL 1 OF 1
POLICY:
1. All County materials that are to be discarded as trash, junk, or
scrap shall be considered to be a commmodity capable of generating revenue
for the County and therefore must be disposed of in accordance with this
policy.
2. All such materials are to be taken to the landfill or the
recycling/collection centers or placed in containers at locations
designated for the purpose of recycling or waste disposal.
3. Once such materials are deposited, no one shall remove them from
County property, trash receptacles, or recycling/collection centers,
except in the performance of an employee's assigned duties.
4. Except for those items specifically authorized by public notice, no
material shall be removed from trash receptacles, the landfill, or the
recycling/collection centers.
5. Violations of this policy will be considered an infraction of AM -
801.1, paraagraph 2f, Behavior of Employees, Administrative Policy Manual.
NOVEMBER 12, 1996 30
���
L. Resolution Accepting the Certificate of the County Canvassing Board
ON MOTION by Commissioner Tippin, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously adopted
Resolution 96-139 accepting the Certificate of the
County Canvassing Board.
RESOLUTION NO. 96- 139
A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, ACCEPTING THE CERTIFI-
CATE OF THE COUNTY CANVASSING BOARD.
WHEREAS, on November 5, 1996, the County held a referendum of the
qualified electors on the question of whether Indian River County should be
authorized, pursuant to Section 3, Art. VII of the state constitution, to
grant limited property tax exemptions to new industrial businesses, new
corporate offices, and expansions of existing businesses; and
WHEREAS, after the ballots were counted, the results were certified�by
the County Canvassing Board, which consisted of County Judge Joe A. Wild,
Supervisor of Elections Ann Robinson, and Chairman of the Board of County
Commissioners Fran B. Adams, and the Certificate which shows that the refer-
endum did not pass, was turned over to the Board of County Commissioners,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that the Board hereby officially acknowledges
receipt of the Certificate of the County Canvassing Board in connection with
the above.
The resolution was moved for adoption by Commissioner Tippin . 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 John W. Tippin Aye
Commissioner Kenneth R. Macht Aye
Commissioner Richard N. Bird Aye
The Chairman thereupon declared the resolution duly passed and adopted
this 1 day of N—ember r 1996.
Attest:
Jeffp`—y-ED Barton, rl efk
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
By o lv J�1�
Fran B. Adams
Chairman
Attachment: Certificate of County Canvassing Board
A..
P.
County Attomay
NOVEMBER 12, 1996 31 BOOK 99 fUA 9'
BOOK 99 PAGE 697
Certificate of County Canvassing Board
State of Florida
Indian River County
We the undersigned, Joe A. wild , County Judge,
Ann Robinson , Supervisor of Elections, and
Fran B. Adams
Chairman of the Board of County
Commissioners, constituting the Board of County Canvassers in and for said
A
County, do hereby certify that we met on the 51day of November,
A.D., 1996, and proceeded publicly to canvass the votes given for the
Proposed Amendments to the Constitution of the State of Florida on the
Fifth day of November, A.D., 1996 as shown by the returns on file in the
office of the Supervisor of Elections. We do hereby certify from said
returns as follows.
No. 1
Constitutional Amendment
Article XI, Section 7 (Initiative)
Tax Limitation: Should Two-thirds Vote be Required for New
Constitutionally -imposed State Taxes/fees?
Prohibits imposition of new State taxes or fees on or after November 8,
1994 by constitutional amendment unless approved by two-thirds of the
voters voting in the election. Defines "new State taxes or fees" as revenue
subject to appropriation by State Legislature, which tax or fee is not in
effect on November 7, 1994. Applies to proposed State tax and fee
amendments on November 8, 1994 ballot and those on later ballots.
FOR__ aU-26 votes
AGAINST /0 q Zip votes
No. 2
Constitutional Amendment
Article XI, Section 2 (Legislative)
Constitution Revision Commission; Convening; Duties with Respect to
Taxation and State Budgetary Matters
Proposing an amendment to Section 2 of Article XI of the State Constitution
to change from 1998 to 1997 the convening of the next Constitution
Revision Commission, in conformity with the schedule previously
established by the Florida Supreme Court. Removing the restriction upon
the commission's authority to examine matters relating to taxation or the
state budgetary process that are otherwise to be reviewed by the Taxation
and Budgetary Reform Commission every ten years.
FOR Q� 572 votes
AGAINST 40 3 votes
NOVEMBER 12, 1996 32
No. 3
Constitutional Amendment
Article V, Sections 11 and 12 (Legislative)
Judiciary
Proposing amendments to the State Constitution to allow judicial
nominating commissions to recommend from three up to six persons to fill a
court vacancy; and to restructure the Judicial Qualifications Commission
and permit additional sanctions for judicial misconduct.
FOR Z3. 777 votes
AGAINST /�_ 995 votes
No. 4
Constitutional Amendment
Article VII, Section 9 (Initiative)
Fee on Everglades Sugar Production
Provides=that the South Florida Water Management District shall levy an
Everglades Sugar Fee of one cent per pound on raw sugar grown in the
Everglades Agricultural Area to raise funds to be used, consistent with
statutory law, for purposes of conservation and protection of natural
resources and abatement of water pollution in the Everglades. The fee is
imposed for twenty-five years.
FOR ,Z% K votes
AGAINST 2(; 616 votes
No. 5
Constitutional Amendment
Article ll, Section 7 (Initiative)
Responsibility for Paying Costs of Water Pollution Abatement in the Everglades
The Constitution currently provides the authority for the abatement of water pollution. This
proposal adds a provision to provide that those in the Everglades Agricultural Area who
cause water pollution within the Everglades Protection Area or the Everglades Agricultural
Area shall be primarily responsible for paying the costs of the abatement of that pollution.
FOR 2. votes
AGAINST votes
No. 6
Constitutional Amendment
Article X, Section 17 (Initiative)
Everglades Trust Fund
Establishes an Everglades Trust Fund to be administered by the South Florida Water
Management District for purposes of conservation and protection of natural resources and
abatement of water pollution in the Everglades. The Everglades Trust Fund may be funded
through any source, including gifts and state or federal funds.
FOR 2-1, 2,119 votes
AGAINST 20 votes
NOVEMBER 12, 1996 33 �1
BOOK 99 FpG� 6�3
BOOK 99 PAGE 699
REFERENDUM
Tax Exemption Referendum
Shall the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County be authorized, pursuant
to Article VII, Section 3 of the State Constitution, to grant limited property tax exemptions
to new industrial businesses, new corporate offices, and expansions of existing industrial
businesses?
FOR 'Z votes
AGAINST votes
Joe A. Wild, County Judge
Ann Robinson, Supervisor of Elections
Fran B. Adams, Chairman, Board of County Commissioners
Total ballots cast in Indian River County was 5 for a �2• ��
percent turnout.
M. Right -of -Way Acquisition - 5th Street SW - Houdyshell, Inc.
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of November 5, 1996:
TO: James E. Chandler
County Administrator
THROUGH: James W. Davis, P. E. ,
Public Works Director J
FROM: Donald G. Finney, SRA
County Right -of -Way Agent CONSENT AGENDA
SUBJECT: Right -of -Way Acquisition, 5th Street SW
DATE: November 5, 1996
An additional ten feet of right-of-way is required on 5th Street SW
on the east side of the 27th Avenue intersection.
Four years ago the County purchased a fifty foot parcel from the
same property from Lucinda Eddy at $.84 per square foot. The
property owner is not willing to sell the additional 10' at the
same price per square foot. Instead, he requests $1.517 per square
foot which is the amount paid to Lucinda Eddy, his Grandmother, two
years ago for similarly zoned property.
There are no other expenses incurred for additional appraisals,
attorneys fees, court costs or additional time to acquire right-of-
way.
RECOMMENDATION
Since the right-of-way is needed at this time, staff requests the
Board accept the $8,426.00 contract and direct the Chairman to
execute the contract on the Board's behalf.
FUNDING
Funding is available in Secondary Road Account No. 109-214-541-
067.49
NOVEMBER 12, 1996 34
Commissioner Bird expressed his feeling that this is a very
important project but the initial offer was more in line with
values in that area. He felt the final amount is excessive.
However, the project needs to move ahead. It bothered him that the
County is paying more than the market value for right-of-way
property while the property is being enhanced by the right-of-way.
He did not believe the property owner was justified in asking that
amount and believed that, in the future, when these prices are out
of line, the County may have to go the condemnation route and work
it out in court.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by
Commissioner Eggert, the Board unanimously approved
the contract with Houdyshell, Inc. and authorized
the Chairman to execute same, as recommended by
staff.
CONTRACT IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE
CLERK TO THE BOARD
N. Wal-Mart Developer's Agreement
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of November 8, 1996:
TO: James E. Chandler.
County Administrator
THROUGH: James VV. Davis. P.E.. CONSENT AGENDA
9-1. Public Works Director
FROM: Christopher R. Mora, P.E.. G -,-
County Traffic Engineer
SUBJECT: WAL-MART DEVELOPER'S AGREEMENT
REF: Developer's Agreement
DATE: November 8. 1996
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
The County and Wal-Mart are in need of a developers agreement to clarify certain
transportation related responsibilities contained in Wal -Mart's Development
Order.
ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS
Wal-Mart has drafted and executed the attached LOCAL DEVELOPMENT
AGREEMENT, which details certain transportation related responsibilities of the
Wal-Mart development.
RECOMMENDATIONS AND FUNDIN
Staff recommends approval of the attached LOCAL DEVELOPMENTAGREEMENT.
There is no funding impact associated with this agreement.
NOVEMBER 12, 1996 35 BOOK PAGE 70u,
BOOK 99 PAGE 701
ON MOTION by Commissioner Tippin, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously approved
the Local Development Agreement with Wal-Mart
Stores, Inc., as recommended by staff.
AGREEMENT IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE
CLERK TO THE BOARD
O. Dedication of South County Park to Richard N. "Dick" Bird
TO: Board of County Commissioners
FROM: Fran B. Adams, Chairman
DATE: November 12, 1996
SUBJECT: Dedication of South County Park
We Therefore Propose that South County Park be Dedicated to Richard N. Bird
for his Outstanding Efforts in Developing the Indian River County Park System
and Sandridge Golf Course.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Tippin, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously dedicated
South County Park to Richard N. Bird for his
outstanding efforts in developing the Indian River
County Park System and Sandridge Golf Course.
P. AGC Industrial Tract Scrub LAAC Site Option Agreement - Approval
for Chairman to Initial Changes
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of November 8, 1996:
To: Board of County Commissioners
From: Alice E. White
Executive Aide to Board
Date: November 8, 1996
Subject: Approval for Chairman to initial changes to AGC Industrial Tract
Scrub LAAC Site Option Agreement
Some changes have been made to the Option Agreement that was approved
on September 17, 1996. Approval for Chairman to initial those changes has
been requested.
NOVEMBER 12, 1996 36
� � r
ON MOTION by Commissioner Tippin, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously approved
the changes to the AGC Industrial Tract Scrub LAAC
Site Option Agreement and authorized the Chairman to
initial these changes, as recommended by staff.
REVISED AGREEMENT IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE
CLERK TO THE BOARD
PUBLIC HEARING - SIDNEY M. BANACK. TR. - REQUEST TO
AMEND THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND TO REDESIGNATE
APPROXIMATELY 15.02 ACRES FROM M-1 TO C/I AND TO REZONE
THAT 15.02 ACRES FROM A-1 TO CG
P.O. Box 1268 Vero Beach, Florida 32961 562-2315
Proo Journal
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
billed to <PIRVIV tm 2<
was published in said newspaper in the issue(s) of jgJ9
Swornn to and subscribed efo a me this
1 ' ' 3 C04
A/. .fr0"
NpMu�,N4
''alp P PR�4`%` President
My Comm. Expires
= August 25,1997
No. CMION5
(SEAL)
NOVEMBER 12, 1996
51.%'DRA A. PRESCO'IT. YdrARY PUBLIC.
State ai Flortda. ` v Cammlaelon Esq. Aupst 25.1997
Commueton Vumber. CC31084t3
XSip
.
ed
atarv: NpRA A. PRESCOTT
37
t✓
boa 99 PAa 702
r
gaox99 �,v- 70
NOTICE OF COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT
CHANGING LAND USE DESIGNATIONS
The Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, will consider
several proposals to change the use of land within the unincorporated portions of In-
dian River County. A public hearing on the proposals will be held on Tuesday, No-
vember 12, 1996, at 9:05 a.m. in the County Commission Chambers of the County
Administration Building, located at 1840 25th Street, Vero Beach, Florida. At this pub-
lic hearing the Board of County Commissioners will consider authorizing the transmit-
tal of these amendments to the state Department of Community Affairs for their
review. The proposed amendments are included in a proposed ordinance entitled:
AN ORDINANCE OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, AMENDING THE FUTURE
LAND USE ELEMENT BY CHANGING THE LAND USE DESIGNATION FOR +/-15.2
ACRES LOCATED APPROXIMATELY '/4 OF A MILE EAST OF 74th AVENUE, ON THE
NORTH SIDE OF 26th STREET, FROM L-1 TO M-1; AMENDING THE FUTURE LAND
USE ELEMENT BY CHANGING THE LAND USE DESIGNATION FOR +/-1 11 ACRES
LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF 58th AVENUE AND CR 510, FROM L-
2 TO C-1; AMENDING THE FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT BY CHANGING THE
LAND USE DESIGNATION FOR +/-15 ACRES LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST
CORNER OF 58th AVENUE AND THE MAIN RELIEF CANAL, FROM M-1 TO GI;
AMENDING THE FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT BY CHANGING THE LAND USE DES-
IGNATION FOR +/-4.6 ACRES LOCATED AT SR 60 AND 63rd COURT, FROM M-
1 TO C/I; AMENDING THE FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT BY CHANGING THE
LAND USE DESIGNATION FOR +/-101.8 ACRES LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST
CORNER OF SR 60 AND 102nd AVENUE, FROM M-1 AND AG -2 TO CA; AMEND-
ING THE FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT BY CHANGING THE LAND USE DESIG-
NATION FOR +/-118.3 ACRES LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF OSLO ROAD,
+/-660 FEET EAST OF 82ND AVENUE, FROM C/I TO PUB; AND PROVIDING
CODIFICATION, SEVERABILITY AND EFFECTIVE DATE.
F...,,, McMtt hOgel� 1h10HR tiep,l},� ( IIA-1
CA
Y-1 rim
Y II
i L-1
CA t '� 1.gect �mPslr
e ti .. I ..
Interested parties may appear and be heard at the public hearing regarding
the approval of these proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendments.
The plan amendment applications may be inspected by the public at the Com-
munity Development Department located on the second floor of the County Adminis-
tration Building located at 1840 25th Street, Vero Beach, Florida, between the hours
of 8:30 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. on weekdays.
NO FINAL ACTION WILL BE TAKEN AT THIS MEETING.
Anyone who may wish to appeal any decision which may be made at this meet-
ing will need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made which in-
cludes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal will be based.
Anyone who needs a special accommodation for this meeting must contact the
county's Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Coordinator at 567-8000 extension
223 at least 48 hours in advance of meeting.
Indian River County
Board of County Commissioners
By: -s- Fran B. Adams, Chairman
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of October 29, 1996:
TO: James E. Chandler
County Administrator
DEPPLATMENT BEAD CONCURRENCE
obert M. eating, CP
THROUGH: Sasan Rohani, AICP <Z it • DATE: October 29, 1996
Chief, Long -Range Planning
FROM: John Wachtel 1/
Senior Plan- r, Long -Range Planning
RE: Sidney M. Banack, Jr., Request to Amend the Comprehensive
Plan and to Redesignate Approximately 15. 02 acres from M-
1 to C/I, and to Rezone that 15.02 acres from A-1 to CG
PLAN AMENDMENT NUMBER: LURA 96-07-0193
NOVEMBER 12, 1996 38
It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal
consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their regular
meeting of November 12, 1996.
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
This is a request to amend the Comprehensive Plan and rezone
approximately 15.02 acres, located at the northwest corner of the
intersection of 58th Avenue and the Main Relief Canal.
The request involves changing the land use designation from M-1,
Medium -Density Residential -1 (up to 8 units/acre), to C/I,
Commercial/ Industrial Node, and rezoning the property from A-1,
Agricultural District (up to 1 unit/5 acres) to CG, General
Commercial District. The purpose of this request is to secure the
necessary land use designation and zoning to develop the property
with commercial uses.
On September=26, 1996, the Planning and Zoning Commission voted 4-1
to recommend that the Board of County Commissioners transmit the
proposed land use amendment to the State Department of Community
Affairs (DCA) for their review. The Board of County Commissioners
is now to decide whether or not the subject request is to be
transmitted to DCA for their review.
Existing Land Use Pattern
The subject property consists of a citrus grove and is zoned A-1.
The subject property is bounded on the north by the public road
right-of-way for Lundberg Road. Land on the north side of that
right-of-way is zoned CG and consists of citrus groves and a wooded
area. A water tower is located in the southwest corner of the
wooded area. To the west, land is zoned RM -6 and contains a
correctional officer training center. West of that is the Indian
River County campus of Indian River Community College. The subject
property is bounded on the south by the Main Relief Canal. South
of that canal, land is zoned A-1 and contains citrus groves. The
subject property is bounded on the east by 58th Avenue. East of
the site, across 58th Avenue, land is zoned CG and contains an
electrical sub -station.
Future Land Use Pattern
The subject property and property to the west are designated M-1,
Medium -Density Residential -1, on the county future land use map.
The M-1 designation permits residential densities up to 8
units/acre. Land south of the subject property, across the Main
Relief Canal, is designated AG -1, Agricultural -1. The AG -1
designation permits agricultural uses and residential uses with
densities up to 1 unit/5 acres. Properties to the north of the
site, and east of the site (across 58th Avenue) are designated C/I,
Commercial/ Industrial Node, which permits commercial and industrial
zoning designations.
Environment
The subject property is currently used for agricultural purposes,
being a citrus grove. No wetlands or native upland plant
communities exist on site. The subject property is within an "AE"
100 year floodplain, with a minimum base flood elevation
requirement of 21 feet NGVD for the eastern portion of the site and
22 feet NGVD for the western portion of the site.
Utilities and Services
The site is within the Urban Service Area of the county.
Wastewater service is available to the site from the West Regional
Wastewater Treatment Plant. Centralized potable water service is
available to the site from the South County Reverse Osmosis Plant.
Transportation System
Abutting the site on the east is 58th Avenue. Classified as an
urban principal arterial on the future roadway thoroughfare plan
map, 58th Avenue is a two lane road with approximately 100 feet of
public road right-of-way. Expansion of this segment of 58th Avenue
to four lanes has begun.
9094 99 F'pla� 704
NOVEMBER 12, 1996 39
r
BOOK 99 PAu 705
Sixty feet of public road right-of-way exists along the subject
property's north boundary. That will be the new location of
Lundberg Road, a local road which currently exists within the Main
Relief Canal right-of-way.
ANALYSIS
In this section, an analysis of the reasonableness of the
application will be presented. The analysis will address:
• 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 Comprehensive Plan amendment and rezoning requests,
conditional concurrency review is required.
Conditional concurrency review examines the available capacity of
each facility with respect to a proposed project. Since
Comprehensive Plan amendment and rezoning requests are not
projects, county regulations call for the concurrency review to be
based upon the most intense use of the subject property based upon
the requested zoning district or land use designation. For
commercial Comprehensive Plan amendment requests, the most intense
use (according to the county's Land Development Regulations) is
retail commercial with 10,000 square feet of gross floor area per
acre of land proposed for redesignation. The site information used
for the concurrency analysis is as follows:
1. Size of Area to be
Redesignated and Rezoned:
2. Existing Land Use Designation:
3. Proposed Land Use Designation:
4. Most Intense Use of Subject
Property under Current
Land Use Designation:
±15.02 acres
L-1, Low -Density
Residential - 1 (up to 3
units/acre)
C/I, Commercial -
Industrial Node
120 Dwelling Units
S. Most Intense Use of Subject Property under Proposed Land Use
Designation: 150,200 sq. ft. of Retail Commercial
(Shopping Center in the 5th Edition ITE Manual).
- Transportation
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 58th Avenue and other impacted roads would
not be lowered. The site information used for determining traffic
impacts is as follows:
Existing Land Use Designation
1. Residential Use Identified in 5th Edition ITE Manual:
Single -Family
NOVEMBER 12, 1996
s
40
2. For Single -Family Units in 5th Edition ITE Manual:
a. Average Weekday Trip Ends: 10.1/unit
b. P.M. Peak Hour Trip Ends: 1.01/unit
C. Inbound (P.M. Peak Hour): 65%
i. Southbound (P.M. Peak Hour): 52.5%
ii. Northbound (P.M. Peak Hour): 47.5%
d. Outbound (P.M. Peak Hour): 35%
i. Southbound (P.M. Peak Hour): 47.5%
ii. Northbound (P.M. Peak Hour): 52.5%
3. Peak Direction of 58th Avenue, from 16th Street to SR 60:
Southbound
4. Formula for Determining Number of Peak Hour/Peak Season/Peak
Direction Trips Generated: Number of Units B P.M. Peak Hour
Rate X Inbound P.M. Percentage B Inbound -Southbound Percentage
(120 B 1.01 X .65 X .525 = 41)
5. Formula for Determining Number of Average Weekday Trips
Generated: Number of Units B Average Weekday Rate
(120 X 10.1 = 1,212)
Proposed Land Use Designation
1. Retail Commercial use Identified in 5th Edition ITE Manual:
Shopping Center
2. For 150,200 sq.ft. Shopping Centers in 5th Edition ITE Manual:
a. Average Weekday Trip Ends: 60.7/1,000 square_,feet
b. P.M. Peak Hour Trip Ends: 5.66/1,00.0 square feet
C. Inbound (P.M. Peak Hour): 50V
i. Southbound (P.M. Peak Hour): 52.5%
ii. Northbound (P.M. Peak Hour): 47.5%
d. Outbound (P.M. Peak Hour): 50%
i. Southbound (P.M. Peak Hour): 47.5%
ii. Northbound (P.M. Peak Hour): 52.5%
3. Peak Direction of 58th Avenue, from 16th Street to SR 60:
Southbound
4. Formula for Determining Number of Peak Hour/Peak Season/Peak
Direction Trips Generated: Total Square Footage X P.M. Peak
Hour Rate B Inbound P.M. Percentage X Inbound -Southbound
Percentage (150,200 X 5.66/1,000 X .5 X .525 = 223)
(trip distribution based on a Modified Gravity Model)
5. Formula for Determining Number of Average Weekday Trips
Generated: Total Square Footage X Average Weekday Rate
(150,200 X 60.7/1,000 sq.ft. = 9,117)
6. Traffic Capacity on this segment of 58th Avenue, at a Level of
Service "D": 1,890 peak hour/peak season/peak direction trips
(Based on completion of project currently under construction
to expand 58th Avenue from 2 lanes to 4 lanes)
7. Total Segment Demand (existing volume + vested volume) on this
segment of 58th Avenue: 1,178 peak hour/peak season/peak
direction trips
The number of Average Weekday Trip Ends associated with the most
intense use of the subject property under the existing land use
designation is 1,212. This was determined by multiplying the 120
units (most intense use) by ITE's single-family residential factor
of 10.1 Average Daily Trip Ends/unit.
The number of Average Weekday Trip Ends associated with the most
intense use of the subject property under the proposed land use
designation is 9,117. This was determined by multiplying the
150,200 square feet of shopping center (most intense use), by ITE's
shopping center fitted curve factor of 60.7 Average Daily Trip
Ends/1,000 square feet.
NOVEMBER 12, 1996 41
:BOOK P G
r
BOOK , 99 .o.,t.737
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 58th Avenue 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 land use designation was
calculated to be 41. This was determined by multiplying the total
number of units allowed (120) under the existing land use
designation by ITE's factor of 1.01 p.m. peak hour trips/unit, to
determine the total number of trips generated. Of these trips, 65%
(79) will be inbound and 35% (42) will be outbound. Of the inbound
trips, 52.5% or 41 will be southbound.
To determine the number of peak hour/peak season/peak direction
trips that would be generated by the most intense use of the
subject property under the proposed land use designation, the total
square footage of shopping center allowed under the proposed
amendment (150,200) was multiplied by ITE's factor of 5.66 p.m.
peak hour trips/1,000 square feet to determine the total number of
trips generated (850). Of these trips, 50% (425) will be inbound
and 50% (425) will be outbound. Of the inbound trips, 52.51 or 223
will be southbound. Therefore, the most intense use of the subject
property under the proposed land use designation would generate 182
(223 - 41 = 182) more peak hour/peak season/peak direction trips
than the 41 that would be generated by the most intense use of the
subject property under the existing land use designation.
Using a modified gravity model and a hand assignment, the peak
hour/peak season/peak direction trips generated by the proposed use
were then assigned to impacted roads on the network. Impacted
roads are defined in section 910.09(4)(b)3 of the county's LDRs as
roadway segments which receive five percent (5%) or more of the
project traffic or fifty (50) or more of the project trips,
whichever is less.
Capacities for all roadway segments in Indian River County are
calculated and updated annually, utilizing the latest and best
available peak season traffic characteristics and applying Appendix
G methodology as set forth in the Florida Department of
Transportation Level of Service Manual. Available capacity is the
total capacity less existing and committed (vested) traffic
volumes; this is updated daily based upon vesting associated with
project approvals.
The traffic capacity for the segment of 58th Avenue adjacent to
this site is 1,890 trips (peak hour/peak season/peak direction) at
Level of Service (LOS) "D", while the Total Segment Demand
(existing traffic volume + vested traffic volume) on this segment
of 58th Avenue is 1,178 trips (peak hour/peak season/peak
direction). The additional 223 peak hour/peak season/peak
direction trips created by the most intense use of the subject
property under the proposed amendment would increase the Total
Segment Demand peak hour/peak season/peak direction trips for this
segment of 58th Avenue to approximately 1,401.
Based on the above analysis, staff determined that 58th Avenue and
all other impacted roads can accommodate the additional trips
without decreasing their existing levels of service.
The table below identifies each of the impacted roadway segments
associated with the proposed land use designation. As indicated in
this table, there is sufficient capacity in all of the segments to
accommodate the projected traffic associated with the request.
NOVEMBER 12, 1996 42
TRAFFIC CONCURRENCY DETERMINATION
Impacted Road Segments
(peak hour/peak season/peak direction)
NOVEMBER 12, 1996 43 800K 99 F -AGE 708
Segment
Roadway
Capacity
Segment
Road
From
To
LOS "D"
1915E
S.R.
60
I-95
82 Ave.
1890
1915W
S.R.
60
I-95
82 Ave.
1890
1920E
S.R.
60
82 Ave.
66th Ave.
3110
1920W
S.R.
60
82 Ave.
66th Ave.
3110
1925E
S.R.
60
66th Ave.
58th Ave.
2840
1925W
S.R.
60
66th Ave.
58th Ave.
2840
1930E
S.R.
60
58th Ave.
43rd Ave.
2840
1930W
S.R.
60
58th Ave.
43rd Ave.
2840
1935E
S.R.
60
43rd Ave.
27th Ave.
2840
1935W
S.R.
60
43rd Ave.
27th Ave.
2840
1940E
S.R.
60
27th Ave.
20th Ave.
2510
1940W
S.R.
60
27th Ave.
20th Ave.
2510
2020E
16th
St.
58th Ave.
43rd Ave.
880
202OW
16th
St.
58th Ave.
43rd Ave.
880
2210E
12th
St.
82nd Ave.
58th Ave.
600
221OW
12th
St.
82nd Ave.
58th Ave.
600
2220E
12th
St.
58th Ave.
43rd Ave.
880
2220W
12th
St.
58th Ave.
43rd Ave.
880
2470N
27th
Ave.
16th St.
S.R. 60
880
2470S
27th
Ave.
16th St.
S.R. 60
880
2480N
27th
Ave.
S.R. 60
Atlantic Blvd.
880
24805
27th
Ave.
S.R. 60
Atlantic Blvd.
880
2930N
43rd
Ave.
16th St.
S.R. 60
880
2930S
43rd
Ave.
16th St.
S.R. 60
880
2935N
43rd
Ave.
S.R. 60
26th St.
880
29355
43rd
Ave.
S.R. 60
26th St.
880
301ON
58th
Ave.
4th Street
8th Street
760
30105
58th
Ave.
4th Street
8th Street
760
3015N
58th
Ave.
8th Street
12th Street
760
3015S
58th
Ave.
8th Street
12th Street
760
302ON
58th
Ave.
12th Street
16th Street
880
3020S
58th
Ave.
12th Street
16th Street
880
3025N
58th
Ave.
16th Street
S.R. 60
1890
3025S
58th
Ave.
16th Street
S.R. 60
1890
303ON
58th
Ave.
S.R. 60
41st Street
1890
30305
58th
Ave.
S.R. 60
41st Street
1890
312ON
66th
Ave.
S.R. 60
26th Street
760
31205
66th
Ave.
S.R. 60
26th Street
760
3330N
82nd
Ave.
12th St.
S.R. 60
760
3330S
82nd
Ave.
12th St.
S.R. 60
760
3340N
82nd
Ave.
S.R. 60
65th St.
600
33405
82nd
Ave.
S.R. 60
65th St.
600
4830E
BtW St.
58th Ave.
43rd Ave.
880
483OW
8th St.
58th Ave.
43rd Ave.
880
Existing Demand
Total
Available
Positive
Roadway
Existing Vested
Segment
Segment
Project Concurrency
segment
Volume Volume
Demand
Capacity
Demand Determination
1915E
925
534
1459
431
43
Y
1915W
1039
487
1526
364
43
Y
1920E
1120
771
1891
1219
49
Y
1920W
1294
711
2005
1105
49
Y
1925E
1170
1376
2547
294
70
Y
1925W
1288
1335
2623
217
70
Y
1930E
1116
1450
2566
274
70
Y
1930W
1209
1427
2636
204
70
Y
1935E
1074
1005
2079
761
56
Y
1935W
1202
983
2185
655
56
Y
1940E
863
730
1593
915
42
Y
1940W
859
719
1578
932
42
Y
202ON
113
256
369
511
14
Y
2020S
154
251
405
475
14
Y
2210E
24
11
35
565
6
Y
221OW
11
11
22
578
6
Y
2220E
88
53
141
739
12
Y
2220W
113
51
164
716
12
Y
2470N
281
136
417
463
9
Y
24705
507
141
648
232
9
Y
2480N
65
34
99
781
5
Y
2480S
126
35
161
719
5
Y
293ON
498
192
690
190
11
Y
2930S
673
191
864
16
11
Y
2935N
380
146
526
354
3
Y
29355
504
142
646
234
3
Y
301ON
288
125
413
347
42
Y
30105
336
125
461
299
42
Y
3015N
418
229
687
113
57
Y
30155
364
228
592
168
57
Y
302ON
460
288
748
132
75
Y
30205
440
289
729
151
75
Y
3025N
510
616
1126
764
268
Y
30255
564
614
1178
712
268
Y
303ON
461
386
847
1043
34
Y
30305
495
394
889
1001
34
Y
312ON
214
76
290
470
21
Y
31205
169
77
246
514
21
Y
3330N
171
56
227
533
3
Y
NOVEMBER 12, 1996 43 800K 99 F -AGE 708
r
BOOK 99 PAGE k70
Existincr Demand Total Available Positive
Roadway Existing Vested Segment Segment Project Concurrency
Segment Volume Volume Demand Capacity Demand Determination
3330S
238
67
305
455
3 Y
3340N
48
39
87
513
3 Y
3340S
44
40
84
516
3 Y
4830E
141
45
186
694
10 Y
483OW
122
99
221
659
10 Y
- Water
A retail commercial use of 150,200 square feet on the subject
property will have a water consumption rate of 45 Equivalent
Residential units (ERU), or 11,250 gallons/day. This is based upon
a level of service standard of 250 gallons/ERU/day. Water lines
extend to the site from the South County Reverse Osmosis Plant
which currently has a remaining capacity of approximately 2,000,000
gallons/day and therefore can accommodate the potable water demand
associated with the proposed amendment.
- Wastewater
The subject property is serviced by the West Regional Wastewater
Treatment Plant. Based upon the most intense use allowed under the
proposed amendment, development of the property will have a
wastewater generation rate of approximately 45 Equivalent
Residential Units (ERU), or 11,250 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 approximately 200,000 gallons/day and can accommodate
the additional wastewater generated by the proposed amendment.
- Solid Waste
Solid waste service includes pick-up by private operators and
disposal at the county landfill. For a 150,200 square foot
commercial development on the subject site, solid waste generation
will be approximately 751 waste generation units (WGU) annually.
A WGU is a Waste Generation Unit measurement equivalent to one ton
(2,000 pounds) of solid waste. Using the accepted conversion rate
of one cubic yard for every 1,200 pounds of compacted solid waste
generated, the 150,200 square feet of commercial development would
be expected to generate 1,252 cubic yards of waste/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 staff analysis, it was determined that the county landfill
can accommodate the additional solid waste generated by the
proposed amendment.
- 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 six inches above 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 of no
less than 22.5 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
NOVEMBER 12, 1996 44
490,050 square feet, or 11.25 acres. The maximum runoff volume,
based on that amount of impervious surface and the 25 year/24 hour
design storm, and given the IRFWCD two inch discharge requirement,
will be approximately 470,590 cubic feet. In order to maintain the
county's adopted level of service, the applicant will be required
to retain approximately 361,548 cubic feet of runoff on-site. With
the soil characteristics of the subject property, it is estimated
that the pre -development runoff rate is 121.43 cubic feet/second.
Based upon staff's analysis, the drainage level of service
standards will be met by limiting off-site discharge to the
IRFWCDIs maximum discharge rate of two inches in twenty-four hours,
requiring retention of the 361,548 cubic feet of runoff for the
most intense -use of the property, and requiring that all finished
floor elevations exceed 22.5 feet above mean sea level.
As with all development, a more detailed review will be conducted
during the development approval process.
- Recreation
Recreation concurrency requirements apply only to residential
development. Therefore, this comprehensive plan amendment/rezoning
request would not be required to satisfy recreation concurrency
requirements.
Based on the analysis conducted, staff has determined that all
concurrency -mandated facilities, including drainage, roads, solid
waste, water, and wastewater have adequate capacity to accommodate
the most intense use of the subject property under the proposed
land use designation.
Consistency with Comprehensive Plan
Land use amendment requests are reviewed for consistency with all
policies of the Comprehensive Plan. As per section 800.07(1) of
the County Code, the "Comprehensive Plan may only be amended in
such a way as to preserve the internal consistency of the plan
pursuant to Section 163.3177(2)F.S." Amendments must also show
consistency with the overall designation of land 'uses as -depicted
on the Future Land Use Map, which includes' agricultural,
residential, recreational, conservation, and commercial and
industrial land uses and their densities.
The goals, objectives and policies are the most important parts of
the Comprehensive Plan. Policies are statements in the plan which
identify the action which the county will take in order to direct
the community's development. As courses of action committed to by
the county, policies provide the basis for all county land
development related decisions --including plan amendment decisions.
While all Comprehensive Plan policies are important, some have more
applicability than others in reviewing plan amendment requests. Of
particular applicability are the following policies:
- Future Land Use Element Policy 13.3
The most important policy to consider in evaluating a plan
amendment request for consistency with the county's Comprehensive
Plan is Future Land Use Element Policy 13.3. This policy requires
that one of three criteria be met in order to approve a land use
amendment request. These criteria are:
• a mistake in the approved plan;
• an oversight in the approved plan; or
• a substantial change in circumstances affecting the subject
property.
Staff's position is that this land use amendment request meets
Policy 13.3's third criterion, a substantial change in
circumstances affecting the subject property.
That change relates to the relocation of Lundberg Road, which is
the only paved access to the Indian River County campus of Indian
River Community College (IRCC). Presently, Lundberg Road is
located where it was when the county's comprehensive plan was
adopted in 1990, within the right-of-way of the Main Relief Canal.
Because the Lundberg Road/58th Avenue intersection is dangerous and
IRCC plans a substantial expansion, a new access road is planned by
the county's=public works department.
BOOK 99 PAGE
NOVEMBER 12, 1996 45
BOOK 99 PAGE 711
The existing Lundberg Road alignment is dangerous because of its
close proximity to the 58th Avenue bridge over the Main Relief
Canal. For that reason, Lundberg Road will be moved to along the
north boundary of the subject property. Moving Lundberg Road to
that location will resolve the safety issue.
Additionally, relocating Lundberg Road to the subject property's
north boundary would have significant negative impacts on
residential development on the site. Those impacts are primarily
related to the mixing of commercial and residential traffic, and to
the provision of buffers where commercial and residential uses
abut. Such buffers are not required where a road separates
commercial and residential uses.
Therefore, the relocation of Lundberg Road to the north boundary of
the subject property constitutes a substantial change in
circumstances affecting the site. For that reason, the request
meets the third criterion of Future Land Use Element Policy 13.3
and is consistent with the comprehensive plan.
- Future Land Use Element Policy 1.23
Policy 1.23 of the Future Land Use Element states that no node
should be considered for expansion unless 70°s of the land area
(less rights-of-way) is developed, or approved for development,
with non-agricultural and non-residential uses, unless otherwise
warranted.
The intent of Future Land Use Policy 1.23 is to establish specific
criteria for node expansion. Without such criteria, decisions are
often arbitrary and inconsistent. The 70% standard, then, is a
measure of whether a node needs to be expanded.
According to the County's Commercial/ Industrial Data Source the
subject node is 72.5% developed. Therefore, the node can be
considered for expansion, and the proposed amendment is consistent
with Future Land Use Element Policy 1.23.
- Future Land Use Element Policy 1.20
Future Land Use Element Policy 1.20 states that node size shall be
based on population and other demand characteristics within the
general market area of the node. The fact that the subject node is
already 72.5k developed and is the fastest developing node in the
county demonstrates that there is demand for additional land in
that node. For those reasons, the request is consistent with
Future Land Use Element Policy 1.20.
- Future Land Use Element Policy 1.21
Future Land Use Element Policy 1.21 states that commercial/
industrial nodes are intended to provide for efficient use of land,
roads, and other public facilities while eliminating strip
development. In contrast to land fronting on SR 60, the subject
property is one of the few sites adjacent to the subject node that
could accommodate commercial uses without resulting in a strip
development pattern. With nearly 1,300 feet of depth, but less
than 300 feet of frontage along 58th Avenue, the shape of the site
is similar to a right triangle since the site is widest (nearly 700
feet) at the point furthest from 58th Avenue. For those reasons
and because the Main Relief Canal is a logical node boundary,
commercial use of the site will not result in a strip development
pattern. Therefore, the request is consistent with Future Land Use
Element Policy 1.21.
- Future Land Use Element Policy 1.24
Future Land Use Element Policy 1.24 states that any property
redesignated commercial through a land use plan amendment shall
revert to its former designation if construction on the site has
not commenced within a two year period, unless such timeframe is
modified by the Board of County Commissioners as part of a
development agreement. This policy decreases land speculation, and
helps ensure that demand for additional C/I designated land is
present before requests to expand nodes are approved. This policy
also allows for the correction of nodes mistakenly expanded in the
absence of demand for more C/I designated land.
NOVEMBER 12, 1996 46
Compatibility with the Surrounding Area
Staff's position is that development under the proposed land use
designation and zoning would be compatible with surrounding areas.
Since properties to the north and east of the site have the same
land use designation and zoning as is being requested for the site,
the request is for a continuation of the existing land use
designation and zoning pattern. To the south, the site is
separated from agriculturally designated land by the Main Relief
Canal, which has 300 feet of right-of-way.
The primary impacts of commercial development on the site would be
on the multiple -family zoned land abutting the site on the west.
Several factors, however, work to somewhat mitigate the potential
impacts of commercial development on the subject property. Those
factors include required buffers between commercially and
residentially designated land. In this case, Land Development
Regulation section 911.10(8) states that development within the
requested CG district must provide a type "C" vegetative buffer
with a 6 foot opaque feature where it borders multiple -family
zoning. Additionally, all commercial development must be approved
through the site plan approval process. Through this process,
potential incompatibilities can often be mitigated by site design.
Another important consideration is the fact that the multiple -
family zoned land that abuts the subject property on the west is
actually developed with an institutional use (a satellite campus
for IRCC). Community colleges are a Special Exception Use
permitted within the RM -6 zoning district. Therefore, the subject
property is the only site adjacent to the subject node that does
not abut any land that is developed with, or likely to be developed
with, purely residential uses.
The existence of IRCC on land adjacent to the subject property is
significant because commercial/residential incompatibilities are
anticipated to occur at a much higher rate than commercial/
community college incompatibilities. For these reasons, commercial
development of the site would be compatible with surrounding areas.
Potential Impact on Environmental Quality
Environmental impacts of development on the subject property would
be the same under either the existing or the proposed land use
designation. The site has been cleared, and contains no
environmentally important land, such as wetlands or native upland
habitat. 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 analysis demonstrates that commercial development on the site
could be accommodated by public facilities and services, would be
consistent with the comprehensive plan, would be compatible with
the surrounding area, and would not harm the environment.
Additionally, the analysis demonstrates that the site possesses the
following characteristics:
1. Among properties adjacent to the node, the subject property is
the only site that does not abut any land that is, or likely
will be, residentially developed; and
2. Commercial development of the site would not result in a strip
development pattern.
The presence of both these factors on one site makes the subject
property uniquely appropriate for addition to the node. For these
reasons, staff supports the request.
Based on the analysis performed, staff and the Planning and Zoning
Commission recommend that the Board of County Commissioners
transmit this land use amendment to DCA and request DCA and all
reviewing agencies to conduct a full review of the amendment.
BOOKGE 7
NOVEMBER 12, 1996 47
PF -
BOOK 99 PACE 13 -
Community Development Director Robert Keating reviewed the
Comp Plan amendment process, advising that this is the first public
hearing before the Board of County Commissioners on this land use
amendment request. If the Board approves the transmittal of this
application to the Department of Community Affairs (DCA) in
Tallahassee for their 90 -day review, a second and final public
hearing will be scheduled to consider any comments made by the DCA
and whether to adopt an ordinance amending the Comp Plan by
redesignating the land use. If the Board denies the transmittal of
an application to the DCA, the application process will come to an
end.
The Chairman opened the public hearing and asked if anyone
wished to be heard in this matter.
Attorney Michael O'Haire, representing the applicant, advised
he is available to answer any questions.
Attorney Warren Dill, representing Peter Rodriguez, stated
that on November 5th the Board had discussed a potential cap on
commercial designations to be allowed at 58th Avenue and SR -60.
The main reason for his appearance today was to get a comfort level
from the Board so that, should the music stop, they would not be
the last left standing. He believed that staff's understanding of
the Board's direction was to remove the commercial cap from the
Comp Plan.
Director Keating advised that the cap will be removed.
The Chairman asked if anyone else 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
Resolution 96-140 (Banack) approving the transmittal
of a proposed amendment to the Indian River County
Comprehensive Plan to the State of Florida
Department of Community Affairs for its review.
NOVEMBER 12, 1996
48
RESOLUTION NO. 96- 140
A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN
RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, APPROVING THE TRANSMITTAL OF A PROPOSED
AMENDMENT TO THE INDIAN RIVER COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TO THE
STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS FOR ITS
REVIEW.
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners adopted the Indian
River County Comprehensive Plan on February 13, 1990, and
WHEREAS, the county received comprehensive plan amendment
applications during its July 1996 amendment submittal window, and
WHEREAS, the Local Planning Agency held a public hearing on
this comprehensive plan amendment request on September 26, 1996
after due public notice, and
WHEREAS, the Local Planning Agency voted 4 to 1 to recommend
that the Board of County Commissioners transmit the comprehensive
plan amendment listed below; and
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River
County held a Transmittal Public Hearing on November 12, 1996,
after advertising pursuant to F.S. 163.3184(15)(b)(1), and
WHEREAS, The Board of County Commissioners announced at the
transmittal public hearing its intention to hold and advertise a
final public hearing at the adoption stage gf;the plan amendments.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA THAT:
1. The above recitals are ratified in their entirety.
2. The following proposed amendment is approved for
transmittal to the State of Florida Department of
Community Affairs for written comment:
Request to amend the Future Land Use Map of the
Comprehensive Plan from M-1, Medium -Density
Residential -1 (up to 8 units/acre) to C/I,
Commercial/ Industrial for ±15.02 acres located at
the northwest corner of the intersection of the
Main Relief Canal and 58th Avenue.
The forgoing Resolution was offered by Commissioner
Eggert and 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 Richard N. Bird ye
Commissioner Kenneth R. Macht Aye
Commissioner John W. Tippin Aye
The Chairman thereupon declared the resolution duly passed and
adopted at a public hearing held this 12th day of November 1996.
�. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
ATTEST: INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
- _. ... ....__
Je K. -Barton k
t., BY:'`�/Q M-
% Fran B. Adams, Chairman
NOVEMBER 12, 1996 49 800K 99 PAu� 714
r -
BOOK 99 PAGE 715
PUBLIC HEARING - THOMAS B. HAMMOND - REQUEST TO AMEND
THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND TO REDESIGNATE
APPROXIMATELY 15.2 ACRES FROM L-1 TO M-1 AND TO REZONE
APPROXIMATELY 30.3 ACRES FROM A-1 TO RMH-S
P.O. Box 1268 Vero Beach, Florida 32961 562-2315
.� * Proo 30umal
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
Florida; that newspaper published at Vero Beach in Indian River County,
bitted to 4 r
was published in said newspaper in the issue(s) of
Q1g,
Sworn to and subscribed foe me this
-fes'—day of AM
/l.
a' P� . • . L'p`� President
My Comm. Expires ;
z August 25,1997
° No. CC31MS
,TFOF.F`,
••««HHRH^
(SEAL)
NOVEMBER 12, 1996
M
aA MRA A. mscoTr. xarARY PLBLIC.
State of Florida. Nv commisaWn Erp. August 25. 1997
C'.orr= eslon Vumber. CC710"I
otarv: NDRA A. PRESCOTT
50
NOTICE OF COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT
CHANGING LAND USE DESIGNATIONS
The Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, will consider
several proposals to change the use of land within the unincorporated portions of In-
dian River County. A public hearing on the proposals will be held on Tuesday, No-
vember 12, 1996, at 9:05 a.m. in the County Commission Chambers of the County
Administration Building, located at 1840 25th Street, Vero Beach, Florida. At this pub-
lic hearing the Board of County Commissioners will consider authorizing the transmit-
tal of these amendments to the state Department of Community Affairs for their
review. The proposed amendments are included in a proposed ordinance entitled:
AN ORDINANCE OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, AMENDING THE FUTURE
LAND USE ELEMENT BY CHANGING THE LAND USE DESIGNATION FOR +/-15.2
ACRES LOCATED APPROXIMATELY '/4 OF A MILE EAST OF 74th AVENUE, ON THE
NORTH SIDE OF 26th STREET, FROM L-1 TO M-1; AMENDING THE FUTURE LAND
USE ELEMENT BY CHANGING THE LAND USE DESIGNATION FOR +/-1 11 ACRES
LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF 58th AVENUE AND CR 510, FROM L-
2 TO C-1; AMENDING THE FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT BY CHANGING THE
LAND USE DESIGNATION FOR +/-15 ACRES LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST
CORNER OF 58th AVENUE AND THE MAIN RELIEF CANAL, FROM M-1 TO C/I;
AMENDING THE FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT BY CHANGING THE LAND USE DES-
IGNATION FOR +/-4.6 ACRES LOCATED AT SR 60 AND 63rd COURT, FROM M-
1 TO C/I; AMENDING THE FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT BY CHANGING THE
LAND USE DESIGNATION FOR +/-101.8 ACRES LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST
CORNER OF SR 60 AND 102nd AVENUE, FROM M-1 AND AG -2 TO C/I; AMEND-
ING THE FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT BY CHANGING THE LAND USE DESIG-
NATION FOR +/-118.3 ACRES LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF OSLO ROAD,
+/-660 FEET EAST OF 82ND AVENUE, FROM CA TO PUB; AND PROVIDING
CODIFICATION, SEVERABILITY AND EFFECTIVE DATE.
`a 1}Y( Xp / ` IKt nraP qr N N~*1M P ON tv .. — I 6n M t
'i I � NYIY.w ht
M -t
Boom ftcv�,
rue —
Interested parties may appear and be heard at the public hearing regarding
the approval of these proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendments.
The plan amendment applications may be inspected by the public at the Com-
munity Development Department located on the second floor of the County Adminis-
tration Building located at 1840 25th Street, Vero Beach, Florida, between the hours
of 8:30 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. on weekdays.
NO FINAL ACTION WILL BE TAKEN AT THIS MEETING.
Anyone who may wish to appeal any decision which may be made at this meet -
11 need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made which in -
the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal will be based.
Anyone who needs a special accommodation for this meeting must contact the
county's Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Coordinator at 567-8000 extension
223 at least 48 hours in advance of meeting.
Indian River County
Board of County Commissioners
By: -s- Fran B. Adams, Chairman
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of October 30, 1996:
TO: James E. Chandler
County Administrator
DFP TMENT HEAD CONCURRENCE
Robert e t g, DATE: October 30, 1996
THROUGH: Sasan Rohani, AICP S i(•
Chief, Long -Range Planning
FROM: John Wachtel
Senior Planner, Long -Range Planning
RE: Thomas S. Hammonds request to amend the comprehensive
plan to redesignate approximately 15.2 acres from L-1 to
M-1, and to rezone approximately 30.3 acres from A-1 to
RMH-8
NOVEMBER 12, 1996 51 BOOK 99 PAGE 71
r
BOOK 39 F-aE X17
PLAN AMENDMENT NUMBER: LUDA 96-07-0232
It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal
consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their regular
meeting of November 12, 1996.
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
This request involves both a land use designation amendment and a
rezoning. The land use designation amendment involves
redesignating approximately 15.2 acres from L-1, Low -Density
Residential -1 (up to 3 units/acre) to M-1, Medium -Density
Residential -1 (up to 8 units/acre). The rezoning request involves
changing ±30.3 acres, consisting of the ±15.2 acres to be
redesignated and the adjacent ±15.1 acres to the east, from A-1,
Agricultural District (up to 1 unit/5 acres) to RMH-8, Mobile Home
Residential District (up to 8 units/acre). The subject property is
located on the north side of 26th Street, approximately a quarter
mile east of 74th Avenue. The purpose of this request is to secure
the land use designation and zoning necessary to develop the site
as a mobile home park.
On September 26, 1996, the Planning and Zoning Commission voted 5-1
to recommend that the Board of County Commissioners transmit the
proposed land use amendment to the State Department of Community
Affairs (DCA) for their review. The Board of County Commissioners
is now to decide whether or not the subject request is to be
transmitted to DCA for their review.
Existing Land Use Pattern
The t30.3 acre tract and land to the north consist of citrus groves
and are zoned A-1. A portion of the land to the north of the
subject property is owned and used by the Kerr Center for
Sustainable Agriculture, an agricultural research facility. Land
to the east, west and south of the subject site is zoned RMH-8 and
is part of the Village Green Mobile Home Park. Mobile home
residences exist to the west and south of the ±30.3 acre tract,
while land to the east of that tract is used by the mobile home
park for storage and maintenance.
Future Land Use Pattern
The west ±15.2 acres of the ±30.3 acre tract are designated L-1 on
the county future land use map. The L-1 designation permits
residential uses with densities up to 3 units/acre. The east ±15.1
acres of the ±30.3 acre tract are designated M-1 on the county
future land use map. The M-1 designation permits residential uses
with densities up to 8 units/acre. The ±30.3 acre tract is bounded
on the north by L-1 designated land and on the east, west and south
by M-1 designated land.
Environment
Being a site that has been cleared for agriculture, the subject
property is not designated as environmentally important or
environmentally sensitive by the comprehensive plan. No wetlands
or native upland plant communities exist on site. According to
Flood Insurance Rating Maps, the subject property does not contain
any flood hazard areas.
Utilities and Services
The site is within the Urban Service Area of the county.
Wastewater service is available to the site from the West Regional
Wastewater Treatment Plant, while potable water service is
available to the site from the South County Reverse Osmosis Plant.
Transportation System
The property's south boundary abuts 26th Street. Classified as a
collector road on the future roadway thoroughfare plan map, this
segment of 26th Street is a 2 -lane unpaved road with approximately
30 feet of existing public road right-of-way. This portion of 26th
Street is programmed for paving and for expansion to 60 feet of
public road right-of-way by 1998.
NOVEMBER 12, 1996 52
M
ANALYSIS
In this section,
application will be
include:
an analysis of the reasonableness of the
presented. Specifically, this section will
• an analysis of the proposed amendment's impact on public
facilities;
• an analysis of the proposed amendment's impact on the county's
residential allocation ratio;
• an analysis of the proposed amendment's consistency with the
county's comprehensive plan;
• an analysis of the proposed amendment's compatibility with the
surrounding area; and
• an analysis of the proposed amendment's potential impact on
environmental quality.
Concurrency of Public Facilities
This site is located within the county Urban Service Area, an area
deemed suited for urban scale development. The Comprehensive Plan
establishes standards for: Transportation, Potable Water,
Wastewater, Solid Waste, Drainage and Recreation (Future Land Use
Policy 3.1). The adequate provision of these services is necessary
to ensure the continued quality of life enjoyed by the community.
The Comprehensive Plan and Land Development Regulations?(LDRs) also
require that new development be reviewed to ensure that -the minimum
acceptable standards for these services and facilities are
maintained.
Policy 3.2 of the Future Land Use Element states that no
development shall be approved unless it is consistent with the
concurrency management system component of the Capital Improvements
Element. For land use amendment and rezoning requests, conditional
concurrency review is required.
Conditional concurrency review examines the available capacity of
each facility with respect to a proposed project. Since land use
amendment and rezoning requests are not projects, county
regulations call for the concurrency review to be based upon the
most intense use of the subject property based upon the requested
land use designation or zoning. For residential land use amendment
and rezoning requests, the most intense use (according to the
County's LDRs) is the maximum number of units that could be built
on the site, given the size of the property and the maximum density
under the proposed land use designation and zoning. To account for
the most intense use, the concurrency review will consider the
development potential of the entire 30.3 acre parcel. The site
information used for the concurrency analysis is as follows:
1. Size of overall parcel: ±30.3 acres
2. Size of Area to be Redesignated: 115.2 acres
3. Existing Land Use Designation: ±15.2 acres of L-1, Low -
Density Residential -1 (up
to 3 units/acre) and
±15.1 acres of M-11
M e d i u m- D e n s i t y
Residential -1 (up to 8
units/acre)
4. Proposed Land Use Designation: 30.3 acres of M-11
Medium -Density
Residential -1 (up to 8
units/acre)
S. Most Intense Use of Subject Property
Under Existing Land Use Designation: 166 dwelling units
6. Most Intense Use of Subject Property
Under Proposed Land Use Designation: 242 dwelling units
- Transportation
A review of the traffic impacts that would result from the
development of the maximum number of units allowed on the subject
property under the proposed land use designation indicates that the
existing level of service "D" or better on impacted roadways would
not be lowered. The site information used for determining traffic
impacts is as follows:
NOVEMBER 12, 1996 53 6UOK
F,
BOOK 9 FAL 71
Existincr Land Use Designation
1. Residential Use Identified in 5th Edition ITE Manual:
Single -Family
2. For Single -Family Units in 5th Edition ITE Manual:
a. Average Weekday Trip Ends: 10.1/unit
b. P.M. Peak Hour Trip Ends: 1.01/unit
C. Inbound (P.M. Peak Hour): 65%
i. Westbound (P.M. Peak Hour): 80%
ii. Eastbound (P.M. Peak Hour): 205
d. Outbound (P.M. Peak Hour): 35%
i. Westbound (P.M. Peak Hour): 20%
ii. Eastbound (P.M. Peak Hour): 805
3. Peak Direction of SR 60 (link receiving the most trips), from
66th Avenue to 82nd Avenue: Westbound
4. Formula for Determining Number of Peak Hour/Peak Season/Peak
Direction Trips Generated: Number of Units B P.M. Peak Hour
Rate 8 Inbound P.M. Percentage 8 Inbound -Westbound Percentage
(166 B 1.01 8 .65 8 .80 = 87)
5. Formula for Determining Number of Average Weekday Trips
Generated: Number of Units % Average Weekday Rate
(166 B 10.1 = 1,677)
Proposed Land Use Designation
1. Residential Use Identified in 5th Edition ITE Manual:
Single -Family
2. For Single -Family Units in 5th Edition ITE Manual:
a. Average Weekday Trip Ends: 10.1/unit
b. P.M. Peak Hour Trip Ends: 1.01/unit
C. Inbound (P.M. Peak Hour): 65%
i. Westbound (P.M. Peak Hour): 80%
ii. Eastbound (P.M. Peak Hour): 20%
d. Outbound (P.M. Peak Hour): 35%
i. Westbound (P.M. Peak Hour): 20%
ii. Eastbound (P.M. Peak Hour): 80%
3. Peak Direction of SR 60 (link receiving the most trips), from
66th Avenue to 82nd Avenue: Westbound
4. Formula for Determining Number of Peak Hour/Peak Season/Peak
Direction Trips Generated: Number of Units 8 P.M. Peak Hour
Rate % Inbound P.M. Percentage X Inbound -Westbound Percentage
(242 8 1.01 X .65 % .80 = 127)
(trip distribution based on a Modified Gravity Model)
5. Formula for Determining Number of Average Weekday Trips
Generated: Number of Units S Average Weekday Rate
(242 8 10.1 = 2,444)
6. Traffic Capacity on this segment of SR 60, at a Level of
Service "D": 3,110 peak hour/peak season/peak direction trips
7. Total Segment Demand (existing volume + vested volume) on this
segment of SR 60: 2,065 peak hour/peak season/peak direction
trips
The number of Average Weekday Trip Ends associated with the most
intense use of the subject property under the existing land use
designation is 1,677. This was determined by multiplying the 166
units (most intense use) by ITE's single-family residential factor
of 10.1 Average Daily Trip Ends/unit.
The number of Average Weekday Trip Ends associated with the most
intense use of the subject property under the proposed land use
designation is 2,444. This was determined by multiplying the 242
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
NOVEMBER 12, 1996 54
s � r
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 60 is westbound.
Given those conditions, the number of peak hour/peak season/peak
direction trips that would be generated by the most intense use of
the subject property under the existing land use designation was
calculated to be 87. This was determined by multiplying the total
number of units allowed (166) under the existing land use
designation by ITE's factor of 1.01 P.M. peak hour trips/unit, to
determine the total number of trips generated. Of these trips, 65%
(109) will be inbound and 351k (58) will be outbound. Of the
inbound trips, 80% or 87 will be westbound.
To determine the number of peak hour/peak season/peak direction
trips that would be generated by the most intense use of the
subject property under the proposed land use designation, the total
number of units allowed under the proposed amendment (242) was
multiplied by ITE's factor of 1.01 p.m. peak hour trips/unit to
determine the total number of trips generated (244). Of these
trips, 65% (159) will be inbound and 35% (85) will be outbound. Of
the inbound trips, 80% or 127 will be westbound. Therefore, the
most intense use of the subject property under the proposed land
use designation would generate 40 (127 - 87 = 40) more peak
hour/peak season/peak direction trips than the 87 that would be
generated by the most intense use of the subject property under the
existing land use designation.
Using a modified gravity model and a hand assignment, the peak
hour/peak season/peak direction trips generated by the proposed use
were then assigned to impacted roads on the network. Impacted
roads are defined in section 910.09(4)(b)3 of the county's LDRs as
roadway segments which receive five percent (5%) or more of the
project traffic or fifty (50) or more of the project trips,
whichever is less.
Capacities for all roadway segments in Indian River County are
calculated and updated annually, utilizing the latest and best
available peak season traffic characteristics and applying Appendix
G methodology as set forth in the Florida Department of
Transportation Level of Service Manual. Available capacity is the
total capacity less existing and committed (vested) traffic
volumes; this is updated daily based upon vesting associated with
project approvals.
Based on the modified gravity model and the hand assignment, the
roadway segment on the county roadway concurrency network that is
most impacted by residential development on the subject property is
SR 60, from 66th Avenue to 82nd Avenue. That segment will receive
17 of the 127 peak hour/peak season/peak direction trips generated.
The traffic capacity for the segment of SR 60 most impacted by this
request is 3,110 trips (peak hour/peak season/peak direction) at
Level of Service (LOS) "D", while the Total segment Demand
(existing traffic volume + vested traffic volume) on that segment
of SR 60 is 2,065 trips (peak hour/peak season/peak direction).
The additional 17 peak hour/peak season/peak direction trips
created by the most intense use of the subject property under the
proposed amendment would increase the total peak hour/peak
season/peak direction trips for that segment of SR 60 to
approximately 2,082.
Based on the above analysis, staff determined that SR 60 and all
other impacted roads can accommodate the additional trips without
decreasing their existing levels of service.
The table below identifies each of the impacted roadway segments
associated with the proposed land use designation. As indicated in
this table, there is sufficient capacity in all of the segments to
accommodate the projected traffic associated with the request.
TRAFFIC CONCURRENCY DETERMINATION
Impacted Road Segments
(peak hour/peak season/peak direction)
BOOK 99 f'AU 740.
NOVEMBER 12, 1996 55
F,
BOOK 99 PAu 72
Roadway
Segment
Segment
RoadCapacity
From
To
LOS "D"
1915E
1920E
S.R. 60
S.R. 60
I-95
82nd Avenue
1,890
1920W
S.R. 60
82nd Avenue
82nd Avenue
66th Avenue
3,110
1925E
S.R. 60
66th Avenue
66th Avenue
58th Avenue
3,110
1925W
S.R. 60
66th Avenue
58th Avenue
2,840
2,840
1930W
3025N
S.R. 60
58th Avenue
58th Avenue
16th Street
43rd Avenue
2,840
312ON
66th Avenue
S.R. 60
S.R. 60
26th Street
11890
31205
66th Avenue
S.R. 60
26th Street
760
76.0
313ON
3130S
66th Avenue
66th Avenue
26th Street
41st Street
1,230
3330N
82nd Avenue
26th Street
12th Street
41st Street
1,230
3340N
82nd Avenue
S.R. 60
S.R. 60
65th Street
760
600
3340S
82nd Avenue
S.R. 60
65th Street
600
4720E
26th Street
66th Avenue
58th Avenue
880
4720W
26th Street
66th Avenue
58th Avenue
880
Roadway
Existing Demand
Existing Vested
Total
Segment
Available
Segment
Positive
Segment
Volume Volume
Demand
Capacity
Project Concurrency
Demand Determination
1915E
925 534
1459
431
12
Y
1920E
1120 771
1891
1219
19
Y
1920W
1294 711
2065
1105
17
Y
1925E
1170 1377
2547
293
9
Y
1925W
1288 1335
2633
217
19
Y
1930W
1209 1427
2636
204
10
Y
3025N
510 616
1126
764
9
Y
312ON
214 76
290
470
38
Y
3120S
169 77
339
514
21
Y
313ON
196 143
305
891
9
Y
31305
162 143
305
925
16
Y
3330N
171 56
227
533
6
Y
3340N
48 39
87
513
25
Y
33405
44 40
84
516
25
Y
4720E
26 143
169
711
4
Y
4720W
19 143
162
718
10
Y
Water
With the proposed zoning, the subject property could accommodate
242 residential units, resulting in water consumption at a rate of
242 Equivalent Residential Units (ERU), or 60,500 gallons/day.
This is based upon a level of service of 250 gallons/ERU/day. The
subject property is presently served by the South County Reverse
Osmosis Plant which currently has a remaining capacity of
approximately 2,000,000 gallons/day and can accommodate the
additional demand generated by the proposed amendment. When the
North County Reverse Osmosis Plant is complete, it will serve the
subject property. This plant will have a capacity of approximately
2,000,000 gallons/day and will be able to accommodate the
additional demand generated by the subject request.
- Wastewater
Based upon the most intense use allowed under the proposed zoning,
development of the property will have a wastewater generation rate
of approximately 242 Equivalent Residential Units (ERU), or 60,500
gallons/day. This is based upon the level of service standard of
250 gallons/ERU/day. County wastewater lines extend to the site
from the West Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant, which currently
has a remaining capacity of more than 200,000 gallons/day and can
accommodate the additional wastewater generated by the subject
request.
- 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 242 unit residential development would be anticipated to house
approximately 557 people (2.3 X 242). 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 1,320 (557 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.
NOVEMBER 12, 1996 56
I
- Drainage
All developments are reviewed for compliance with county stormwater
regulations which require on-site retention, preservation of
floodplain storage and minimum finished floor elevations. In
addition, development proposals must meet the discharge
requirements of the county Stormwater Management Ordinance. Since
the site is located within the M-1 Drainage Basin and the Indian
River Farms Water Control District (IRFWCD), development on the
property will be prohibited from discharging any runoff in excess
of two inches in a twenty-four hour period, which is the approved
IRFWCD discharge rate.
In this case, the minimum floor elevation level of service
standards do not apply, since the property does not lie within a
floodplain. However, both the on-site retention and discharge
standards apply. With the most intense use of this site under the
proposed amendment, the maximum area of impervious surface would be
approximately 858,132 square feet, or 19.7 acres. The maximum
runoff volume, based on that amount of impervious surface and the
25 year/24 hour design storm, and given the IRFWCD two inch
discharge requirement, would be approximately 926,461 cubic feet.
In order to maintain the county's adopted level of service, the
applicant would be required to retain approximately 706,129 cubic
feet of runoff on-site. With the soil characteristics of the
subject property, it is estimated that the pre -development runoff
rate is 245.29 cubic feet/second.
Based upon staff's analysis, the drainage level of service standard
would be met by limiting off-site discharge to the IRFWCD's maximum
discharge rate of two inches in twenty-four hours, and requiring
retention of the 706,129 cubic feet of runoff for the most intense
use of the property.
As with all development, a more detailed review will be conducted
during the development approval process.
- Recreation
A review of county recreation facilities and the projected demand
that would result from the most intense development that could
occur on the property under the proposed amendment indicates that
the adopted levels of service would be maintained. The table below
illustrates the additional park demand associated with the proposed
development of the property and the existing surplus acreage by
park type.
LOS Project
(Acres per Demand Surplus
Park Type 1000 population) Acres Acreaae
Urban District 5.0 2.79 170.661
Community (north) 3.0 1.67 15.895
Beach 1.5 0.84 61.598
River 1.5 0.84 22.595
Based upon the analysis conducted, staff has determined that all
concurrency -mandated facilities, including drainage, roads, solid
waste, recreation, water, and wastewater have adequate capacity to
accommodate the most intense use of the subject property under the
proposed amendment. Therefore, the concurrency test has been
satisfied for the subject request.
Impact on the Residential Allocation Ratio
Of particular importance to this request is the impact of the land
use change on the county's Residential Allocation Ratio (RAR). A
RAR is the measure of total residential units allowed under the
land use plan compared to the number of residential units expected
to be needed through the plan's planning horizon, based on
Population projections.
In 1990, when the comprehensive plan was adopted, the plan allowed
over 119,000 units. In this case, the proposed amendment would
increase the maximum number of residential units allowed on the
site by 76. That increase would have an insignificant impact on
the county's=RAR.
More than off -setting the 76 unit increase that would occur with
the proposed amendment is the reduction in build -out units that has
resulted from land use plan amendment approvals since plan
adoption. Since plan adoption, several land use amendments
NOVEMBER 12, 1996 57 BOOK
99 PACE 722
F,
BOOK 99 f',ti�E2
involving residentially designated land within the urban service
area have been approved. The effect of these amendments has been
a net decrease of 1,141 units in the county's build -out projection.
The following table depicts the information used to determine the
change in the number of units. Since the Commercial/ Industrial
(C/I), Regional Commercial (RC), and Conservation -1 (C-1)
designations are not intended for residential uses, land use
amendments redesignating land from residential to C/I, RC, or C-1
reduce the number of units allowed. Similarly, land use amendments
redesignating land from one type of residential to a lower density
residential reduce the number of units allowed.
In contrast, amendments redesignating land from C/I, RC, or C-1 to
residential, or from one type of residential to a higher density
residential, increase the number of units allowed. Since staff
estimates that 25t of land designated for residential uses is used
for infrastructure such as roads and stormwater retention, the net
developable acreage of any residential land use plan amendment is
75% of the total acreage.
LAND
USE
AMENDMENTS
RESULTING
IN A NET
CHANGE
IN # OF UNITS
AMEND.
NETMAK.
UNITS/
MAX.
NET CHANGE
NAME
FROM
ONITS/AC.
ACRES
ACRES
UNITS
TO
ACRE
OMITS
IN UNITS
Bailey
L-2
6/1
18.40
13.80
82
M-1
8/1
110
+28
Oslo Park
C-2
1/40
233.00
174.75
4
C-1
0
0
-4
M-2
10/1
65.00
48.75
487
C-1
0
0
-487
Tarby
M-1
8/1
130.30
97.73
781
RC
0
0
-781
Rhodes
R
1/1
159.00
119.25
119
L-1
3/1
357
+238
Brewer
L-1
3/1
6.40
4.80
14
AG -1
1/5
1
-13
K&R Groves
M-2
8/1
8.40
6.30
50
C/I
0
0
-50
C/I
0
8.40
6.30
0
L-2
6/1
37
+37
Korine
L-1
3/1
15.00
11.25
33
C/I
0
0
-33
Smith
L-2
6/1
1.86
1.40
8
C/I
0
0
-8
Koerner
M-1
8/1
0.31
0.23
1
C/I
0
0
-1
Feldman
AG -1
1/5
40.00
30.00
6
R
1/1
30
+24
Windsor
C/I
0
15.33
11.50
0
L-2
6/1
69
+69
Seb. Assoc.
L-2
6/1
4.00
3.00
18
C/I
0
0
-18
Seb. Assoc.
M-1
6/1
4.00
3.00
24
C/I
0
0
-24
Ames
L-1
3/1
20.00
15.00
45
C/I
0
0
-45
Rockwell
L-2
6/1
0.32
0.24
1
C/I
0
0
-1
McRae
M-2
10/1
6.80
5.10
51
C/I
0
0
-51
Oslo Plaza
L-2
6/1
4.83
3.62
21
C/I
0
0
-21
TOTAL
-1141
Because the comprehensive plan allowed over 119,000 units when it
was adopted, the 76 unit increase associated with the proposed
amendment would have a negligible impact on the county's RAR, even
if land use amendments had not lowered the number of units allowed
by the plan. When considering the 1,141 unit reduction in build-
out projections resulting from land use amendments, it is obvious
that the reduction more than compensates for the additional 76
units associated with this request. For these reasons, the
proposed amendment's impact on the county's RAR is insignificant.
Consistency with Comprehensive Plan
Land use amendment and rezoning requests are reviewed for
consistency with all policies of the comprehensive plan. As per
section 800.07(1) of the LDRs, the "comprehensive plan may only be
amended in such a way as to preserve the internal consistency of
the plan pursuant to Section 163.3177(2) F.S." Amendments must
also show consistency with the overall designation of land uses as
depicted on the Future Land Use Map, which includes agricultural,
residential, recreational, conservation, and commercial and
industrial land uses and their densities.
The goals, objectives and policies are the most important parts of
the comprehensive plan. Policies are statements in the plan which
identify actions which the county will take in order to direct the
community's development. As courses of action committed to by the
county, policies provide the basis for all county land development
related decisions --including plan amendment and rezoning decisions.
NOVEMBER 12, 1996 58
While all comprehensive plan objectives and policies are important,
some have more applicability than others in reviewing plan
amendment and rezoning requests. Of particular applicability for
this request are the following objectives and policies.
- Future Land Use Element Policy 13.3
In evaluating a land use amendment request, the most important
consideration is Future Land Use Element Policy 13.3. This policy
requires that one of three criteria be met in order to approve a
land use amendment request. These criteria are:
• a mistake in the approved plan;
• an oversight in the approved plan; or
• a substantial change in circumstances affecting the subject
property.
Based on its analysis, staff feels that the proposed land use
amendment meets policy 13.3's second and third criteria.
The subject property is located approximately one mile from the SR
60 and 58th Avenue Commercial/Industrial Node. On July 19, 1994,
the Board of County Commissioners approved a land use amendment
that enlarged that node by 130.3 acres. That land use amendment
was associated with the Indian River Mall Development of Regional
Impact (DRI) for a regional shopping center consisting of
approximately 1.5 million square feet of retail space. A
Development Order for that DRI was also approved on July'19,. 1994.
On June 8, 1995, approximately 1.275 million square feet' of that
shopping center received site plan approval from the county.
The Indian River Mall land use amendment and development approvals
directly affect land surrounding the node in 2 ways, both related
to housing. First, the Indian River Mall will make the node one of
the county's largest employment centers, thus generating a
substantial increase in the need for moderately -priced nearby
housing.
Additionally, the Indian River Mall land use amendment resulted in
the loss of 130.3 acres of M-1 designated land. Thus, that
amendment not only helped create additional demand for medium -
density housing, but it also reduced the amount of land designated
for that use.
Since these actions constitute a change in circumstances, the third
criterion of Future Land Use Element Policy 13.3 has been met.
The proposed amendment also meets the second criterion of Future
Land Use Element Policy 13.3. That criterion allows plan
amendments to correct an oversight in the approved plan. In this
case, the oversight is related to the plan that was in effect prior
to the 1990 adoption of the current plan. In that plan, the ±15.2
acre tract was given a low density residential designation. The
oversight was to allow that tract, which is a narrow peninsula of
low density designated land, to continue to extend into an area of
high density designated land. Therefore, the request also meets
Future Land Use Element Policy 13.3's second criterion. For those
reasons, the proposed amendment is consistent with Future Land Use
Element Policy 13.3.
- Future Land Use Element Objective 1
Future Land Use Element Objective 1 states that the county will
have a compact land use pattern which reduces urban sprawl. By
increasing the density of land currently within the urban service
area, as opposed to expanding the urban service area, the county
can efficiently support growth without creating urban sprawl or
sacrificing compactness. For these reasons, the proposed amendment
is consistent with Future Land Use Element Objective 1.
- Future Land Use Element Policy 1.13
Future Land Use Element Policy 1.13 states that the M-1, Medium -
Density Residential -1 land use designation is intended for areas
which are suitable for urban scale development and intensities, and
are within the urban service area.
The following factors demonstrate that the site is suitable for
urban scale development and intensities:
1. The site is located within the urban service area.
NOVEMBER 12, 1996 59 BOOK 99 PAGE 7?
F,
BOOK 99 PAGE 2;
2. Potable water and sanitary sewer service are available to the
site.
3. The location of the site, near 3 major roads, indicates that
the transportation demands of urban scale development on the
site can be met.
4. The site is within 2 miles of 2 major commercial/industrial
nodes.
5. The site is bounded on 3 sides by land currently designated M-
l.
Since the site is suitable for urban scale development and
intensities, the proposed amendment is consistent with Future Land
Use Element Policy 1.13.
- Future Land Use Element Objective 4
Future Land Use Element Objective 4 states that the county will
reduce the number and length of trips on county roads by
implementing a land use pattern which places residential areas near
commercial and employment areas.
The site is located near several employment centers, including the
Vero Beach Municipal Airport, Dodgertown, the SR 60/I-95
Commercial/Industrial Node, and the SR 60/58th Avenue
Commercial/ Industrial Node. Since those nodes are 2 of the
county's fastest developing nodes, they will soon become 2 of the
county's largest employment centers. Most people who will work in
those nodes will live in moderately -priced medium -density housing.
The proposed amendment places land designated for medium -density
residential uses near those nodes. Therefore, the proposed
amendment will increase the opportunity for people who work in
those nodes to live near their job, thus reducing the length of
their trips to and from work. For this reason, the proposed
amendment implements Future Land Use Element Objective 4.
Future Land Use Element Policy 4.1
Future Land Use Element Policy 4.1 states that land use categories
shall be designated in a manner which concentrates urban uses,
thereby discouraging urban sprawl.
By increasing the density of land currently within the urban
service area, as opposed to expanding the urban service area, the
proposed amendment concentrates growth in the area designated for
urban uses. For this reason, the proposed amendment is consistent
with Future Land Use Element Policy 4.1.
Future Land Use Element Policies 2.5 and 4.4
Future Land Use Element Policies 2.5 and 4.4 state that the county
will encourage and direct growth into the urban service area and
areas near urban centers. Since the proposed amendment would allow
and encourage more development on the subject property, and the
subject property is within the urban service area and near an urban
center, the request implements Future Land Use Element Policies 2.5
and 4.4.
- Economic Development Element Policies 8.1 and 8.5
Economic Development Element Policies 8.1 and 8.5 address the use
of incentives, including increased densities, to reduce the cost
per housing unit and to encourage the provision of affordable
housing. By allowing increased density on the subject property,
the request would implement Economic Development Element Policies
8.1 and 8.5.
- Mass Transit Element Policy 1.2
Mass Transit Element Policy 1.2 states that the county will,
through the future land use element, provide higher densities along
major transportation corridors in order to facilitate future mass
transit provision. Since the proposed amendment will increase the
allowed density along and near several major transportation
corridors, this request is consistent with Mass Transit Element
Policy 1.2.
NOVEMBER 12, 1996 60
As part of its consistency analysis, staff compared the proposed
request to all the objectives and policies in the plan and found no
conflicts. Therefore, staff's position is that the proposed
amendment is consistent with the comprehensive plan.
Compatibility with the Surroundina Area
Staff's position is that granting the request to redesignate the
t15 acre L-1 designated tract to M-1 would result in development
which is appropriate for the site and that such development would
be compatible with surrounding areas. Because the area is located
near an urban center of the county, with convenient access to
employment and shopping, the area is particularly suited for
medium -density development. Since land on three sides of that
tract is designated M-1, the request is for the continuation of an
existing land use designation pattern.
Similarly, granting the proposed rezoning would result in
development that is appropriate for the site and that is compatible
with surrounding areas. Since land on three sides of the 30.3 acre
tract proposed for rezoning is currently zoned and used for mobile
home development, the request is also for a continuation of an
existing zoning pattern.
The primary impacts of development on the site would be on the
abutting L-1 designated area to the north. That land is currently
zoned A-1 and consists of citrus groves on 10 and 20 acre parcels.
Two factors, however, work to mitigate impacts of development on
the subject property. The first involves the county's Land
Development Regulations. Section 911.09(6)(e)2 states that, where
a mobile home park abuts a residential use of lower density or a
non-residential use, a forty -foot setback with a type "B" buffer
and a six-foot opaque feature shall be provided by the mobile home
park.
The second factor involves the size of the parcels north of the
subject property. At 10 and 20 acres in size, they are large
enough to provide additional buffering, if necessary.
For these reasons, staff feels the requested land use designation
and zoning district would be compatible with the surrounding area.
Potential Impact on Environmental Ouality
Environmental impacts of residential development on the subject
property would be the same under either the existing or the
proposed land use designation. The site has been cleared and
contains no environmentally important land, such as wetlands or
sensitive uplands. Therefore, development of the site is
anticipated to have little or no impact on environmental quality.
For this reason, no adverse environmental impacts associated with
this request are anticipated.
CONCLUSION
Based on the analysis, staff has determined that the requested land
use designation and zoning district are compatible with surrounding
areas, consistent with the comprehensive plan, meet all concurrency
criteria, will have no negative impacts on environmental quality,
and meet all applicable land use designation amendment and rezoning
criteria. The data and analysis demonstrate that the proposed
amendment will have an insignificant impact on the county's RAR.
Most importantly, the subject property is located in an area deemed
suited for medium -density mobile home residential uses. For these
reasons, staff supports the request.
RECOWMMATION
Based on the analysis conducted,
Commission recommend that the
transmit this land use amendment
reviewing agencies conduct a full
NOVEMBER 12, 1996
staff and the Planning and Zoning
Board of County Commissioners
to DCA and request DCA and all
review of the amendment.
61
BOOK 99 PAGE ? 6
r
BOOK° 99 PAGE 727
Community Development Director Robert Keating reviewed the
Comp Plan amendment process, advising that this is the first public
hearing before the Board of County Commissioners on this land use
amendment request. If the Board approves the transmittal of this
application to the Department of Community Affairs (DCA) in
Tallahassee for their 90 -day review, a second and filial public
hearing will be scheduled to consider any comments made by the DCA
and whether to adopt an ordinance amending the Comp Plan by
redesignating the land use. If the Board denies the transmittal of
an application to the DCA, the application process will come to an
end.
The Chairman opened the public hearing and asked if anyone
wished to be heard in this matter.
Robert Adair, the station manager at Kerr Center, an
agricultural research station located directly abutting this
property, advised the Board that he is concerned about his ability
to continue research on this property. There is a citrus pest
which has been confined to this particular piece of property but
which could affect local groves and marsh areas. He was also
concerned about normal grove caretaking and felt there should be a
more gradual delineation between such a high density residential
area abutting agricultural land. He felt there could be complaints
due to caretaking noise and spray drift and suggested either not
rezoning or assuring the Center there will be an adequate buffer
area for these activities to continue.
Director Keating advised there is a required buffer between
new development and existing agricultural lands of 50 feet which
can be reduced if vegetated.
Mr. Adair felt the buffer might not be much help. Night
spraying does minimize drift but then you have the noise to contend
with. He felt that trees in a 50 or 100 foot area would help and
would be a good way to compromise.
Commissioner Bird suggested rezoning only the southerly 1100
feet to RMH-8, leaving the northerly portion zoned for agriculture.
Director Keating noted that the County has previously
recognized this as a problem in a number of areas. However, there
are 2 citrus growers on the Planning & Zoning Commission who voted
in favor of the project and everyone felt fairly comfortable with
it.
Chairman Adams stated that complaints are received now where
subdivisions have gone up around groves and she believed that
Commissioner Bird's idea was a very good one.
NOVEMBER 12, 1996
62
Commissioner Eggert inquired whether a requirement could be
added to plant more trees, and Director Keating replied that when
the redesignation and rezoning comes up, the applicant will have to
file a site plan for approval.
Tom Hammond, of 4111 Shoreland Drive, stated that he is
surrounded by M-8 zoning and the fact that his property is not
zoned M-8 was an oversight by the planners. He would like to see
the whole area zoned M-8 with buffers.
The Chairman asked if anyone else wished to be heard in this
matter. There being none, she closed the public hearing.
MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Tippin, SECONDED for
discussion by Commissioner Eggert, that the Board
accept the recommendation of the Planning & Zoning
Commission with the understanding that a 50 foot
landscape buffer be included on the north perimeter
of the
property.
County Attorney Vitunac advised that the zoning cannot be
conditional, and Commissioner Tippin rephrased his MOTION to accept
the recommendation.
Commissioner Eggert withdrew her SECOND to the MOTION.
MOTION DIED FOR LACK OF A SECOND.
MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by
Commissioner Eggert, that the Board adopt Resolution
96-141 (Hammond) approving the transmittal of a
proposed amendment to the Indian River County
Comprehensive Plan to the State of Florida
Department of Community Affairs for its review.
Director Keating commented that there are similar situations
in other parts of the County where a 50 foot setback or 25 foot
vegetated buffer would be sufficient. This situation is similar to
others where the Board would not have an opportunity to examine the
project unless the LDR's are changed so that similar situations are
all treated the same way.
Commissioner Macht felt this would be a rather abrupt change
to the Comp Plan for which he could see no reason.
THE CHAIRMAN CALLED THE QUESTION and the
Motion passed by a 4-1 vote, Commissioner
Macht opposed.
NOVEMBER 12, 1996 63 ®ooK 99 F►,cE 728
BOOK
RESOLUTION NO. 96- 141
A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN
RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, APPROVING THE TRANSMITTAL OF A PROPOSED
AMENDMENT TO THE INDIAN RIVER COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TO THE
STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS FOR ITS
REVIEW.
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners adopted the Indian
River County Comprehensive Plan on February 13, 1990, and
WHEREAS, the county received comprehensive plan amendment
applications during its July 1996 amendment submittal window, and
WHEREAS, the Local Planning Agency held a public hearing on
this comprehensive plan amendment request on September 26, 1996
after due public notice, and
WHEREAS, the Local Planning Agency voted 5 to 1 to recommend
that the Board of County Commissioners transmit the comprehensive
plan amendment listed below; and
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River
County held a Transmittal Public Hearing on November 12, 1996,
after advertising pursuant to F.S. 163.3184(15)(b)(1), and
WHEREAS, The Board of County Commissioners announced at the
transmittal public hearing its intention to hold and advertise a
final public hearing at the adoption stage of the plan amendments.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA THAT:
1. The above recitals are ratified in their entirety.
2. The following proposed amendment is approved for
transmittal to the State of Florida Department of
Community Affairs for written comment:
Request to amend the Future Land Use Map of the
Comprehensive Plan from L-1, Low -Density
Residential -1 (up to 3 units/acre) to M-1, Medium -
Density Residential -1 (up to 8 units/acre) for
±15.2 acres located on the north side of 26th
Street, approximately a quarter of a mile east of
74th Avenue.
The forgoing Resolution was offered by Commissioner
Bird and seconded by Commissioner Eggert 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 Nay
Commissioner John W. Tippin Aye
99 PAGE 729
The Chairman thereupon declared the resolution duly passed and
adopted at a public hearing held this 12th day of November 1996.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
ATTEST: - "` `r`"� INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
Jeff` Barton, rk n
Fran B. Adams, Chairman
NOVEMBER 12, 1996 64
Chairman Adams recessed the meeting at 10:02 A.M. and the
Board reconvened at 10:20 A.M.
PUBLIC HEARING - TESSIE L. BALDWIN AND OTHERS - REQUEST
TO AMEND THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND TO REDESIGNATE
APPROXIMATELY 4.6 ACRES FROM M-1 TO C/I AND TO REZONE
APPROXIMATELY 7 ACRES FROM RS -6, RM -6 AND CL TO CG
P.O. Box 1268 Vero Beach, Florida 32961 562-2315
• Pre'003ournal
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
dailynewspaper published at Vero Beach in Indian River County,
Florida that
billed to < add& 4A 9 3frEl
was published in said newspaper in the issue(s) of /
G
Sworn to and subscribed efo a me this
eL_day o "40ALD
W.
P A pR
•`�!,. -• .4SC'�� President
My Comm. Expires _ &t%DRiA. PRescoTr. WrARY FL13LIC.
All jus125, 1997 _ state of rweda. My Commt-ton EP Augu.+t 2S. 1997
NO CC31OUS CAmmlaeion Number. CC310849
°rFOF�F „OQ;•• signed , otary MDR1.A. PREseoTr
(SEAL)
191
NOVEMBER 12, 1996 65 BOOK 99 FACE 730
Fp�_ -1
BooK 99 vma731
NOTICE OF COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT
CHANGING LAND USE DESIGNATIONS
The Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, will consider
several proposals to change the use of land within the unincorporated portions of In-
dian River County. A public hearing on the proposals will be held on Tuesday, No-
vember 12, 1996, at 9:05 a.m. in the County Commission Chambers of the County
Administration Building, located at 1840 25th Street, Vero Beach, Florida. At this pub-
lic hearing the Board of County Commissioners will consider authorizing the transmit-
tal of these amendments to the state Department of Community Affairs for their
review. The proposed amendments are included in a proposed ordinance entitled:
AN ORDINANCE OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, AMENDING THE FUTURE
LAND USE ELEMENT BY CHANGING THE LAND USE DESIGNATION FOR +/-15.2
ACRES LOCATED APPROXIMATELY '/4 OF A MILE EAST OF 74th AVENUE, ON THE
NORTH SIDE OF 26th STREET, FROM L-1 TO M-1; AMENDING THE FUTURE LAND
USE ELEMENT BY CHANGING THE LAND USE DESIGNATION FOR +/-1 1 1 ACRES
LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF 58th AVENUE AND CR 510, FROM L-
2 TO C-1; AMENDING THE FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT BY CHANGING THE
LAND USE DESIGNATION FOR +/-15 ACRES LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST
CORNER OF 58th AVENUE AND THE MAIN RELIEF CANAL, FROM M-1 TO C/I;
AMENDING THE FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT BY CHANGING THE LAND USE DES-
IGNATION FOR +/-4.6 ACRES LOCATED AT SR 60 AND 63rd COURT, FROM M-
1 TO C/I; AMENDING THE FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT BY CHANGING THE
LAND USE DESIGNATION FOR +/-101.8 ACRES LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST
CORNER OF SR 60 AND 102nd AVENUE, FROM M-1 AND AG -2 TO C/I; AMEND-
ING THE FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT BY CHANGING THE LAND USE DESIG-
NATION FOR +/-118.3 ACRES LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF OSLO ROAD,
+/-660 FEET EAST OF 82ND AVENUE, FROM C/I TO PUB; AND PROVIDING
CODIFICATION, SEVERABILITY AND EFFECTIVE DATE.
z .. ..
CA
•• N
... ,
�•�:. U a• � rr r wa
Tj 'a
M-: 1 11 111 1
a•I p p I 33.0j__
CA
3Y I it os<a no sus
PM
Interested parties may appear and be heard at the public hearing regarding
the approval of these proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendments.
The plan amendment applications may be inspected by the public at the Com-
munity Development Department located on the second floor of the County Adminis-
tration Building located at 1840 25th Street, Vero Beach, Florida, between the hours
of 8:30 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. on weekdays.
NO FINAL ACTION WILL BE TAKEN AT THIS MEETING.
Anyone who may wish to appeal any decision which may be made at this meet-
ing will need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made which in-
cludes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal will be based.
Anyone who needs a special accommodation for this meeting must contact the
county's Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Coordinator at 567-8000 extension
223 at least 48 hours in advance of meeting.
Indian River County
Board of County Commissioners
By: -s- Fran B. Adams, Chairman
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of November 4, 1996:
TO: James E. Chandler
County Administrator
D TMENT HEAD CONCURRENCE
Ro ert . Keti /%
THROUGH: Sasan Rohani, AICP X '
Chief, Long -Range Planning
FROM: John Wachtel
Senior Planner, Long -Range Planning
DATE: November 4, 1996
RE: Jessie L. Baldwin and Others' Request to Amend the
Comprehensive Plan to Redesignate Approximately 4.6 acres
from M-1 to C/I, and to Rezone Approximately 7 acres from
RS -6, RM -6 and CL to CG
NOVEMBER 12, 1996 66
PLAN AMENDMENT NUMBER: LUDA 96-07-0203
It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal
consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their regular
meeting of November 12, 1996.
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
This request involves both a land use designation amendment and a
rezoning. The land use designation amendment involves changing the
land use designation of 4.6 acres from M-1, Medium -Density
Residential -1 (up to 8 units/acre), to C/I, Commercial/Industrial
Node. Located on the north side of SR 60, at 63rd Court, that land
consists of lots 1-10 of the 12 -lot Wallace Acres subdivision.
The rezoning request, totaling 7 acres, involves the entire Wallace
Acres subdivision, as well as the adjacent tract to the west.
Those 7 acres presently are within the following zoning districts:
RS -6, Single -Family Residential
Lots 3 Through 10
District, (up to 6 units/acre)
RM -6, Multiple -Family Residential
Lots 1 and 2
District, (up to 6 units/acre)
CL, Limited Commercial District
Lots 11 and 12, and the
Tract to the West
The request is to rezone the entire seven acre subject property to
CG, General Commercial District. The purpose of this request is to
secure the necessary land use designation and zoning to develop the
property with commercial uses.
On September 26, 1996, the Planning and Zoning Commission voted 6-0
to recommend that the Board of County Commissioners transmit the
proposed land use amendment to the State Department of Community
Affairs (DCA) for their review. The Board of County Commissioners
is now to decide whether or not the subject request is to be
transmitted to DCA for their review.
Existing Land Use Pattern
The Wallace Acres subdivision contains 8 single-family homes. The
tract to the west is zoned CL and contains the "Bill's TV" store.
Land to the north, east and west of the subject property is zoned
CG and consists of the Indian River Mall and its commercial
outparcels. South of the subject property, across SR 60, land is
zoned RS -6 and contains single-family homes.
Future Land Use Pattern
Lots 1-10 of the Wallace Acres subdivision, as well as land to the
south, across SR 60, 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. Lots 11 and 12 of subdivision, as well as the tract abutting
the subdivision on the west, are designated C/I, Commercial/
Industrial Node, which permits commercial and industrial zoning
designations. The Indian River Mall property, abutting the subject
property on the north, east and west is designated RC, Regional
Commercial. The RC designation permits major regional shopping
centers designed to accommodate the needs of the retail market
areas that extend beyond the boundaries of the county.
Environment
The subject property contains many large protected oaks. No
wetlands exist on site, although the northern portion of the
"Bill's TV" site may contain a native upland plant community.
According to Flood Insurance Rating Maps, the subject property does
not contain any flood hazard areas.
Utilities and Services
The site is within the Urban Service Area of the county.
Wastewater service is available to the site from the West Regional
Wastewater Treatment Plant. Centralized potable water service is
available to the site from the South County Reverse Osmosis Plant.
NOVEMBER 12, 1996 67 BOOK 99
BOOK 99 PAu.733
Transportation System
SR 60 provides access to the site. The portion of SR 60 between
58th Avenue and 66th Avenue has approximately 200 feet of public
road right-of-way and is classified as a principal arterial on the
future roadway thoroughfare plan map. West of 58th Avenue, SR 60
is currently under construction to expand from four to six lanes:
No other expansions of this portion of SR 60 are programmed at this
time.
ANALYSIS
In this section, an analysis of the reasonableness of the
application will be presented. The analysis will address:
• concurrency of public facilities;
• compatibility with the surrounding area;
• consistency with the comprehensive plan; and
• potential impact on environmental quality.
Concurrencv 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 Comprehensive Plan amendment and rezoning requests,
conditional concurrency review is required.
Conditional concurrency review examines the available capacity of
each facility with respect to a proposed project. Since
Comprehensive Plan amendment and rezoning requests are not
projects, county regulations call for the concurrency review to be
based upon the most intense use of the subject property based upon
the requested zoning district or land use designation. For
commercial Comprehensive Plan amendment requests, the most intense
use (according to the county's Land Development Regulations) is
retail commercial with 10,000 square feet of gross floor area per
acre of land proposed for redesignation. The site information used
for the concurrency analysis is as follows:
1. Size of Area to be
Redesignated:
2. Existing Land Use Designation:
3. Proposed Land Use Designation:
4. Most Intense Use of Subject
Property under Current
Land Use Designation:
t4.6 acres
M-1, Medium -Density
Residential -1 (up to 8
units/acre)
C/I, Commercial -
Industrial Node
36 Dwelling Units
5. Most Intense Use of Subject Property under Proposed Land Use
Designation: 46,000 sq. ft. of Retail Commercial
(Shopping Center in the 5th Edition ITE Manual).
- Transportation
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 SR 60 and other impacted roads would not
be lowered. The site information used for determining traffic
impacts is as follows:
NOVEMBER 12, 1996
68
r
Existing Land Use Designation
1. Residential Use Identified in 5th Edition ITE Manual:
Single -Family
2. For Single -Family Units in 5th Edition ITE Manual:
a. Average Weekday Trip Ends: 10.1/unit
b. P.M. Peak Hour Trip Ends: 1.01/unit
C. Inbound (P.M. Peak Hour): 65%
i. Westbound (P.M. Peak Hour): 52.4%
ii. Eastbound (P.M. Peak Hour): 47.6%
d. Outbound (P.M. Peak Hour): 35%
i. Westbound (P.M. Peak Hour): 47.6%
ii. Eastbound (P.M. Peak Hour): 52.4%
3. Peak Direction of SR 60, from 58th Avenue to 66th Avenue:
Westbound
4. Formula for Determining Number of Peak Hour/Peak Season/Peak
Direction Trips Generated: Number of Units X P.M. Peak Hour
Rate X Inbound P.M. Percentage X Inbound -Westbound Percentage
(36 X 1.01 X .65 X .524 = 12)
5. Formula for Determining Number of Average Weekday Trips
Generated: Number of Units X Average Weekday Rate
(36 X 10.1 = 364)
Proposed Land Use Designation
L
1. Retail Commercial use Identified in 5th Edition ITE Manual:
Shopping Center
2. For 46,000 sq.ft. Shopping Centers in 5th Edition ITE Manual:
a. Average Weekday Trip Ends: 94.56/1,000 square feet
b. P.M. Peak Hour Trip Ends: 8.69/1,000 square feet
C. Inbound (P.M. Peak Hour): 50%
i. Westbound (P.M. Peak Hour): 52.4%
ii. Eastbound (P.M. Peak Hour): 47.6%
d. Outbound (P.M. Peak Hour): 50%
i. Westbound (P.M. Peak Hour): 47.6%
ii. Eastbound (P.M. Peak Hour): 52.4%
3. Peak Direction of SR 60, from 58th Avenue to 66th Avenue:
Westbound
4. Formula for Determining Number of Peak Hour/Peak Season/Peak
Direction Trips Generated: Total Square Footage X P.M. Peak
Hour Rate X Inbound P.M. Percentage X Inbound -Westbound
Percentage (46,000 x 8.69/1,000 x .5 X .524 = 105)
(trip distribution based on a Modified Gravity Model)
5. Formula for Determining Number of Average Weekday Trips
Generated: Total Square Footage X Average Weekday Rate
(46,000 x 94.56/1,000 sq.ft. = 4,350)
6. Traffic Capacity on this segment of SR 60, at a Level of
Service "D": 2,840 peak hour/peak season/peak direction trips
7. Existing Traffic volume on this segment of SR 60:
1,288 peak hour/peak season/peak direction trips
The number of Average Weekday Trip Ends associated with the most
intense use of the subject property under the existing land use
designation is 364. This was determined by multiplying the 36
units (most intense use) by.ITE's single-family residential factor
of 10.1 Average Daily Trip Ends/unit.
The number of Average Weekday Trip Ends associated with the most
intense use of the subject property under the proposed land use
designation is 4,350. This was determined by multiplying the
46,000 square feet of shopping center (most intense use), by ITE's
shopping center fitted curve factor of 94.56 Average Daily Trip
Ends/1,000 square feet.
NOVEMBER 12, 1996 69 ®oo�` KJA
BOOK 99 PAa 73
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 SR 60 is westbound.
Given those conditions, the number of peak hour/peak season/peak
direction trips that would be generated by the most intense use of
the subject property under the existing land use designation was
calculated to be 12. This was determined by multiplying the total
number of units allowed (36) under the existing land use
designation by ITE's factor of 1.01 p.m. peak hour trips/unit, to
determine the total number of trips generated. Of these trips, 651
(23) will be inbound and 35% (13) will be outbound. Of the inbound
trips, 52.4% or 12 will be westbound.
To determine the number of peak hour/peak season/peak direction
trips that would be generated by the most intense use of the
subject property under the proposed land use designation, the total
square footage of shopping center allowed under the proposed
amendment (46,000) was multiplied by ITE's factor of 8.69 p.m. peak
hour trips/1,000 square feet to determine the total number of trips
generated (400). Of these trips, 50% (200) will be inbound and 50%
(200) will be outbound. Of the inbound trips, 52.4% or 105 will be
westbound. Therefore, the most intense use of the subject property
under the proposed land use designation would generate 93 (105 - 12
= 93) more peak hour/peak season/peak direction trips than the 12
that would be generated by the most intense use of the subject
property under the existing land use designation.
Using a modified gravity model and a hand assignment, the p--
hour/peak season/peak direction trips generated by the proposed t
were then assigned to impacted roads on the network. Impact
roads are defined in section 910.09(4)(b)3 of the county's LDRs
roadway segments which receive five percent (5%) or more of tr
project traffic or fifty (50) or more of the project trips
whichever is less.
Capacities for all roadway segments in Indian River County are
calculated and updated annually, utilizing the latest and best
available peak season traffic characteristics and applying Appendix
G methodology as set forth in the Florida Department of
Transportation Level of Service Manual. Available capacity is the
total capacity less existing and committed traffic volumes; this is
updated daily based upon vesting associated with project approvals.
The traffic capacity for the segment of SR 60 adjacent to this site
is 2,840 trips (peak hour/peak season/peak direction) at Level of
Service (LOS) "D", while the existing traffic volume on this
segment of SR 60 is 1,288 trips (peak hour/peak season/peak
direction). The additional 105 peak hour/peak season/peak
direction trips created by the most intense use of the subject
property under the proposed amendment would increase the total peak
hour/peak season/peak direction trips for this segment of SR 60 to
approximately 1,393.
Based on the above analysis, staff determined that SR 60 and all
other impacted roads can accommodate the additional trips without
decreasing their existing levels of service.
The table below identifies each of the impacted roadway segments
associated with the proposed land use designation. As indicated in
this table, there is sufficient capacity in all of the segments to
accommodate the projected traffic associated with the request.
TRAFFIC CONCURRENCY DETERMINATION
Impacted Road Segments
(peak hour/peak season/peak direction)
NOVEMBER 12, 1996 70
Existing Demand Total Available Positive
Roadway Existing Vested Segment Segment Project Concurrency
Segment Volume Volume Demand Capacity Demand Determination
1230N
1149
129
1278
1362
2 Y
12305
Segment
Roadway
1271
1369
3 Y
1315N
956
144
Capacity
Segment
Road
1315S
From
161
To
847
LOS "D"
1320N
1120
168
1288
982
3 Y
1320S
1269
1230N
I-95
838
S.R.
60
Oslo
Road
2640
1230S
I-95
1325S
S.R.
60
Oslo
Road
2640
1315N
U.S.
1
4th Street ® IR Blvd.
8th Street
2270
13155
U.S.
1
4th Street ® IR Blvd.
8th Street
2270
1320N
U.S.
1
8th Street
12th
Street
2270
13205
U.S.
1
8th Street
12th
Street
2270
1325N
U.S.
1
12th
Street
South VB City Lim.
2370
13255
U.S.
1
12th
Street
South VB City Lim.
2370
1330N
U.S.
1
South VB City Lim.
17th
Street
2270
13305
U.S.
1
South VB City Lim.
17th
Street
2270
1335N
U.S.
1
17th
Street
S.R.
60
2270
1335S
U.S.
1
17th
Street
S.R.
60
22.70
1915E
S.R.
60
I-95
1005
82nd
Ave.
1890
1915W
S.R.
60
I-95
655
82nd
Ave.
1890
1920E
S.R.
60
82nd
Ave.
66th
Ave.
3110
1920W
S.R.
60
82nd
Ave.
66th
Ave.
3110
1925E
S.R.
60
66th
Ave.
58th
Ave.
2840
1925W
S.R.
60
66th
Ave.
58th
Ave.
2840
1930E
S.R.
60
58th
Ave.
43rd
Ave.
2840
1930W
S.R.
60
58th
Ave.
43rd
Ave.
2840
1935E
S.R.
60
43rd
Ave.
27th
Ave.
2840
1935W
S.R.
60
43rd
Ave.
27th
Ave.
2840
1940E
S.R.
60
27th
Ave.
20th
Ave.
2510
1940W
S.R.
60
27th
Ave.
20th
Ave.
2510
1945E
S.R.
60
20th
Ave.
Old Dixie Hwy.
2328
1945W
S.R.
60
20th
Ave.
Old Dixie Hwy.
2328
1950E
S.R.
60
Old Dixie Hwy.
10th
Ave.
2328
1950W
S.R.
60
Old Dixie Hwy.
10th
Ave.
2328
1955E
S.R.
60
10th
Ave.
U.S.
1
2328
1955W
S.R.
60
10th
Ave.
U.S.
1
2328
2335N
Old Dixie Hwy.
16th
Street
S.R.
60
880
2335S
Old Dixie Hwy.
16th
Street
S.R.
60
880
2470N
27th
Ave.
16th
Street
S.R.
60
880
2470S
27th
Ave.
16th
Street
S.R.
60
880
2925N
43rd
Ave.
12th
Street
16th
Street
880
2925S
43rd
Ave.
12th
Street
16th
Street
880
293ON
43rd
Ave.
16th
Street
S.R.
60 1
880
2930S
43rd
Ave.
16th
Street
S.R.
60
880
302ON
58th
Ave.
12th
Street
16th
Street
880
30205
58th
Ave.
12th
Street
16th
Street
880
3025N
58th
Ave.
16th
Street
S.R.
60
1890
30255
58th
Ave.
16th
Street
S.R.
60
1890
303ON
58th
Ave.
S.R.
60
41st
Street
1890
3030S
58th
Ave.
S.R.
60
41st
Street
1890
3035N
58th
Ave.
41st
Street
45th
Street
760
30355
58th
Ave.
41st
Street
45th
Street
760
304ON
58th
Ave.
45th
Street
49th
Street
760
3040S
58th
Ave.
45th
Street
49th
Street
760
3045N
58th
Ave.
49th
Street
65th
Street
1230
3045S
58th
Ave.
49th
Street
65th
Street
1230
3050N
58th
Ave.
65th
Street
69th
Street
1230
3050S
58th
Ave.
65th
Street
69th
Street
1230
3055N
58th
Ave.
69th
Street
C.R.
510
820
3055S
58th
Ave.
69th
Street
C.R.
510
820
312ON
66th
Ave.
S.R.
60
26th
Street
760
3120S
66th
Ave.
S.R.
60
26th
Street
760
313ON
66th
Ave.
26th
Street
41st
Street
1230
3130S
66th
Ave.
26th
Street
41st
Street
1230
3330N
82nd
Ave.
12th
Street
S.R.
60
760
3330S
82nd
Ave.
12th
Street
S.R.
60
760
4420E
41st
Street
66th
Ave.
58th
Ave.
1230
4720E
26th
Street
66th
Ave.
58th
Ave.
880
4720W
26th
Street
66th
Ave.
58th
Ave.
880
4730W
26th
Street
58th
Ave.
43rd
Ave.
880
Existing Demand Total Available Positive
Roadway Existing Vested Segment Segment Project Concurrency
Segment Volume Volume Demand Capacity Demand Determination
1230N
1149
129
1278
1362
2 Y
12305
1153
118
1271
1369
3 Y
1315N
956
144
1100
1170
3 Y
1315S
1262
161
1423
847
3 Y
1320N
1120
168
1288
982
3 Y
1320S
1269
163
1432
838
3 Y
1325N
1216
177
1393
977
3 Y
1325S
1312
166
1478
892
4 Y
1330N
1216
233
1449
821
4 Y
13305
1312
226
1538
732
5 Y
1335N
1442
304
1746
524
5 Y
1335S
1315
313
1628
642
6 Y
1915E
925
534
1459
431
5 Y
1915W
1039
487
1526
364
7 Y
1920E
1120
771
1891
1219
9 Y
1920W
1294
711
2005
1105
11 Y
1925E
1170
1377
2547
293
33 Y
1925W
1288
1335
2623
217
18 Y
1930E
1116
1450
2566
274
25 Y
1930W
1209
1427
2636
204
20 Y
1935E
1074
1005
2079
761
17 Y
1935W
1202
983
2185
655
14 Y
1940E
863
730
1593
917
15 Y
1940W
859
_719
1578
932
12 Y
1945E
928
642
1570
758
11 Y
1945W
985
628
1613
715
9 Y
NOVEMBER 12, 1996 71 BOOK 99 i Au 736
- Water.
A retail commercial use of 46,000 square feet on the subject
property will have a water consumption rate of 13.8 Equivalent
Residential units (ERU), or 3,450 gallons/day. This is based upon
a level of service standard of 250 gallons/ERU/day. Water lines
extend to the site from the South County Reverse Osmosis Plant
which currently has a remaining capacity of approximately 2,000,000
gallons/day and therefore can accommodate the potable water demand
associated with the proposed amendment.
- Wastewater
The subject property is serviced by the West Regional Wastewater
Treatment Plant. Based upon the most intense use allowed under the
proposed amendment, development of the property will have a
wastewater generation rate of approximately 13.8 Equivalent
Residential Units (ERU), or 3,450 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 approximately 200,000 gallons/day and can accommodate
the additional wastewater generated by the proposed amendment.
- Solid Waste
Solid waste service includes pick-up by private operators and
disposal at the county landfill. For a 46,000 square foot
commercial development on the subject site, solid waste generation
will be approximately 230 waste generation units (WGU) annually.
A WGU is a Waste Generation Unit measurement equivalent to one ton
(2,000 pounds) of solid waste. Using the accepted conversion rate
of one cubic yard for every 1,200 pounds of solid waste generated,
the 46,000 square feet of commercial development would be expected
to generate 383.3 cubic yards of waste/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 staff analysis, it was determined that the county landfill
can accommodate the additional solid waste generated by the
proposed amendment.
- Drainage
All developments are reviewed for compliance with county stormwater
regulations which require on-site retention, preservation of
floodplain storage and minimum finished floor elevations. In
addition, development proposals must meet the discharge
requirements of the county Stormwater Management Ordinance. Since
NOVEMBER 12, 1996 72
BOOK
737
1950E
1037
484
1521
807
5
Y
1950W
789
480
1269
1059
4
Y
1955E
937
451
1388
940
4
Y
1955W
491
442
933
1395
3
Y
2335N
169
105
274
606
5
Y
2335S
134
102
236
644
6
Y
247ON
281
136
417
463
2
Y
2470S
507
141
648
232
3
Y
2925N
431
96
527
353
2
Y
2925S
549
95
644
236
3
Y
293ON
498
192
690
190
3
Y
2930S
673
191
864
16
4
Y
302ON
460
288
748
132
2
Y
30205
440
289
729
151
3
Y
3025N
510
616
1126
764
3
Y
3C25S
564
614
1178
712
4
Y
303ON
461
386
847
1043
4
Y
30305
495
393
888
1002
3
Y
3035N
420
126
546
214
4
Y
30355
322
127
449
311
3
Y
304ON
379
102
481
279
3
Y
3040S
331
102
433
327
3
Y
3045N
380
38
418
812
4
Y
3045S
299
43
342
888
2
Y
3050N
327
21
348
882
3
Y
3050S
265
20
285
945
2
Y
3055N
278
109
386
433
3
Y
3055S
212
109
321
499
2
Y
312ON
214
76
290
470
50
Y
31205
169
77
246
514
45
Y
313ON
196
143
339
891
30
Y
3130S
162
143
305
925
25
Y
3330N
171
56
227
533
2
Y
3330S
238
67
305
455
3
Y
4420E
17
9
26
1204
20
Y
4720E
26
143
169
711
25
Y
4720W
19
143
162
718
30
Y
4730W
140
47
187
693
20
Y
- Water.
A retail commercial use of 46,000 square feet on the subject
property will have a water consumption rate of 13.8 Equivalent
Residential units (ERU), or 3,450 gallons/day. This is based upon
a level of service standard of 250 gallons/ERU/day. Water lines
extend to the site from the South County Reverse Osmosis Plant
which currently has a remaining capacity of approximately 2,000,000
gallons/day and therefore can accommodate the potable water demand
associated with the proposed amendment.
- Wastewater
The subject property is serviced by the West Regional Wastewater
Treatment Plant. Based upon the most intense use allowed under the
proposed amendment, development of the property will have a
wastewater generation rate of approximately 13.8 Equivalent
Residential Units (ERU), or 3,450 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 approximately 200,000 gallons/day and can accommodate
the additional wastewater generated by the proposed amendment.
- Solid Waste
Solid waste service includes pick-up by private operators and
disposal at the county landfill. For a 46,000 square foot
commercial development on the subject site, solid waste generation
will be approximately 230 waste generation units (WGU) annually.
A WGU is a Waste Generation Unit measurement equivalent to one ton
(2,000 pounds) of solid waste. Using the accepted conversion rate
of one cubic yard for every 1,200 pounds of solid waste generated,
the 46,000 square feet of commercial development would be expected
to generate 383.3 cubic yards of waste/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 staff analysis, it was determined that the county landfill
can accommodate the additional solid waste generated by the
proposed amendment.
- Drainage
All developments are reviewed for compliance with county stormwater
regulations which require on-site retention, preservation of
floodplain storage and minimum finished floor elevations. In
addition, development proposals must meet the discharge
requirements of the county Stormwater Management Ordinance. Since
NOVEMBER 12, 1996 72
the site is located within the M-1 Drainage Basin and the Indian
River Farms Water Control District (IRFWCD), development on the
property will be prohibited from discharging any runoff in excess
of two inches in a twenty-four hour period, which is the approved
IRFWCD discharge rate.
In this case, the minimum floor elevation level of service
standards do, not apply, since the property does not lie within a
floodplain. However, both the on-site retention and discharge
standards apply. With the most intense use of this site under the
proposed amendment, the maximum area of impervious surface would be
approximately 150,282 square feet, or 3.45 acres. The maximum
runoff volume, based on that amount of impervious surface and the
25 year/24 hour design storm, and given the IRFWCD two inch
discharge requirement, would be approximately 145,836 cubic feet.
In order to maintain the county's adopted level of service, the
applicant would be required to retain approximately 112,378 cubic
feet of runoff on-site. With the soil characteristics of the
subject property, it is estimated that the pre -development runoff
rate is 10.26 cubic feet/second.
Based upon staff's analysis, the drainage level of service standard
would be met by limiting off-site discharge to the IRFWCD's maximum
discharge rate of two inches in twenty-four hours, and requiring
retention of the 112,378 cubic feet of runoff for the most intense
use of the property.
As with all development, a more detailed review _will be conducted
during the development approval process.
- Recreation
Recreation concurrency requirements apply only to residential
development. Therefore, this comprehensive plan amendment/rezoning
request would not be required to satisfy recreation concurrency
requirements.
Based on the analysis conducted, staff has determined that all
concurrency -mandated facilities, including drainage, roads, solid
waste, water, and wastewater, have adequate capacity to accommodate
the most intense use of the subject property under the proposed
land use designation.
Consistency with Comprehensive Plan
Land use amendment requests are reviewed for consistency with all
policies of the Comprehensive Plan. As per section 800.07(1) of
the County Code, the "Comprehensive Plan may only be amended in
such a way as to preserve the internal consistency of the plan
pursuant to Section 163.3177(2)F.S." Amendments must also show
consistency with the overall designation of land uses as depicted
on the Future Land Use Map, which includes agricultural,
residential, recreational, conservation, and commercial and
industrial land uses and their densities.
The goals, objectives and policies are the most important parts of
the Comprehensive Plan. Policies are statements in the plan which
identify the action which the county will take in order to direct
the community's development. As courses of action committed to by
the county, policies provide the basis for all county land
development related decisions --including plan amendment decisions.
While all Comprehensive Plan policies are important, some have more
applicability than others in reviewing plan amendment requests. Of
particular applicability are the following policies:
- Future Land Use Policy 13.3
The most important policy to consider in evaluating a plan
amendment request for consistency with the county's Comprehensive
Plan is Future Land Use Element Policy 13.3. This policy requires
that one of three criteria be met in order to approve a land use
amendment request. These criteria are:
• a mistake in the approved plan;
• an oversight in the approved plan; or
• a substantial change in circumstances affecting the subject
property.
NOVEMBER 12, 1996 73 BOOK 99 PAGE 718
BOOK 99 FAu 73
Staff's position is that this land use amendment request meets
Policy 13.3's third criterion.
When the county's comprehensive plan was adopted in 1990, the
subject property and all surrounding land were correctly designated
for residential uses. Since that time, however, the plan has been
amended to allow the development of an approximately 1,500,000
square foot regional shopping center, including a regional mall, on
land abutting the subject property on the north, east and west.
That development has received Development of Regional Impact
approval, and the associated regional mall is scheduled to open for
business in late 1996.
For several reasons, the subject property was not considered for
redesignation when the plan was amended to allow the regional
shopping center. First, the subject property consisted of single-
family homes. Second, there was no indication that residents of
the subject property wanted to convert their property to
commercial. Finally, the developer of the regional shopping center
project did not have control of the subject property.
Although the applicants for the subject request did not raise
objections to the regional shopping center land use plan amendment
when it was approved, the county did consider the shopping center's
impacts on the subject property. At that time, the county
determined that, while the C/I designation may be preferable for
the subject property, required buffers would somewhat mitigate
impacts on the subject property.
Nevertheless, adoption of the plan amendment associated with the
regional shopping center caused the subject property to become a
residential enclave that is nearly surrounded by commercial uses.
The subject request is an opportunity to eliminate that enclave and
create a more consistent land use designation pattern in this area
of the county.
Therefore, the commercial development of land abutting the subject
property on the north, east and west constitutes a substantial
change in circumstances affecting the subject property. For that
reason, the third criterion of Future Land Use Element Policy 13.3
has been met, and the proposed amendment is consistent with Future
Land Use Element Policy 13.3.
- Future Land Use Policy 1.23
Policy 1.23 of the Future Land Use Element states that no node
should be considered for expansion unless 70% of the land area
(less rights-of-way) is developed, or approved for development,
with non-agricultural and non-residential uses, unless otherwise
warranted.
The intent of Future Land Use Policy 1.23 is to establish specific
criteria for node expansion. Without such criteria, decisions are
often arbitrary and inconsistent. The 70% standard, then, is a
measure of whether a node needs to be expanded.
According to the County's Commercial/ Industrial Data Source, the
subject node is 72.5% developed. Therefore, the node can be
considered for expansion, and the proposed amendment is consistent
with Future Land Use Policy 1.23.
- Future Land Use Policy 1.20
Future Land Use Policy 1.20 states that node size shall be based on
population and other demand characteristics within the general
market area of the node. The fact that the subject node is already
72.5% developed and is the fastest developing node in the county,
demonstrates that there is demand for additional land in that node.
For those reasons, the request is consistent with Future Land Use
Policy 1.20.
- Future Land Use Policy 1.21
This policy states that node boundaries are designed to eliminate
strip commercial development and urban sprawl, and to provide for
maximum use of transportation and public facilities. Given the
land use designation pattern along SR 60, between I-95 and the City
of Vero Beach, the proposed amendment will not result in strip
commercial development.
NOVEMBER 12, 1996 74
Presently, the SR 60/58th Avenue Commercial/ Industrial Node extends
on the north side of SR 60 from east of 58th Avenue to 66th Avenue,
a distance of more than one mile. The exception is the M-1
designated portion of the subject property. That portion of the
subject property abuts SR 60 for only 192 feet, constituting a
residential enclave in a commercial area. Redesignating this
property will result in infill, rather than strip, development.
Because the development pattern of the area is already set and will
not be impacted by the proposed amendment, the proposed amendment
will not cause strip commercial development along SR 60. For that
reason, the request is consistent with Future Land Use Policy 1.21.
- Future Land Use Policy 1.24
Future Land Use Policy 1.24 states that any property redesignated
commercial through a land use plan amendment shall revert to its
former designation if construction on the site has not commenced
within a two year period, unless such timeframe is modified by the
Board of County Commissioners as part of a development agreement.
This policy decreases land speculation, and helps ensure that
demand for additional C/I designated land is present before
requests to expand nodes are approved. This policy also allows for
the correction of nodes mistakenly expanded in the absence of
demand for more C/I designated land.
Compatibility with the Surrounding Area
Staff's position is that development under the proposed land use
designation and zoning would be more compatible with surrounding
areas than development under current conditions. Since properties
to the north, east and west of the site have the same lana :use
designation and zoning as is being requested -for ehe site, the
request is for a continuation of an existing land use designation
and zoning pattern. In fact, the subject property is a 4.6 acre
residential enclave within a 296 acre commercial/industrial node.
By eliminating that enclave, the proposed amendment would result in
a more consistent, efficient and logical land use designation and
zoning pattern in that area of the county. Additionally,
eliminating the enclave would also make zoning administration more
efficient.
Besides increasing compatibility, the proposed amendment would
eliminate potential incompatibilities associated with residential
use of the subject property. Potential incompatibilities
associated with residential development on the site include the
noise, lights, and traffic generated by a 130.3 acre regional
shopping center and a six lane highway. Although those impacts can
be somewhat mitigated through setbacks, buffering and site design,
the significant difference in area size and intensity of uses
indicate that incompatibilities would continue.
In contrast, the primary impacts of commercial development on the
site would be on the single-family houses to the south, across SR
60. There are, however, 2 factors, in addition to the factors
previously mentioned (setbacks, buffering and site design), that
work to mitigate the impacts of commercial development on the site.
First, there is the 200 foot separation provided by the SR 60
right-of-way. In addition, the county is presently developing a SR
60 Corridor Plan. That plan will contain enhanced sign,
landscaping and building design standards for commercial
development. The provisions of that plan would apply to any
commercial development on the subject site.
For these reasons, commercial development of the site would be
compatible with surrounding areas.
Potential Impact on Environmental Ouality
Environmental impacts of development on the subject property would
be the same under either the existing or the proposed land use
designation. Since the subject property does not contain any
parcels that are 5 acres or more, the county's native upland plant
community set aside requirement does not apply. Single-family
residential development on lots that are 1 acre or less are exempt
from the county's tree removal and land clearing permit
requirements. In contrast, all commercial and multiple -family
development is subject to the county's tree removal and land
clearing permit requirements. For these reasons, no adverse
environmental impacts associated with this request are anticipated.
NOVEMBER 12, 1996 75 9001( 99 iuE740
SOUK 90 PA, 741
CONCLUSION
Surrounded by a 130.3 acre regional shopping center and abutting a
major road, the subject property is more appropriate for commercial
uses than for residential uses. Based on the analysis, staff has
determined that the requested land use designation and zoning
district are compatible with surrounding areas, consistent with the
comprehensive plan, meet all concurrency criteria, will have no
negative impacts on environmental quality, and meet all applicable
land use designation amendment and rezoning criteria.
For these reasons, staff supports the request to change the site's
land use designation and zoning district.
RECOMMENDATION
Based on the analysis, staff and the Planning and Zoning Commission
recommend that the Board of County Commissioners transmit this land
use amendment to DCA and request DCA and all reviewing agencies to
conduct a full review of the amendment.
Community Development Director Robert Keating reviewed the
Comp Plan amendment process, advising that this is the first public
hearing before the Board of County Commissioners on this land use
amendment request. If the Board approves the transmittal of this
application to the Department of Community Affairs (DCA) in
Tallahassee for their 90 -day review, a second and final public
hearing will be scheduled to consider any comments made by the DCA
and whether to adopt an ordinance amending the Comp Plan by
redesignating the land use. If the Board denies the transmittal of
an application to the DCA, the application process will come to an
end.
The Chairman opened the public hearing and asked if anyone
wished to be heard in this matter.
Attorney Bruce Barkett appeared for the applicant to answer
any questions.
Attorney Barkett commented that we will miss Commissioner
Bird's common sense and sense of fair play.
The Chairman asked if anyone else 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
Resolution 96-142 (Baldwin) approving the
transmittal of a proposed amendment to the Indian
River County Comprehensive Plan to the State of
Florida Department of Community Affairs for its
review.
NOVEMBER 12, 1996 76
RESOLUTION NO. 96- 142
A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN
RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, APPROVING THE TRANSMITTAL OF A PROPOSED
AMENDMENT TO THE INDIAN RIVER COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TO THE
STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS FOR ITS
REVIEW.
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners adopted the Indian
River County Comprehensive Plan on February 13, 1990, and
WHEREAS, the county received comprehensive plan amendment
applications during its July 1996 amendment submittal window, and
WHEREAS, the Local Planning Agency held a public hearing on
this comprehensive plan amendment request on September 26, 1996
after due public notice, and
WHEREAS, the Local Planning Agency voted 6 to 0 to recommend
that the Board of County Commissioners transmit the comprehensive
plan amendment listed below; and
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River
County held a Transmittal Public Hearing on November 12, 1996,
after advertising pursuant to F.S. 163.3184(15)(b)(1), and
WHEREAS, The Board of County Commissioners announced at the
transmittal public hearing its intention to hold and advertise a
final public hearing at the adoption stage of the plan amendments.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA THAT:
1. The above recitals are ratified in their entirety.
2. The following proposed amendment is approved for
transmittal to the State of Florida Department of
Community Affairs for written comment:
Request to amend the Future Land Use Map of the
Comprehensive Plan from M-1, Medium -Density
Residential -1 (up to 8 units/acre) to C/I,
Commercial/ Industrial for t4.6 acres located on the
north side of SR 60, at 63rd Court.
The forgoing Resolution was offered by Commissioner
Eggert and 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 Richard N. Bird Aye
Commissioner Kenneth R. Macht Aye
Commissioner John. W. _ Tippin . Aye
The Chairman thereupon declared the resolution duly passed and
adopted at a public hearing held this 12th day of November 1996.
ATTEST:
Jef-f T -e -j K. Bart erk
NOVEMBER 12, 1996 77
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
BY:_-'9a,V- a Oj�2�
Fran B. Adams, Chairman
BooK 99 PAGE 742
BOOK 99 PAGE1 ` 3
PUBLIC HEARING - COUNTY INITIATED - REQUEST TO AMEND
THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND TO REDESIGNATE
APPROXIMATELY 111 ACRES FROM L-2 TO C-1 AND TO REZONE
THAT 111 ACRES FROM RM -6 TO CON -1
P.O. Box 1268 Vero Beach, Florida 32961 562-2315
.311 - ]Press 1 oumat
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
�i 0. Z
PRL
billed to
was published in said newspaper in the issue(s) of
Sworn to and subscribed fop me this
,)day o A.D
PAPP ?RCo y President
My CoMITL Expires
August 25,1997
No.CC310845
qTE 0 F •F�0 ��
,••�M N.„,NN
(SEAL)
NOVEMBER 12, 1996
SA.\DRA A. PRESCOTT. NOTARY PUBLIC.
State .A Flottda. div Commuudon Fig.August 29. 1997
rommisslon Number. CC310815
^tar,,--.'5A.NDRA A. PRESCdTf
78
NOTICE Of COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT
CHANGING LAND USE DESIGNATIONS
The Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, will consider
several proposals to change the use of land within the unincorporated portions of In-
dian River County. A public hearing on the proposals will be held on Tuesday, No-
vember 12, 1996, at 9:05 a.m. in the County Commission Chambers of the County
Administration Building, located at 1840 25th Street, Vero Beach, Florida. At this pub-
lic hearing the Board of County Commissioners will consider authorizing the transmit-
tal of these amendments to the state Department of Community Affairs for their
review. The proposed amendments are included in a proposed ordinance entitled:
AN ORDINANCE OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, AMENDING THE FUTURE
LAND USE ELEMENT BY CHANGING THE LAND USE DESIGNATION FOR +/-15.2
ACRES LOCATED APPROXIMATELY '/a OF A MILE EAST OF 74th AVENUE, ON THE
NORTH SIDE OF 26th STREET, FROM L-1 TO M-1; AMENDING THE FUTURE LAND
USE ELEMENT BY CHANGING THE LAND USE DESIGNATION FOR "+/-I I I ACRES
LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF 58th AVENUE AND CR 510, FROM L-
2 TO C-1; AMENDING THE FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT BY CHANGING THE
LAND USE DESIGNATION FOR +/-15 ACRES LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST
CORNER OF 58th AVENUE AND THE MAIN RELIEF CANAL, FROM M-1 TO C/I;
AMENDING THE FUTURE'LAND USE ELEMENT BY CHANGING THE LAND USE DES-
IGNATION FOR +/-4.6 ACRES LOCATED AT SR 60 AND 63rd COURT, FROM M-
1 TO C/I; AMENDING THE FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT BY CHANGING THE
LAND USE DESIGNATION FOR +/-101.8 ACRES LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST
CORNER OF SR 60 AND 102nd AVENUE, FROM M-1 AND AG -2 TO C/I; AMEND-
ING THE FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT BY CHANGING THE LAND USE DESIG-
NATION FOR +/-118.3 ACRES LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF OSLO ROAD,
+/-660 FEET EAST OF 82ND AVENUE, FROM C/1 TO PUB; AND PROVIDING
CODIFICATION, SEVERABILITY AND EFFECTIVE DATE.
aswx rreo.rer
Cfi
t
1 � � �v •a - _ wr...rn
I Y-, 1 11 11
3 \\O:S\ I I �• eWI it
5334M_'
_
C/! LOA
—_
C4 nt
fto
Interested parties may appear and be heard at the public hearing regarding
the approval of these proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendments.
The plan amendment applications may be inspected by the public at the Com-
munity Development Department located on the second floor of the County Adminis-
tration Building located at 1840 25th Street, Vero Beach, Florida, between the hours
of 8:30 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. on weekdays.
NO FINAL ACTION WILL BE TAKEN AT THIS MEETING.
Anyone who may wish to appeal any decision which may be made at this meet-
ing will need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made which in-
cludes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal will be based. i
Anyone who needs a special accommodation for this meeting must contact the
county's Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Coordinator at 567-8000 extension
223 at least 48 hours in advance of meeting.
Indian River County
Board of County Commissioners
By: -s- Fran B. Adams, Chairman
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of October 29, 1996:
TO: James E. Chandler
County Administrator
DE TMENT HEAD CONCURRENCE
Robert M. Reatin AI
Community Dev: elopmentMirector
THROUGH: Sasan Rohani, AICP ls� W.
Chi9f, Long -Range Planning
FROM: John Wachtel
Senior Planner, Long -Range Planning
DATE: October 29, 1996
RE: COUNTY INITIATED REQUEST TO AMEND THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
TO REDESIGNATE APPROXIMATELY 111 ACRES FROM L-2 TO C-1,
AND TO REZONE FROM RM -6 TO CON -1;
NOVEMBER 12, 1996 79 BOOK 99 PAGE 744
BOOK 9 FAGS 745
PLAN AMENDMENT NUMBER: LUDA 96-07-0231
It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal
consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their regular
meeting of November 12, 1996.
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
This is a county initiated request to change the land use
designation of approximately 111 acres from L-2, Low -Density
Residential -2 (up to 6 units/acre) to C-1, Publicly Owned
Conservation -1 (zero density), and to rezone the property from RM -
6, Multiple -Family Residential District (up to 6 units/acre), to
Con -1, Public Lands Conservation District (zero density).
The subject property, located at the northwest corner of 58th
Avenue and CR 510, is generally known as the Wabasso Scrub
Conservation Area. On October 2, 1995, Indian River County
purchased the subject property. Funding for that purchase was
provided through the county's environmental lands acquisition
program and a 50% cost -share grant from the State of Florida
(through the Florida Communities Trust).
In conjunction with purchasing the property, the Board of County
Commissioners adopted a management plan for this environmentally
important site. That plan calls for the land to be used for
resource management and passive/non-consumptive recreation.
Furthermore, that plan states that the county will initiate a land
use amendment and rezoning request to designate the property as
conservation land. The purpose of this request, in addition to
meeting that commitment, is to secure the necessary land use
designation and zoning to ensure that the subject property's
environmental significance will be preserved, and that the future
use of the site will be consistent with the site's management plan.
On September 26, 1996, the Planning and Zoning Commission voted 6-0
to recommend that the Board of County Commissioners transmit the
proposed land use amendment to the State Department of Community
Affairs (DCA) for their review. The Board of County Commissioners
is now to decide whether or not the subject request is to be
transmitted to DCA for their review.
Existincr Land Use Pattern
Consisting primarily of undeveloped sand pine scrub and pine
flatwoods, the site is currently zoned RM -6. The area located
directly north of the subject property, within the Sebastian City
Limits, is zoned Mobile Home Planned Unit Development (up to 5
units/acre). Currently, the portion of that property that abuts
the subject property is undeveloped xeric oak scrub.
Wabasso Park, a county -operated park facility that is zoned A-1,
Agricultural District (up to 1 unit/5 acres) is located at the
northwest corner of the subject property. West of the site, land
is zoned RM -6. Land along the northern half of the site's western
boundary consists of rangeland and single-family houses on large
lots, while the Lows Park Subdivision of single-family houses abuts
the southern half of the site's western boundary.
South of the site, across CR 510, land is zoned RM -3, Multiple -
Family Residential District (up to 3 units/acre) and RS -3, Single -
Family Residential District (up to 3 units/acre). Consisting
primarily of single-family homes, that area also contains several
churches.
Land east of the site contains a mix of land uses. including The
John's Island Club -West Golf Course (zoned RM -6), an abandoned
citrus grove (zoned RM -8), a church (zoned RM -6), and a legally
established non -conforming mobile home park (zoned RM -6 and CL).
Future Land Use Pattern
The subject property, land to the west of the subject property, and
the northern half of land to the east of the subject property are
designated L-2, Low -Density Residential -2, on the future land use
map. The L-2 designation allows residential uses with densities of
up to 6 units/acre.
NOVEMBER 12, 1996 80
With the exception of two small C/I, Commercial/ Industrial Node,
designated areas near CR 510, the land to the east of the subject
property is designated M-1, Medium -Density Residential -1, on the
future land use map. The M-1 designation allows residential uses
with densities of up to 8 units/acre. The C/I designation allows
commercial and industrial uses.
To the south of the subject property, across CR 510, land is
designated L-1, Low -Density Residential -1, on the future land use
map. The L-1 designation allows residential uses with densities of
up to 3 units/acre.
Environment
Consisting of approximately 54 acres of sand pine scrub, 42 acres
of pine flatwoods, and 15 acres of fresh water wetlands, the
subject property is an environmentally important site.
Approximately 2.4 acres, located primarily along the site's east
and west boundaries, are environmentally disturbed. Portions of
the site are within an "A" 100 -year flood plain for which no
minimum base flood elevation requirement has been determined.
Approximately 34 acres of the property's scrub have been identified
by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) as occupied territory
of the federally threatened Florida scrub jay. FWS considers this
property to be one of the "core" scrub jay territories in the
county critical to the long term survival of the county's scrub jay
population. Moreover, the site contains mature sand pine scrub
that, if properly managed, could expand the area of scrub jay
habitat on the property. Other rare listed species documented or
expected to occur on site include the gopher tortoise, eastern
indigo snake, and gopher frog. Overall, the scrub native plant
community is recognized as endangered regionally and statewide.
Utilities and Services
Potable water service is available to the site from the South
County Reverse Osmosis Plant. When it is complete, the North
County Reverse Osmosis Plant will (if necessary) provide potable
water to the site. Although wastewater lines from the North County
Wastewater Treatment Plant are planned to extend to the site by
2010, wastewater service is not currently available to the site.
Transportation System
The property abuts CR 510. Classified as an urban principal
arterial roadway on the future roadway thoroughfare plan map, this
segment of CR 510 is a 2 -lane road with approximately 80 feet of
existing public road right-of-way. This segment of CR 510 is
programmed for expansion to 4 lanes and 160 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.
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.
To ensure that the minimum acceptable standards for these services
and facilities are maintained, the comprehensive plan also requires
that new development be reviewed. For land use amendment and
rezoning requests, this review is undertaken as part of the
conditional concurrency determination application process.
NOVEMBER 12, 199681 BOOK 99 PACE 746
BOOK 199 PAGE 747
As per section 910.07 of the County's LDRs, conditional concurrency
review examines the available capacity of each facility with
respect to a proposed project. Since land use amendment requests
are not projects, county regulations call for the concurrency
review to be based upon the most intense use of the subject
property based upon the requested land use designation. For
conservation land use amendment 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 allowed under the proposed land use
designation. The site information used for the concurrency
analysis is as follows:
1. Size of Area to be Redesignated:
1111 acres
2. Existing Land Use Designation: L- 2, Low -Density
Residential -2 (up to 6
units/acre)
3. Maximum Number of Units with
Existing Land Use Designation:
4. Proposed Land Use Designation:
666
C-1, Conservation -1
(zero density)
5. Maximum Number of Units with Proposed Land Use Designation: 0
As per section 910.07(2) of the Concurrency Management Chapter of
the County's LDRs, projects which do not increase density or
intensity of use are exempt from concurrency requirements. This
land use amendment request is exempt from concurrency review,
because the requested land use designation 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 the proposed land use
amendment.
Compatibility with the Surrounding Area
Under the requested C-1 designation, there will be no development
on the subject property except for minor facilities associated with
passive recreation activities. For that reason, the subject
request will enhance compatibility between development on the site
and surrounding land uses.
In contrast to the 666 units allowed under the existing land use
designation and zoning district, development under the requested
land use designation would be limited to conservation uses and
recreational uses. In terms of traffic, noise, and aesthetics, the
impacts associated with uses allowed under the proposed C-1
designation will be significantly less than those that would occur
with development under the existing land use designation. In fact,
the recreational uses allowed under the requested land use
designation will serve as an amenity for nearby residential uses.
For these reasons, staff has determined that the requested land use
designation and zoning district are compatible with the surrounding
area.
Consistency with Comprehensive Plan
Land use amendment and rezoning requests are reviewed for
consistency with all policies of the comprehensive plan. As per
section 800.07(1) of the LDRs, the "comprehensive plan may only be
amended in such a way as to preserve the internal consistency of
the plan pursuant to Chapter 163.3177(2) F. S." Amendments must also
show consistency with the overall designation of land uses as
depicted on the Future Land Use Map, which includes agricultural,
residential, recreational, conservation, and commercial and
industrial land uses and their densities.
The goals, objectives and policies are the most important parts of
the comprehensive plan. Policies are statements in the plan which
identify actions which the county will take in order to direct the
community's development. As courses of action committed to by the
county, policies provide the basis for all county land development
NOVEMBER 12, 1996 82
M
related decisions --including plan amendment and rezoning decisions.
While all comprehensive plan objectives and policies are important,
some have more applicability than others in reviewing plan
amendment and rezoning requests. Of particular applicability for
this request are the following objectives and policies.
- Future Land Use Element Policy 13.3
In evaluating a land use amendment request, the most important
consideration is Future Land Use Element Policy 13.3. This policy
requires that one of three criteria be met in order to approve a
land use amendment request. These criteria are:
• a mistake in the approved plan;
• an oversight in the approved plan; or
• a substantial change in circumstances affecting the subject
property.
Based upon its analysis, staff feels that the proposed land use
amendment meets policy 13.3's third criterion.
On February 13, 1990, when the current comprehensive plan was
adopted, the subject property was in private ownership. At that
time the site was correctly designated as L-2. Since then, the
site has been purchased for conservation purposes by the county.
The acquisition of the site by a public body constitutes a
substantial change in circumstances affecting the subject property
and meets the third criterion of Future Land Use Element Policy
13.3. Therefore, the proposed amendment is consistent with Future
Land Use Element Policy 13.3.
- Future Land Use Element Policy 1.4
Future Land Use Element Policy 1.4 states that the Conservation
land use designations are applied to lands which play a vital or
essential role in the normal functioning of ecosystems, or merit
preservation as vestiges of once common county ecosystems. As an
important part of the Scrub Habitat ecosystem, the subject property
meets both of these criteria. For this reason, the request is
consistent with Future Land Use Element Policy 1.4.
- Future Land Use Element Policy 1.5
Future Land Use Element Policy 1.5 limits the . C- 1 `- land use'
designation to publicly owned land with conservati'dii and/or
recreational uses. Since the site is publicly owned, and uses will
be limited to conservation and recreation, the property is eligible
for the C-1 land use designation. For this reason, the request is
consistent with Future Land Use Element Policy 1.5.
As part of the staff analysis, all policies in the comprehensive
plan were considered. Based upon this analysis, staff determined
that the proposed land use designation amendment is consistent with
the comprehensive plan.
Potential Impact on Environmental Ouality
The site's existing land use designations offer limited
environmental protections. Residential development on the subject
property would be required to preserve only 15 percent of the site,
or 16.65 acres. In contrast, under the proposed amendment the
entire site would be preserved, and development would be limited to
conservation and compatible passive recreational uses.
Although the site is publicly owned and could be developed as a
public park under the existing land use designations and zoning
districts, the proposed amendment provides the site with additional
protection from development. By prohibiting most types of
development on the site, the proposed request will ensure that the
environmental quality of the site will be preserved.
For these reasons, the proposed amendment is anticipated to
positively impact the environmental quality of the subject
property.
CONCLUSION
Based on the analysis, staff has determined that the proposed
amendment is consistent with the comprehensive plan, compatible
with all surrounding land uses, will cause no adverse impacts on
the provision of public services, and will positively impact the
environment. For these reasons, staff supports the request.
NOVEMBER 12, 1996 83 BOOK 99 F'AGE 748
BOOK 99 pn� 749
Based on the analysis, staff and the Planning and Zoning Commission
recommend that the Board of County Commissioners transmit this land
use amendment to DCA and request DCA and all reviewing agencies to
conduct a full review of the amendment.
Community Development Director Robert Keating reviewed the
Comp Plan amendment process, advising that this is the first public
hearing before the Board of County Commissioners on this land use
amendment request. If the Board approves the transmittal of this
application to the Department of Community Affairs (DCA) in
Tallahassee for their 90 -day review, a second and final public
hearing will be scheduled to consider any comments made by the DCA
and whether to adopt an ordinance amending the Comp Plan by
redesignating the land use. If the Board denies the transmittal of
an application to the DCA, the application process will come to an
end.
Commissioner Bird questioned the plan to harvest sand pines to
create habitat lands. He felt there should be some other solution.
Director Keating stated the harvesting of the sand pines is a
part of the habitat conservation plan which generally enhances the
habitat of the scrub jay. We are trying to put the area back to
what it was formerly.
Commissioner Tippin strongly suggested that the mating season
of gopher turtles not be interfered with, and Director Keating
confirmed that staff is consulting with Fish & Wildlife regarding
the plan.
The Chairman opened the public hearing and asked if anyone
wished to be heard in this matter. There being none, she closed
the public hearing.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by
Commissioner Eggert, the Board unanimously adopted
Resolution 96-143 (Wabasso Scrub Conservation Area)
approving the transmittal of a proposed amendment to
the Indian River County Comprehensive Plan to the
State of Florida Department of Community Affairs for
its review.
NOVEMBER 12, 1996 84
� � r
RESOLUTION NO. 96-143
A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN
RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, APPROVING THE TRANSMITTAL OF A PROPOSED
AMENDMENT TO THE INDIAN RIVER COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TO THE
STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS FOR ITS
REVIEW.
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners adopted the Indian
River County Comprehensive Plan on February 13, 1990, and
WHEREAS, the county received comprehensive plan amendment
applications during its July 1996 amendment submittal window, and
WHEREAS, the Local Planning Agency held a public hearing on
this comprehensive plan amendment request on September 26, 1996
after due public notice, and
WHEREAS, the Local Planning Agency voted 6 to 0 to recommend
that the Board of County Commissioners transmit the comprehensive
plan amendment listed below; and
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River
County held a Transmittal Public Hearing on November 12, 1996,
after advertising pursuant to F.S. 163.3184(15)(b)(1), and
WHEREAS, The Board of County Commissioners announced at the
transmittal public hearing its intention to hold and advertise a
final public hearing at the adoption stage of the plan amendments.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA THAT:
1. The above recitals are ratified in their entirety.
2. The following proposed amendment is approved for
transmittal to the State of Florida Department of
Community Affairs for written comment:
Request to amend the Future Land Use Map of the
Comprehensive Plan from L-2, Low -Density
Residential -2 (up to 6 units/acre) to C-1, Publicly
Owned Conservation -1 (zero density) for ±111 acres
located at the northwest corner of CR 510 and 58th
Avenue.
The forgoing Resolution was offered by Commissioner
Bird and seconded by Commissioner Eggert 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 ye
Commissioner John W. Tippin Aye
The Chairman thereupon declared the resolution duly passed and
adopted at a public hearing held this 12th day of November 1996.
ATTEST: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Jeff$arton,, INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
Fran B. Adams; Chairman
NOVEMBER 12, 1996 85
BOOK 99 PnE 751
PUBLIC HEARING - COUNTY INITIATED - REQUEST TO AMEND
THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND TO REDESIGNATE
APPROXIMATELY 101.8 ACRES FROM M-1 AND AG -2 TO C/I• TO
AMEND THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TO REDESIGNATE
APPROXIMATELY 118.4 ACRES FROM C/I TO PUB; AND TO EXPAND
THE URBAN SERVICE AREA BY 29.5 ACRES
P.O. Box 1268 Vero Beach, Florida 32961 562-2315
all Proo 3,oum'al
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,
Florid that
billed to <
was published in said newspaper in the issue(s) of /
G
Sworn to and subscribedefo a me this
day o AM
A.
President
My Comm. Expire': =
y\,\DRA A. PREsc=. xarARY P1 BUC.
August 25. 1 99% -
State A Florida. Ny l ammt+elon exp. Ault 25. 1997
CC910845
tp
Commwelon Yumber. CCS 10845
"�h
Sip d
iliscoTr
MONt.MPN\
oL3Tr: MCRA A.
(SEAL)
NOVEMBER 12, 1996
86
NOTICE OF COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT
CHANGING LAND USE DESIGNATIONS
The Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, will consider
several proposals to change the use of land within the unincorporated portions of In-
dian River County. A public hearing on the proposals will be held on Tuesday, No-
vember 12, 1996, at 9:05 a.m. in the County Commission Chambers of the County
Administration Building, located at 1840 25th Street, Vero Beach, Florida. At this pub-
lic hearing the Board of CountyCommissioners will consider authorizing the transmit-
tal of these amendments to the state Department of Community Affairs for their
review. The proposed amendments are included in a proposed ordinance entitled:
AN ORDINANCE OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, AMENDING THE FUTURE
LAND USE ELEMENT BY CHANGING THE LAND USE DESIGNATION FOR +/-15.2
ACRES LOCATED APPROXIMATELY %a OF A MILE EAST OF 74th AVENUE, ON THE
NORTH SIDE OF 26th STREET, FROM L-1 TO M-1; AMENDING THE FUTURE LAND
USE ELEMENT BY CHANGING THE LAND USE DESIGNATION FOR +1-1111 ACRES
LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF 58th AVENUE AND CR 510, FROM L-
2 TO C-1; AMENDING THE FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT BY CHANGING THE
LAND USE DESIGNATION FOR +/-15 ACRES LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST
CORNER OF 58th AVENUE AND THE MAIN RELIEF CANAL, FROM M-1 TO C/I;
AMENDING THE FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT BY CHANGING THE LAND USE DES-
IGNATION FOR +/-4.6 ACRES LOCATED AT SR 60 AND 63rd COURT, FROM M-
1 TO C/I; AMENDING THE FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT BY CHANGING THE
LAND USE DESIGNATION FOR +/-101.8 ACRES LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST
CORNER OF SR 60 AND 102nd AVENUE, FROM M-1 AND AG -2 TO C/I; AMEND-
ING THE FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT BY CHANGING THE LAND USE DESIG-
NATION FOR +/-118.3 ACRES LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF OSLO ROAD,
+/-660 FEET EAST OF 82ND AVENUE, FROM CA TO PUB; AND PROVIDING
CODIFICATION, SEVERABILITY AND EFFECTIVE DATE.
WONet haWep� I M,
JN GI
---------------
Interested parties may appear and be heard at the public hearing regarding
the approval of these proposed Comprehensive Pion Amendments.
The plan amendment applications may be inspected by the public at the Com-
munity Development Department located on the second floor of the County Adminis-
tration Building located at 1840 25th Street, Vero Beach, Florida, between the hours
of 8:30 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. on weekdays.
NO FINAL ACTION WILL BE TAKEN AT THIS MEETING.
Anyone who may wish to appeal any decision which may be made at this meet-
ing will need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made which in-
cludes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal will be based.
Anyone who needs a special accommodation for this meeting must contact the
county's Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Coordinator at 567-8000 extension
223 at least 48 hours in advance of meeting.
Indian River County
Board of County Commissioners
By: -s- Fran B. Adams, Chairman
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of November 6, 1996:
TO: James E. Chandler
County Administrator
PAR NT BEAD CONC
DATE: November 6, 1996
Community Development Padector
THROUGH: Sasan Rohani, AICP-
Chief, Long -Range Planning
FROM: John WachtelA/
Senior Planner, Long -Range Planning
RE: COUNTY INITIATED REQUEST TO AMEND THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
TO REDESIGNATE APPROXIMATELY 101.8 ACRES FROM M-1 AND AG -
2 TO C/I; TO AMEND THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TO REDESIGNATE
APPROXIMATELY 118.4 ACRES FROM C/I TO PUB; AND TO EXPAND
THE URBAN SERVICE AREA BY 29.5 ACRES
NOVEMBER 12, 1996 87 BOOK 99 PAGE 752
boo 99 Fnf.-751
PLAN AMENDMENT NUMBER: LUDA 96-07-0225
It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal
consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their regular
meeting of November 12, 1996.
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
This is a request to redesignate approximately 101.8 acres from M-
1, Medium -Density Residential -1 (up to 8 units/acre) and AG -2,
Agricultural -2- (up to 1 unit/10 acres) to C/I, Commercial/
Industrial Node, while simultaneously redesignating 118.4 acres
from C/I, Commercial/ Industrial Node, to PUB, Public Facilities.
The subject tracts are under separate ownership.
More specifically, the request involves reconfiguring two nodes.
The proposed: amendment will remove 118.4 acres from the 9th Street
S.W. (Oslo Road)/74th Avenue Commercial/ Industrial Node, while
simultaneously adding 101.8 acres to the SR 60/I-95 Commercial/
Industrial Node. Granting the request would result in a decrease
in the county's total amount of C/I designated land. Additionally,
the request involves extending the county's Urban Service Area
(USA) boundary approximately one-eighth of a mile to the west, on
the north side of SR 60. That change would result in a USA
expansion of approximately 29.5 acres.
The property to be redesignated to C/I is located at the northeast
corner of SR 60 and 102nd Avenue. This property, owned by George
Lambeth, will be referred to as Subject Property 1. The request
involves changing the land use designation of this tract from M-1,
Medium -Density Residential -1 (up to 8 units/acre) and AG -2,
Agricultural -2 (up to 1 unit/10 acres) to C/I, Commercial/
Industrial Node. A concurrent rezoning of Subject Property 1 is
not part of this request.
The property to be redesignated to PUB is located between 9th
Street S.W. (Oslo Road) and 13th Street S.W. (Kelly Road),
approximately one-half of a mile west of 74th Avenue. This
property, recently acquired by Indian River County's Solid Waste
Disposal District (SWDD) for future landfill expansion and to be
the site of a recycling based waste conversion center, will be
referred to as Subject Property 2. The request involves changing
the land use designation of this tract from C/I to PUB. A
concurrent rezoning of Subject Property 2 is not part of this
request.
The purpose of this request is to redesignate Subject Property 2 to
reflect its current public ownership, as well as to facilitate the
development of an industrial park on and around Subject Property 1.
The creation of such a park implements policies of the county's
Overall Economic Development Plan and of the Economic Development
Element of the county's comprehensive plan.
On September 26, 1996, the Planning and Zoning Commission voted 6-0
to recommend that the Board of County Commissioners transmit the
proposed land use amendment to the State Department of Community
Affairs (DCA) for their review. The Board of County Commissioners
is now to decide whether or not the subject request is to be
transmitted to DCA for their review.
Existincr Land Use Pattern
- Subject Property 1
Subject property 1 and land to the west consist of citrus groves.
The east 72.3 acres of the site are zoned A-1, Agricultural
District (up to 1 unit/5 acres), while the west 29.5 acres of the
site and land west of the site are zoned A-2, Agricultural District
(up to 1 unit/10 acres).
South of the site, across SR 60, land is also zoned A-1 and A-2.
That land contains groves and the Kenilworth Estates subdivision of
single-family houses on large lots. Southeast of the site, land is
zoned A-1 and contains citrus groves.
To the east of the site, across 98th avenue, is the RS -6, Single -
Family Residential District (up to 6 units/acre) zoned Vero
Tropical Gardens subdivision. Land North of the site is zoned A-2
and contains rangeland and a sand mine.
NOVEMBER 12, 1996 88
- Subject Property 2
Subject Property 2 and properties to the north and west consist
primarily of citrus groves. The exception is the Perfection Truss
Building. Examination of an aerial photograph indicates that there
may be two small isolated wetlands on Subject Property 2. Most of
the western portion of the site, as well as land to the west and
south of the site, is zoned A-1. The county landfill borders the
site on the south.
Most of the eastern portion of Subject Property 2, as well as land
to the east of the site is zoned IG, General Industrial District.
That land contains the M & W Pump building as well as rangeland and
wooded areas. The eastern portion of land to the north of the
site, across Oslo Road, is zoned CG, general Commercial District,
while the western portion of that area land is zoned A-1.
Future Land Use Pattern
-Subject Property 1
The east 72.3 acres of Subject Property 1 and lands to the east,
across 98th Avenue, are designated M-1, Medium -Density Residential -
1, on the county's future land use map. The Kenilworth Estates
subdivision, to the south, across SR 60, is also designated M-1.
The M-1 designation permits residential uses with densities up to
8 units/acre.
Lands north and west of the site, as well as the west 29.5 acres of
the site, and land west of the Kenilworth Estates subdivision, are
designated AG -2, Agricultural -2, on the county's future land use
map. The AG -2 designation permits agricultural uses and
residential uses with densities up to 1 unit/10 acres.
To the southeast of the site, abutting land is designated C/I,
Commercial/ Industrial Node. This designation permits various
commercial and industrial zoning districts.
- Subject Property 2
Subject Property 2 and properties to the north and east are
designated C/I. Properties to the south and west are designated
PUB, Public Facilities, on the county's future land use map. The
PUB designation is intended for public facilities and services.
Environment
- Subject Property 1
Subject Property 1 is currently used for agricultural purposes,
being a citrus grove. No wetlands or native upland plant
communities exist on site. The subject property is within Flood
Zone A, with a presently undetermined minimum base flood elevation
requirement. This indicates that the property is within the 100
year floodplain.
- Subject Property 2
Except for the truss plant and the two small isolated wetlands,
Subject Property 2 is also a citrus grove. Portions of the site
are within Flood Zone A.
Utilities and Services
Water lines extend to
Reverse. Osmosis Plant,
quarter mile of the
Treatment Plant.
Transportation System
- Subject Property 1
both subject sites from the South County
while wastewater lines extend to within a
sites from the West Regional Wastewater
Both SR 60 and 98th Avenue abut Subject Property 1. West of I-95,
SR 60 is classified as a principal arterial roadway on the future
roadway thoroughfare plan map. This segment of SR 60 is a two-lane
paved road with approximately 200 feet of existing public road
right-of-way. This segment of SR 60 is currently programmed for
expansion to four lanes by 1999.
NOVEMBER 12, 1996
89
B03 9F,n. 54
rp 7
BOOK 99 mu 755
The site also has access to 98th Avenue. North of SR 60, 98th
Avenue is an unpaved local road.
- Subject Property 2
9th Street S.W. (Oslo Road) and 13th Street S.W. (Kelly Road)
provide access to Subject Property 2. Oslo Road is a two-lane
paved road with 60 feet of existing public road right-of-way and is
classified as an urban principal arterial on the future roadway
thoroughfare plan map. This segment of Oslo Road is programmed for
expansion to 80 feet of public road right-of-way by 2010.
The portion of 13th Street S.W. that abuts the site is a two-lane
unpaved road with 30 feet of existing public road right-of-way and
is classified as a collector on the future roadway thoroughfare
plan map. This segment of 13th Street S.W. is programmed for
expansion to 60 feet of public road right-of-way by 2010.
ANALYSIS
In this section, an analysis of the. reasonableness of the
application will be presented. Specifically, this section will
include the following:
• a discussion of node reconfiguration;
• an analysis of the proposed expansion of the Urban Service
Area;
• an analysis of the proposed amendment's impact on public
facilities;
• an analysis of the proposed amendment's compatibility with the
surrounding area;
• an analysis of the proposed amendment's consistency with the
comprehensive plan; and
• an analysis of the proposed amendment's potential impact on
environmental quality.
Discussion of Node Reconfiguration
- Standard of Review
Unlike most land use designation amendment requests, this request
does not involve an increase in land use intensity. As proposed,
the request involves a minor reconfiguration, rather than an
expansion, of commercial/industrial nodes.
For this reason, the subject request can be characterized
differently from most plan amendments. Typically, plan amendments
involve increases in allowable density or intensity of development.
As such, the typical amendment would result in impacts to public
facilities and changes to land use patterns. Consequently, both
the county comprehensive plan and state policy dictate that a high
standard of review is required for typical plan amendments. This
standard of review requires justification for the proposed change
based upon adequate data and analysis.
The subject amendment, however, differs significantly from a
typical plan amendment request. Instead of proposing density or
intensity increases, the subject amendment involves only a
locational shift in future land uses with an overall decrease in
land use intensity.
Staff's position is that these different types of plan amendments
warrant different standards of review. Since the typical type of
amendment can be justified only by challenging the projections,
need assessments, and standards used to prepare the original plan,
a high standard of review is justified. For amendments involving
just shifts in land uses and no intensity/density increase, less
justification is necessary. This recognizes that no single land
use plan map is correct and, in fact, many variations may conform
to accepted land use principles and meet established plan policies.
Another consideration involves the purpose of the county's three
C/I nodes along I-95. In contrast to other nodes which are located
and sized based on market area, these nodes were established for
economic development purposes to attract industry and manufacturing
employment to the county. Since these nodes, in aggregate, serve
the entire county, they function as one node with a countywide
NOVEMBER 12, 1996 90
market area. eor rnar reason, shifting land between these nodes
without updating the projections, need assessments, and standards
used to prepare the original plan is acceptable.
- Land Use Efficiency
The proposed amendment involves reconfiguring two commercial/
industrial nodes. The node containing Subject Property 1 has
access to both SR 60 and I-95, while the node containing Subject
Property 2 focuses principally on Oslo Road and has no access to I-
95.
Several factors indicate that the demand for commercial/ industrial
designated land is greater at the SR 60/I-95 Node than at the Oslo
Road Node. The most important of these factors involves the
county's efforts to attract industry and increase employment.
Businesses considering locating or relocating in Indian River
County have repeatedly indicated a preference for the SR 60/I-95
Node. These businesses cite the central location, the proximity to
other businesses and population, and the easy access to major
roads. In contrast, the Oslo Road Node is relatively isolated from
business and population centers, and has less access to major
roads.
Other factors also suggest that the proposed node reconfiguration
is more logical and efficient than the existing configuration.
These factors include:
• population growth along the SR 60 Corridor and in the northern
portion of the county;
• recent developments in the SR 60/I-95 Node (including a retail
center that is anticipated to soon surpass DRI thresholds);
• future landfill expansion; and
• the land owners' proposed use of the subject properties.
For these reasons, the proposed node reconfiguration represents a
logical and rational land use plan change that will facilitate
efficient land use within the county.
Urban Service Area Expansion
Besides node reconfiguration, the proposed amendment includes
extending the USA boundary approximately one-eighth of a mile west,
on the north side of SR 60. In terms of distance and area (29.5
acres), this is a minor expansion that will not encourage urban
sprawl.
The USA expansion, however, is important to the county's efforts to
attract industry and increase employment. The proposed amendment
would result in the creation of the first tract in the county that
meets the minimum size, location and ownership requirements
necessary to develop an adequately sized, viable industrial park.
That site would consist of Subject Property 1 and the adjacent,
industrially designated 36.5 acre tract at the northwest corner of
SR 60 and 98th Avenue. For the industrial park to be developed,
however, centralized potable water and wastewater service must be
available to the entire 138.3 acre site.
For these reasons, the proposed USA expansion will implement the
county's economic development goals without encouraging urban
sprawl.
Ccncurrency of Public Facilities .
Except for the west 29.5 acres of Subject Property 1, both sites
comprising this request are 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. To ensure that the minimum acceptable
standards for these services and facilities are maintained, the
comprehensive plan requires that new development be reviewed. For
land use designation amendment requests, this review is undertaken
as part of the conditional concurrency determination application
process.
NOVEMBER 12, 1996 91 boa 99 pm 756
Bou 99 Pm 757
As per section 910.07(2) of the Concurrency Management Chapter of
the County's Land Development Regulations, projects which do not
increase land use intensity are exempt from concurrency
requirements. For the subject request, the amount of land to be
removed from a C/I node exceeds the amount of land to be added to
another C/I node. Therefore, this land use amendment request is
exempt from concurrency review because the requested land use
designation changes would not increase the potential land use
intensity that the sites could accommodate.
Nevertheless, to ensure that the proposed amendment will not cause
the provision of public services to,fall below adopted levels of
service, a concurrency review is included in this report. That
review will focus on Subject Property 1, the property "receiving"
the C/I designation and therefore, potentially increasing its land
use intensity.
The concurrency review examines the available capacity of each
facility with respect to a proposed project. Since Comprehensive
Plan amendment requests are not projects, the concurrency review is
based upon the most intense use of the subject property based upon
the requested land use designation. Typically, for commercial/
industrial Comprehensive Plan amendment requests, the most intense
use is retail commercial with 10,000 square feet of gross floor
area per acre of land proposed for redesignation.
In this case, however, the intent of the request is to allow
development of light industry on Subject Property 1. That intent
is consistent with the county's Overall Economic Development Plan
and with the Comprehensive Plan's Economic Development Element.
Therefore, the county has additional control over development on
Subject Property 1. That control can be exercised during the
rezoning and the site plan approval phases of the development
process. Both of those phases would be necessary to develop
Subject Property 1.
For those reasons, the concurrency review for Subject Property 1
will be based on industrial development of the entire 101.8 acre
site. The site information used for the concurrency analysis is as
follows:
1. Size of Area to be
Redesignated:
2. Existing Land Use Designation:
3. Proposed Land Use Designation:
4. Most Intense Use of Subject
Property under Current
Land Use Designation:
*101.8 acres
*72.3 acres of M-1,
Medium -Density
Residential -1 (up to 8
units/acre) and *29.5
acres of AG -2,
Agricultural -2 (up to 1
unit/10 acres)
C/I, Commercial -
Industrial Node
580 Dwelling Units
5. Most Intense Use of Subject Property under Proposed Land Use
Designation: 101.8 acres of Industrial
- Transportation
A review of the traffic impacts that would result from industrial
development on Subject Property 1 indicates that the existing level
of service (LOS) "C" or better on SR 60, from 100th Avenue to I-95,
and "D" or better on other impacted roads would not be lowered.
Because it is part of the Florida Intrastate Highway System, state
regulations require that LOS "C" be maintained on that portion of
State Road 60. The site information used for determining traffic
impacts is as follows:
Existing Land Use Desicmation
1. Residential Use Identified in 5th Edition ITE Manual:
Single -Family
NOVEMBER 12, 1996
92
2. For Single -Family Units in 5th Edition ITE Manual:
a. Average Weekday Trip Ends: 10.1/unit
b. P.M. Peak Hour Trip Ends: 1.01/unit
C. Inbound (P.M. Peak Hour): 65%
i. Eastbound (P.M. Peak Hour): 51%
ii. Westbound (P.M. Peak Hour): 49%
d. Outbound (P.M. Peak Hour): 35%
i. Eastbound (P.M. Peak Hour): 49%
ii. Westbound (P.M. Peak Hour): 51%
3. Peak Direction of SR 60, from 100th Avenue to I-95: Eastbound
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
(580 X 1.01 X .65 X .51 = 194)
5. Formula for Determining Number of Average Weekday Trips
Generated: Number of Units X Average Weekday Rate
(580 X 10.1 = 51858)
Proposed Land Use Designation
1. Use Identified in 5th Edition ITE Manual: Industrial
2. For 101.8 acre Industrial Developments in 5th Edition ITE
Manual:
a. Average Weekday Trip Ends: 6.75/acre
b. P.M. Peak Hour Trip Ends: 2.16/acre
C. Inbound (P.M. Peak Hour): 50%
i. Eastbound (P.M. Peak Hour): 51%
ii. Westbound (P.M. Peak Hour): 49%
d. Outbound (P.M. Peak Hour): 50%
i. Eastbound (P.M. Peak Hour): 49%
ii. Westbound (P.M. Peak Hour): 51%
3. Peak Direction of SR 60, from 100th Avenue to I-95: Eastbound
4. Formula for Determining Number of Peak Hour/Peak Season/Peak
Direction Trips Generated: Total Acreage X P.M. Peak Hour Rate
X Inbound P.M. Percentage X Inbound -Eastbound Percentage
(101.8 acres X 2.16/acre X .5 X .51 = 56)
5. Formula for Determining Number of Average Weekday Trips
Generated: Total Acreage X Average Weekday Rate
(101.8 acres X 6.75/acre = 687)
6. Traffic Capacity on this segment of SR 60, at a Level of
Service "D": 1,280 peak hour/peak season/peak direction trips
7. Total Segment Demand (existing volume + vested volume) on this
segment of SR 60: 496 peak hour/peak season/peak direction
trips
The number of Average Weekday Trip Ends associated with the most
intense use of the subject property under the existing land use
designation is 5,858. This was determined by multiplying the 580
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 industrial
development on Subject Property 1 is 687. This was determined by
multiplying the 101.8 acres by ITE's industrial development fitted
curve factor of 6.75 Average Daily Trip Ends/acre.
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 SR 60 is eastbound.
A0QX PAG
NOVEMBER 12, 1996 93
BOOK 99 PAfaE 759
Given those conditions, the number of peak hour/peak season/peak
direction trips that would be generated by the most intense use of
the subject property under the existing land use designation was
calculated to be 194. This was determined by multiplying the total
number of units allowed (580) under the existing land use
designation by ITE's factor of 1.01 p.m. peak hour trips/unit, to
determine the total number of trips generated. Of these trips, 6516
(381) will be inbound and 35% (205) will be outbound. Of the
inbound trips, 51% or 194 will be eastbound.
To determine the number of peak hour/peak season/peak direction
trips that would be generated by industrial development on Subject
Property 1, the total site acreage (101.8) was multiplied by ITE's
factor of 2.16 p.m. peak hour trips/acre to determine the total
number of trips generated (220). Of these trips, 50% (110) will be
inbound and 50% (110) will be outbound. Of the inbound trips, Sit
or 56 will be eastbound. Therefore, industrial devlopment Subject
Property 1 would generate 138 (194 - 56 = 138) fewer peak hour/peak
season/peak direction trips than the 194 that would be generated by
the most intense use of the subject property under the existing
land use designation.
Using 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 (W 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 (vested) traffic
volumes; this is updated daily based upon vesting associated with
project approvals.
The traffic capacity for the segment of SR 60 adjacent to this site
is 980 trips (peak hour/peak season/peak direction) at Level of
Service (LOS) "C", while the Total Segment Demand (existing traffic
volume + vested traffic volume) on this segment of SR 60 is 496
trips (peak hour/peak season/peak direction). The additional 56
peak hour/peak season/peak direction trips created by industrial
development on Subject Property 1 would increase the Total Segment
Demand peak hour/peak season/peak direction trips for this segment
of SR 60 to approximately 552.
Based on the above analysis, staff determined that SR 60 and all
other impacted roads can accommodate the additional trips without
decreasing their existing levels of service.
The table below identifies each of the impacted roadway segments
associated with industrial development on Subject Property 1. As
indicated in this table, there is sufficient capacity in all of the
segments to accommodate the projected traffic associated with the
request.
TRAFFIC CONCURRENCY DETERMINATION
Impacted Road Segments
(peak hour/peak season/peak direction)
Roadway
Segment
Road
From
To
Segment
Capacity
LOS "D"
1220N
I-95
C.R. 512
S.R. 60
2700
1220S
I-95
C.R. 512
S.R. 60
2700
1230N
I-95
S.R. 60
Oslo Road
2640
12305
I-95
S.R. 60
Oslo Road
2640
1335N
U.S.
1
17th Street
S.R. 60
2270
1335S
U.S.
1
17th Street
S.R. 60
2270
1340N
U.S.
1
S.R. 60
Royal Palm
2300
1340S
U.S.
1
S.R. 60
Royal Palm
2300
1910E
S.R.
60
100 Ave.
I-95
980
1910W
S.R.
60
100 Ave.
I-95
980
1915E
S.R.
60
I-95
82 Ave.
1890
1915W
S.R.
60
I-95
82 Ave.
1890
1920E
S.R.
60
82 Ave.
66th Ave.
3110
1920W
S.R.
60
82 Ave.
66th Ave.
3110
NOVEMBER 12, 1996 94
M M r
NOVEMBER 12, 1996 95BOOK 99 PAGE `/��
Segment
Capacity
Roadway
Seament
Road
From
To
LOS
"D"
1925E
S.R.
60
66th Ave.
58th
Ave.
2840
1925W
S.R.
60
66th Ave.
58th
Ave.
2840
1930E
S.R.
60
58th Ave.
43rd
Ave.
2840
1930W
S.R.
60
58th Ave.
43rd
Ave.
2840
1935E
S.R.
60
43rd Ave.
27th
Ave.
2840
1935W
S.R.
60
43rd Ave.
27th
Ave.
2840
1940E
S.R.
60
27th Ave.
20th
Ave.
2510
1940W
S.R.
60
27th Ave.
20th
Ave.
2510
1945E
S.R.
60
20th Ave.
Old Dixie
2328
1945W
S.R.
60
20th Ave.
Old Dixie
2328
1950E
S.R.
60
Old Dixie Hwy.
10th
Ave.
2328
1950W
S.R.
60
Old Dixie Hwy.
10th
Ave.
2328
1955E
S.R.
60
10th Ave.
U.S.
1
2328
1955W
S.R.
60
10th Ave.
U.S.
1
2328
2335N
Old Dixie Hwy.
16th Street
S. VBCL
880
23355
Old Dixie Hwy.
16th Street
S. VBCL
880
2530E
Oslo
Road
82nd Ave.
58th
Ave.
600
2530W
Oslo
Road
82nd Ave.
58th
Ave.
600
2540E
Oslo
Road
58th Ave.
43rd
Ave.
880
254OW
Oslo
Road
58th Ave.
43rd
Ave.
880
2550E
Oslo
Road
43rd Ave.
27th
Ave.
880
255OW
Oslo
Road
43rd Ave.
27th
Ave.
880
2560E
Oslo
Road
27th Ave.
20th
Ave.
880
256OW
Oslo
Road
27th Ave.
20th
Ave.
880
2570E
Oslo
Road
20th Ave.
Old Dixie
880
257OW
Oslo
Road
20th Ave.
Old Dixie
880
286ON
20th
Ave.
16th Street
S.R.
60
1890
28605
20th
Ave.
16th Street
S.R.
60
1890
287ON
20th
Ave.
S.R. 60
Atlantic Blvd.
880
2870S
20th
Ave.
S.R. 60
Atlantic Blvd.
880
293ON
43rd
Ave.
16th St.
S.R.
60
880
29305
43rd
Ave.
16th St.
S.R.
60
880
2935N
43rd
Ave.
S.R. 60
26th
St.
880
29355
43rd
Ave.
S.R. 60
26th
St.
880
3025N
58th
Ave.
16th Street
S.R.
60
1890
3025S
58th
Ave.
16th Street
S.R.
60
1890
303ON
58th
Ave.
S.R. 60
41st
Street
1890
30305
58th.Ave.
S.R. 60
41st
Street
1890
312ON
66th
Ave.
S.R. 60
26th
Street
760
31205
66th
Ave.
S.R. 60
26th
Street
760
3310N
82nd
Ave.
Oslo Road
4th St.
820
33105
82nd
Ave.
Oslo Road
4th St.
820
3320N
82nd
Ave.
4th St.
12th
St.
760
3320S
82nd
Ave.
4th St.
12th
St.
760
3330N
82nd
Ave.
12th St.
S.R.
60
760
33305
82nd
Ave.
12th St.
S.R.
60
760
3340N
82nd
Ave.
S.R. 60
65th
St.
600
3340S
82nd
Ave.
S.R. 60
65th
St.
600
Existing Demand
Total
Available
Positive
Roadway
Existing Vested
Segment
Segment
Project
Concurrency
Segment
Volume Volume
Demand
Capacity
Demand Determination
1220N
1222
76
1298
1402
4
y
1220S
1227
72
1299
1401
4
y
1230N
1149
129
1278
1362
8
y
1230S
1153
118
1271
1369
8
y
1335N
1442
304
1746
524
7
y
13355
1315
313
1328
642
7
y
1340N
643
186
829
1471
7
y
1340S
680
203
883
1417
7
y
1910E
371
125
496
484
100
y
1910W
356
132
488
492
101
y
1915E
925
535
1460
430
66
y
1915W
1039
487
1526
364
66
y
1920E
1120
771
1891
1219
46
y
1920W
1294
711
2005
1105
46
y
1925E
1170
1376
2547
294
34
y
1925W
1288
1335
2623
217
34
y
1930E
1116
1450
2566
274
24
y
1930W
1209
1427
2636
204
24
y
1935E
1074
1005
2079
761
22
y
1935W
1202
983
2185
655
22
y
1940E
863
730
1593
915
17
y
1940W
859
719
1578
932
17
y
1945E
928
642
1570
758
15
y
1945W
985
628
1613
715
15
y
1950E
1037
484
1521
807
14
y
1950W
789
480
1269
1059
14
y
1955E
937
451
1388
940
14
y
1955W
491
442
933
1395
14
y
2335N
169
105
274
606
1
y
23355
134
102--
'2336
644
1
y
2530E
213
51
264
336
13
y
253OW
170
52
222
378
13
y
2540E
347
34
381
499
11
y
254OW
235
33
268
612
11
y
2550E
334
50
384
496
9
y
255OW
255
48
303
577
9
y
2560E
314
38
352
528
6
y
2560W
368
35
403
477
6
y
2570E
390
82
472
408
1
y
257OW
414
77
491
389
1
y
286ON
212
54
266
1624
1
y
2860S
298
54
352
1538
1
y
287ON
135
21
156
724
1
y
28705
136
•22
158
722
1
y
2930N
498
192
690
190
2
y
29305
673
191
864
16
2
y
NOVEMBER 12, 1996 95BOOK 99 PAGE `/��
BOOK
Roadway
Segment
Existing
Existing
Volume
Demand
Vested
Volume
Total
Segment
Demand
Available
Segment
Capacity
Project
Demand
Positive
Concurrency
Determination
2935N
380
146
526
354
2
Y
29355
504
142
646
234
2
Y
3025N
510
616
1126
764
5
Y
3025S
564
614
1178
712
5
Y
303ON
461
386
847
1043
5
Y
3030S
495
394
889
1001
5
Y
312ON
214
76
290
470
12
Y
3120S
169
77
246
514
12
Y
331ON
101
31
132
688
13
Y
3310S
84
23
107
713
13
Y
3320N
123
18
141
619
13
Y
33205
100
16
116
644
13
Y
3330N
171
56
227
533
13
Y
33305
238
67
305
455
13
Y
3340N
48
39
87
513
7
Y
3340S
44
40
84
516
7
Y
Water
0-9 PA, 1
A 1,018,000 square foot industrial park on Subject Property 1 will
have a water consumption rate of 407.2 Equivalent Residential units
(ERU), or 101,800 gallons/day. This is based upon a level of
service standard of 250 gallons/ERU/day. Water lines extend to the
site from the South County Reverse Osmosis Plant which currently
has a remaining capacity of approximately 2,000,000 gallons/day and
therefore can accommodate the potable water demand associated with
an industrial park on Subject Property 1.
- Wastewater
Sanitary Sewer service is available to Subject Property 1 from the
West Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant. A 1,018,000 square foot
industrial park on Subject Property 1 will have a wastewater
generation rate of approximately 407.2 Equivalent Residential Units
(ERU), or 101,800 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
approximately 200,000 gallons/day and can accommodate the
additional wastewater generated by an industrial park on Subject
Property 1.
- Solid Waste
Solid waste service includes pick-up by private operators and
disposal at the county landfill. For a 1,018,000 square foot
industrial park on Subject Property 1, solid waste generation will
be approximately 4,072 waste generation units (WGU) annually. A
WGU is a Waste Generation Unit measurement equivalent to one ton
(2,000 pounds) of solid waste. Using the accepted conversion rate
of one cubic yard for every 1,200 pounds of compacted solid waste
generated, a 1,018,000 square foot industrial park would be
expected to generate 6,787 cubic yards of waste/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 staff analysis, it was determined that the county landfill
can accommodate the additional solid waste generated by the
proposed amendment.
- 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 six inches above 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 A, which is a special flood hazard
area located within the 100 -year floodplain, any development on
NOVEMBER 12, 1996 96
M M M
this property must have a minimum finished floor elevation of no
less than 25.7 feet above mean sea level, or 18 inches above the
crown of the adjacent roadway, whichever is higher.
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
3,769,247 square feet, or 86.53 acres. The maximum runoff volume,
based on that amount of impervious surface and the 25 year/24 hour
design storm, and given the IRFWCD two inch discharge requirement,
will be approximately 3,274,475 cubic feet. In order to maintain
the county's adopted level of service, the applicant will be
required to retain approximately 2,535,003 cubic feet of runoff on-
site. With the soil characteristics of the subject property, the
estimated pre -development runoff rate is 824.1 cubic feet/second.
Based upon staff's analysis, the drainage level of service
standards will be met by limiting off-site discharge to the
IRFWCD's maximum discharge rate of two inches in twenty-four hours,
requiring retention of the 2,535,003 cubic feet of runoff for the
most intense use of the property, and requiring that all finished
floor elevations exceed 25.7 feet above mean sea level, or 18
inches above the crown of the adjacent roadway, whichever is
higher.
As with all development, a more detailed review will be conducted
during the development approval process.
- Recreation
Recreation concurrency requirements apply only to residential
development. Therefore, this comprehensive plan amendment request
would not be required to satisfy recreation concurrency
requirements.
Based on the analysis conducted, staff has determined that all
concurrency -mandated facilities, including drainage, roads, solid
waste, water, and wastewater have adequate capacity to accommodate
an industrial park on Subject Property 1.
Compatibility with the Surrounding Area
- Subject Property 1
The proposed amendment will not increase potential
incompatibilities associated with development of Subject Property
1. Since this property abuts commercial/ industrial designated land
to the southeast, the proposed redesignation would result in a
continuation of an existing land use designation pattern.
The primary impacts of industrial development on Subject Property
1 would be on the Vero Tropical Garden subdivision along the east
side of 98th Avenue. Despite being platted in 1960, this
subdivision remains largely undeveloped.
There are also several factors that indicate that industrial
development on Subject Property 1 would not be incompatible with
residential development in the Vero Tropical Garden subdivision.
In contrast to the properties to the north and west of Subject
Property 1, the Vero Tropical Garden properties are relatively
small in size and, therefore, do not have the option of providing
additional buffering. They do, however, have the advantage of an
additional 100 feet of separation due to canal and road right-of-
way. LDR provisions that would work to mitigate potential impacts
on these properties from industrial development on Subject. Property
1 include a Type "A" vegetative buffer with a six foot opaque
feature, and a required 25 foot front yard. To minimize the mixing
of residential and commercial traffic, access to industrial
development on Subject Property 1 would be required to be from SR
60.
Finally, LDR chapter 926 requires perimeter landscaping, as well as
landscaping of parking lots, and open space.
For these reasons, staff feels that the proposed amendment will not
increase potential incompatibilities associated with development of
Subject Property i.
NOVEMBER 12, 1996 97 BOOK 9 76
BOOK 99 f -,u 763
-Subject Property 2
Because development in the area of Subject Property 2 is dominated
by the landfill, agriculture, and various industrial uses, impacts
on surrounding property are not a major concern for this property.
The impacts of development of Subject Property 2 are anticipated to
be similar under either the existing C/I or the requested PUB land
use designations. The most likely use of the site, under the
requested PUB land use designation, is for a recycling park. Some
activities associated with commercial/ industrial uses are also
associated with public facilities uses, particularly landfill uses.
Examples of such uses include heavy equipment operation, repair,
and storage. In fact, in terms of impacts on surrounding areas,
- Recreation
Recreation concurrency requirements apply only to residential
development. Therefore, this comprehensive plan amendment request
would not be required to satisfy recreation concurrency
requirements.
Based on the analysis conducted, staff has determined that all
concurrency -mandated facilities, including drainage, roads, solid
waste, water, and wastewater have adequate capacity to accommodate
an industrial park on Subject Property 1.
Compatibility with the Surrounding Area
- Subject Property 1
The proposed amendment will not increase potential
incompatibilities associated with development of Subject Property
1. Since this property abuts commercial/ industrial designated land
to the southeast, the proposed redesignation would result in a
continuation of an existing land use designation pattern.
The primary impacts of industrial development on Subject Property
1 would be on the Vero Tropical Garden subdivision along the east
side of 98th Avenue. Despite being platted in 1960, this
subdivision remains largely undeveloped.
There are also several factors that indicate that industrial
development on Subject Property 1 would not be incompatible with
residential development in the Vero Tropical Garden subdivision.
In contrast to the properties to the north and west of Subject
Property 1, the Vero Tropical Garden properties are relatively
small in size and, therefore, do not have the option of providing
additional buffering. They do, however, have the advantage of an
additional 100 feet of separation due to canal and road right-of-
way. LDR provisions that would work to mitigate potential impacts
on these properties from industrial development on Subject Property
1 include a Type "A" vegetative buffer with a six foot opaque
feature, and a required 25 foot front yard. To minimize the mixing
of residential and commercial traffic, access to industrial
development on Subject Property 1 would be required to be from SR
60.
Finally, LDR chapter 926 requires perimeter landscaping, as well as
landscaping of parking lots, and open space.
For these reasons, staff feels that the proposed amendment will not
increase potential incompatibilities associated with development of
Subject Property 1.
-Subject Property 2
Because development in the area of Subject Property.2 is dominated
by the landfill, agriculture, and various industrial uses, impacts
on surrounding property are not a major concern for this property.
The impacts of development of Subject Property 2 are anticipated to
be similar under either the existing C/I or the requested PUB land
use designations. The most likely use of the site, under the
requested PUB land use designation, is for a recycling park. Some
activities associated with commercial/industrial uses are also
associated with public facilities uses, particularly landfill uses.
Examples of such uses include heavy equipment operation, repair,
and storage. In fact, in terms of impacts on surrounding areas,
NOVEMBER 12, 1996 98
there is sometimes no difference between landfill uses and C/I
uses.
For these reasons, staff feels that Subject Property 2's proposed
land use designation would not increase potential incompatibilities
with surrounding areas.
Consistency with Comprehensive Plan
Land use amendment requests are reviewed for consistency with all
policies of the comprehensive plan. As per section 800.07(1) of
the land development regulations, the "comprehensive plan may only
be amended in such a way as to preserve the internal consistency of
the plan pursuant to Section 163.3177(2) F. S." Amendments must also
show consistency with the overall designation of land uses as
depicted on the Future Land Use Map, which includes agricultural,
residential, recreational, conservation, and commercial and
industrial land uses and their densities.
The goals, objectives and policies are the most important parts of
the comprehensive plan. Policies are statements in the plan which
identify actions which the county will take in order to direct the
community's development. As courses of action committed to by the
county, policies provide the basis for all county land development
related decisions --including plan amendment decisions. While all
comprehensive plan objectives and policies are important, some have
more applicability than others in reviewing plan amendment
requests. Of particular applicability for this request are the
following policies.
- Future Land Use Element Policy 13.3
In evaluating a land use amendment request, the most important
consideration is Future Land Use Element Policy 13.3. This policy
requires that one of three criteria be met in order to approve a
land use amendment request. These criteria are:
• a mistake in the approved plan;
• an oversight in the approved plan; or
• a substantial change in circumstances affecting the subject
property.
Future Land Use Element Policy 13.3 is especially important when
evaluating land use amendment requests to increase density or
intensity. Compared to such requests, amendments that do not
increase density or intensity warrant a lower level of scrutiny.
In this case, the subject request is for a minor node
reconfiguration and a decrease in land use intensity.
With respect to Policy 13.3, staff feels that the proposed land use
amendment meets the policy's third criterion. For typical
amendment requests, substantial evidence justifying a change in
circumstances would need to be documented. Because the subject
amendment involves only a re -orientation of future land uses, as
well as a decrease in land use intensity, a physical change in
circumstances need not be documented. In this case, the change in
circumstances relates to overall land use efficiency.
As noted previously, the county recently purchased Subject Property
2 for a recycling based waste conversion center. Since such a use
does not require a C/I land use designation and because there is a
demand for the C/I designation on Subject Property 1, the proposed
node reconfiguration would increase overall land use efficiency.
Staff's position is that the purchase of Subject Property 2 for
future landfill expansion constitutes a change in circumstances
affecting the subject property. Therefore, the proposed amendment
meets the third criterion of Future Land Use Element Policy 13.3
and is consistent with Future Land Use Element Policy 13.3.
- Future Land Use Element Policy 1.17
Future. Land Use Element Policy 1.17 states that the industrial land
use designation should be within the urban service area and is
intended for manufacturing, assembly, materials processing, and
similar uses.
NOVEMBER 12, 1996
W
BOOK 99 PAGE 764
Box � 99 FnE 765
Fronting a major road, adjacent to C/I designated land, and with
urban services available, Subject Property 1 is appropriate for
industrial uses. The minor expansion of the USA associated with
this request would ensure that Subject Property 1 would remain
within the USA. The proposed amendment would allow industrial
development on Subject Property 1. Therefore, the proposed
amendment is consistent with Future Land Use Element Policy 1.17.
- Future Land Use Element Policy 1.20
Future Land Use Element
designated size based
population, existing
characteristics.
Policy 1.20 states that nodes shall have a
on the intended use and service area
land use pattern and other demand
Based on the above criteria, including service area population
projections, the county has an acknowledged overallocation of C/I
designated land. Since this request would actually reduce that
overallocation by reducing the amount of C/I designated land by
16.6 acres, the proposed amendment is consistent with Future Land
Use Element Policy 1.20.
- Future Land Use Element Policy 1.21
Future Land Use Element Policy 1.21 states that node boundaries
should provide for efficient land uses and maximum use of
transportation facilities while eliminating strip development.
Based on demand characteristics, the most efficient uses of the
subject sites are as requested in the proposed amendment.
Additionally, C/I designated land along SR 60 would provide for the
maximum use of that transportation facility. Subject Property 1,
with access to two roads, has ample depth as well as width.
Therefore, redesignation of the subject properties will not result
in strip development. For these reasons, the proposed amendment is
consistent with Future Land Use Element Policy 1.21.
- Future Land Use Element Policy 1.23
Future Land Use Element Policy 1.23 states that 70% of the land
area of a node should be developed with non-residential and non-
agricultural uses before that node is considered for expansion.
When considered separately, the node containing Subject Property 1
does not meet this standard.
The intent of this policy, however, is to regulate increases in the
amount of C/I designated land. Since the proposed amendment
removes more land from one node than is added to another node,
there would be no increase in the amount of C/I designated land
associated with this amendment. For that reason, Future Land Use
Element Policy 1.23's 70% developed standard does not apply to this
amendment.
- Future Land Use Element Policy 1.24
Future Land Use Policy 1.24 states that any property redesignated
commercial through a land use plan amendment shall revert to its
former designation if construction on the site has not commenced
within a two year period, unless such timeframe is modified by the
Board of County Commissioners as part of a development agreement.
This policy decreases land speculation, and helps ensure that
demand for additional C/I designated land is present before
requests to expand nodes are approved. This policy also allows for
the correction of nodes mistakenly expanded in the absence of
demand for more C/I designated land.
- Future Land Use Element Policy 1.27
Future Land Use Element Policy 1.27 states that the Public
Facilities designation should be within the urban service area and
is intended for public facilities and services. Since Subject
Property 2 is within the urban service area and is programmed for
public facility use (the recycling park), the proposed amendment is
consistent with Future Land Use Element Policy 1.27.
- Future Land Use Element Policy 2.2
Future Land Use Element Policy 2.2 states that the USA should
contain areas which receive services deemed necessary to support
urban and suburban development. Located on a major roadway, with
NOVEMBER 12, 1996
100
water anti wastewater service available, Subject Property 1 meets
that criteria. This policy also states that land within the USA
shall be considered suitable for urban and suburban development.
Since the analysis shows that all of Subject Property 1 (including
the portion that is currently outside the USA) meets that criteria,
the proposed amendment, including the proposed expansion of the
USA, is consistent with Future Land Use Element Policy 2.2.
- Economic Development Element Policy 1.1
Economic Development Element Policy 1.1 states that the county
shall encourage the attraction of new industries and businesses,
including clean "high tech" industries. The proposed amendment
will move C/I designated land from an area to be developed with
public uses to an area that is attractive to clean "high tech"
industries. Therefore, the proposed amendment is consistent with
Economic Development Element Policy 1.1.
- Economic Development Element Policy 6.2
Economic Development Element Policy 6.2 states that the county
shall evaluate the configuration of nodes to ensure they can
properly provide for growth. Since the proposed amendment
reconfigures the two subject nodes to better provide for growth,
the proposed amendment implements Economic Development Element
Policy 6.2.
As part of the staff analysis, all policies in the comprehensive
plan were considered. Based upon this analysis, staff determined
that the proposed land use designation amendment is consistent with
the comprehensive plan.
Potential Impact on Environmental Quality
Since Subject Property 1 is presently a grove and therefore has
been disturbed, development of that site under either the existing
or the requested land use designation would have no significant
negative environmental impact.
If an environmental survey shows that wetlands exist on Subject
Property 2, the applicant would need to obtain a Wetlands Resource
Permit prior to site development. That requirement is in effect
under either the existing or the requested land use designation.
For that reason, the proposed amendment would have no significant
negative environmental impact.
CONCLUSION
As proposed, the land use designation changes at both sites are
consistent with the comprehensive plan, compatible with all
surrounding land uses, and will cause no adverse impacts on the
environment or the provision of public services. The proposed
changes increase land use efficiency and implement economic
development policies while decreasing the county's overallocation
of C/I designated land. For these reasons, staff supports the
request.
Based on the analysis performed, staff and the Planning and Zoning
Commission recommend that the Board of County Commissioners
transmit this land use amendment to DCA and request DCA and all
reviewing agencies conduct a full review of the amendment.
NOVEMBER 12, 1996 101 am 99 PAGE 766
BOOK 99 PAGE 767
Community Development Director Robert Keating reviewed the
Comp Plan amendment process, advising that this is the first public
hearing before the Board of County Commissioners on this land use
amendment request. If the Board approves the transmittal of this
application to the Department of Community Affairs (DCA) in
Tallahassee for their 90 -day review, a second and final public
hearing will be scheduled to consider any comments made by the DCA
and whether to adopt an ordinance amending the Comp Plan by
redesignating the land use. If the Board denies the transmittal of
an application to the DCA, the application process will come to an
end. This is a project which was initially approved about 1 year
ago and involves reconfiguring two commercial/ industrial nodes -
Oslo Road/74th Avenue and SR -60/I-95 park.
Chairman Adams felt this is by no means a swap as the County's
property is a public purpose property.
Director Keating stated that the Chairman was correct but that
this project does not involve intensification of the commercial
zoning.
Chairman Adams questioned the plan for the north county
industrial park and wanted to be sure there would still be enough
lands to swap for that purpose. She also felt this particular
project significantly changes the other property owner's land use
and increases the value of his property.
Director Pinto advised there are still 240 acres available for
the north county project.
Chairman Adams was under the impression that the County had
paid for the acquisition management plan, and Director Keating
responded that Florida DOT had the management plan prepared.
Director Keating addressed several of Chairman Adams' concerns
by showing an overhead of a proposed rendering for the site plan.
He felt the County cannot get too involved in management or design
until they get an acquisition management plan, at which time they
will move forward expeditiously. The County's Comp Plan contains
a provision for revisiting the project after 2 years if no action
has been taken. Also, with respect to the north county industrial
park, staff is working with the State, so far without a lot of
success.
Scott Lambeth advised that he had dropped off the conceptual
plans on Friday and stated that they could not develop an
industrial park on 36 acres. They had to wait for the rest of the
acreage and now have all they need for the project.
NOVEMBER 12, 1996 102
M M M
Chairman Adams inquired about the time schedule, and Mr.
Lambeth advised they will start the project as quickly as possible.
Commissioner Bird noted that the commercial node at CR -512 is
approximately 1000 acres and, of that, a certain portion will be
purchased by the state and the designation will be changed so that
it will be available for transfer.
Director Keating advised that 50 acres of the Coraci property
has not been redesignated so we can still use that.
The Chairman opened the public hearing and asked if anyone
wished to be heard in this matter.
Attorney Earl Hall of 633 South Federal Highway, Fort
Lauderdale, representing the property owners of 20 acres next to
the subject property, expressed concern that this project would
adversely affect the value of his clients' property.
Steve Boyd, appraiser, of 3201 Cardinal, voiced his concerns
that the project will affect the value of his clients' property and
will create a non -compatible use.
County Attorney Vitunac asked Attorney Hall to contact
Director Pinto and stated that staff had been trying to contact Mr.
Hall.
The Chairman asked if anyone else 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, by a 4-1 vote,,
Chairman Adams opposed, adopted Resolution 96-144
(Lambeth - SR60 and SWDD - Oslo Road) approving the
transmittal of a proposed amendment to the Indian
River County Comprehensive Plan to the State of
Florida Department of Community Affairs for its
review.
RESOLUTION NO. 96- 144
A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN
RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, APPROVING THE TRANSMITTAL OF A PROPOSED
AMENDMENT TO THE INDIAN RIVER COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TO THE
STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS FOR ITS
REVIEW.
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners adopted the Indian
River County Comprehensive Plan on February 13, 1990, and
WHEREAS, the county received comprehensive plan amendment
applications during -its July 1996 amendment submittal window, and
500K 99 PAGE 168
NOVEMBER 12, 1996 103
BOOK 99. PAGE 769
RESOLUTION NO. 96-144
WHEREAS, the Local Planning Agency held a public hearing on
this comprehensive plan amendment request on September 26, 1996
after due public notice, and
WHEREAS, the Local Planning Agency voted 6 to 0 to recommend
that the Board of County Commissioners transmit the comprehensive
plan amendment listed below; and
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River
County held a Transmittal Public Hearing on November 12, 1996,
after advertising pursuant to F.S. 163.3184(15)(b)(1), and
WHEREAS, The Board of County Commissioners announced at the
transmittal public hearing its intention to hold and advertise a
final public hearing at the adoption stage of the plan amendments.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA THAT:
1. The above recitals are ratified in their entirety.
2. The following proposed amendment is approved for
transmittal to the State of Florida Department of
Community Affairs for written comment:
Request to amend the Comprehensive Plan to
redesignate approximately 101.8 acres located at
the northeast corner of 102nd Avenue and SR 60 from
M-1, Medium -Density Residential -1 (up to 8 units/
acre) to C/I, Commercial/Industrial Node; to amend
the Comprehensive Plan to redesignate approximately
118.4 acres located on the south side of Oslo Road,
east of 82nd Avenue, from C/I, Commercial/
Industrial Node, to PUB, Public Facilities; and to
expand the Urban Service Area by approximately 29.5
acres.
The forgoing Resolution was offered by Commissioner
Eggert and seconded by Commissioner Bird and upon
being put to a vote the vote was as follows:
Chairman Fran B. Adams Nay
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 at a public hearing held this 12th day of November 1996.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
BY:
Fran B. Adams, Chairman
ATTEST:
Jed` K. Bart _ lerk
J )
NOVEMBER 12, 1996 104
RESOLUTION SUPPORTING AN IRLNEP/S.IRWMD INDIAN RIVER
LAGOON BLUEWAY CARL PROJECT APPLICATION
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of November 5, 1996:
TO: James E. Chandler
County Administrator
DEPARTMENT HEAD CONCURRENCE:
DATE: November 5, 1996
Robert M. Keating,ICP
Community Developnt D' / ctor
��m
FROM: Roland M. DeBlois,�AICP
Chief, Environmental Planning
RE: Request for a Board Resolution Supporting an IRLNEP/SJRWMD Indian
River Lagoon Blueway CARL Project Application
It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal consideration by the
Board of County Commissioners at its regular meeting of November 12, 1996.
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
The Indian River Lagoon National Estuary Program (IRLNEP), in conjunction with
the St. Johns River Water Management District (SJRWMD), is sponsoring a Lagoon -
wide application to the State Conservation and Recreation lands (CARL) Program for
State acquisition of estuarine wetlands and undeveloped upland buffers along the
Indian River Lagoon.
IRLNEP and SJRWMD staff have coordinated with staff from Brevard, Indian River,
St. Lucie, and Martin counties to identify wetlands and uplands buffers that warrant
public acquisition for restoration and protection purposes. As part of the
application, IRLNEP staff is requesting resolutions of support from local
governments. As such, the attached resolution is presented for Board
consideration.
ANALYSIS
The +156 mile long Indian River Lagoon, designated an "Estuary of National
Significance," has more biodiversity than any other estuary in North America. In
addition to its environmental significance, the Indian River Lagoon is a important
economic resource. Restoration and protection of wetlands and upland buffers along
the Lagoon are critical to the long term viability of the Lagoon as a natural and
economic resource.
The IRLNEP/SJRWMD sponsored Indian River Lagoon Blueway CARL project will
complement County efforts and objectives to preserve the environmental and
economic values of the Lagoon. More specifically, the CARL project will provide
additional cost=share opportunities for county environmental land acquisition
projects along the Lagoon. As with the County's acquisition program, the State
CARL program is based on willing sellers, with priority given to those properties
that warrant public acquisition as opposed to other alternatives (e.g., regulation,
conservation easements) to restore and protect critical Lagoon resources.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners adopt the attached
resolution in support of the Indian River Lagoon Blueway CARL application.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Macht, SECONDED by
Commissioner Eggert, the Board unanimously adopted
Resolution 96-145 supporting an application to the
State Conservation and Recreation Lands Program and
acquisition of lands associated with the Indian
River Lagoon Blueway Project.
NOVEMBER 12, 1996 105 Boa 99 PAGE 770
BOOK 99 PAGE 771
Resolution No. 96 -145
A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN
RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, SUPPORTING AN APPLICATION TO THE STATE
CONSERVATION AND RECREATION LANDS PROGRAM FOR ACQUISITION OF
LANDS ASSOCIATED WITH THE INDIAN RIVER LAGOON BLUEWAY PROJECT.
WHEREAS, the Indian River Lagoon, a 156 mile lung estuary on Florida's east
coast, 22 miles of which are located in Indian River County, has been designated by
the United States government as an Estuary of National Significance; and
WHEREAS, the Indian River Lagoon system contains more species of plants and
animals than any other estuary in North America, 36 of which animal species are rare
and endangered; and
WHEREAS, the Indian River Lagoon accounts for more than $300 million in
fishery revenues and generates more than $300 million annually in boat and marine
sales; and
WHEREAS, restoration and protection of the Indian River Lagoon system,
including estuarine wetlands and undeveloped riverfront upland buffers, are critical
to sustain the viability of the Lagoon as a natural and economic resource; and
WHEREAS, the Indian River Lagoon National Estuary Program (IRLNEP), in
conjunction with the St. Johns River Water Management District ( SJRWMD) , is
sponsoring a Lagoon -wide application to the State Conservation and Recreation
Lands (CARL) Program for State acquisition of estuarine wetlands and undeveloped
upland buffers associated with the Indian River Lagoon; and
WHEREAS, State purchase of Indian River Lagoon wetlands and buffers for
restoration and protection purposes is in the public interest of the citizens of Indian
River County and complements County efforts and objectives to preserve the
environmental and economic values of the Indian River Lagoon;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA THAT:
1. The above recitals are ratified in their entirety.
2. The Indian River County Board of County Commissioners
supports the IRLNEP/SJRWMD sponsored application to the
State CARL Program for State purchase of estuarine
wetlands and undeveloped upland buffers associated with
the Indian River Lagoon Blueway project, for resource
restoration and protection purposes.
THE RESOLUTION was moved for adoption by Commissioner Macht ,
the motion was seconded by Commissioner Eggert , and upon being put
to a vote, the vote was as follows:
Commissioner Fran B. Adams
Aye
Commissioner Kenneth R. Macht
Aye
Commissioner John W. Tippin
Aye
Commissioner Carolyn K. Eggert
- y�, e
Commissioner Richard N. Bird
7Fye
The Chairman thereupon declared the resolution duly passed and adopted
this 12 day of November, 1996.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
Attest: By�Stj�[z y� (Cdiy�cCD
Fran B. Adams
Chairman
Jeffrey K. Barton
\u\ 1\irlblue.res
NOVEMBER 12, 1996
106
APPROVED AS TO FORM
AND L AL SUFFICIENCY .
BY TERRENCE P. O'BRIEN
ASST. COUNTY ATTORNEY
I
INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT WITH PALM BEACH HEALTH
FACILITIES AUTHORITY TO ENABLE ADULT COAINRJNMES
TOTAL SERVICES. INC. (ACTS) TO ISSUE BONDS
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of November 6, 1996:
TO: Members of the Board
of County Commissioners
DATE: November 6, 1996
SUBJECT: INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT WITH PALM BEACH HEALTH
FACILITIES AUTHORITY TO ENABLE ADULT COMMUNITIES
TOTAL SERVICES, INC. (ACTS) TO ISSUE BONDS
FROM: Joseph A. Baird -
OMB Director\
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
Adult Communities Total Services, Inc. (ACTS) would like to issue Industrial Revenue Bonds not
to exceed $29,500,000 to refinance five of their retirement communities. Three of the retirement
communities are located in Palm Beach and two are in Indian River County (Indian River Estates East
and Indian River Estates West).
The facilities in Indian River County are to be financed pursuant to an inter -local agreement to be
entered into by the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County and Palm Beach County
Health Facilities Authority. An advertised public hearing must be held approving the issuance of the
Industrial Revenue bonds and interlocal agreement
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends Board of County Commissioners approve advertising for a public hearing beheld
on November 26, 1996 at 9:00 a.m. in the Board of County Commissioners chambers on the
resolution approving the interlocal agreement with Palm Beach County Health Authority and the
issuance of revenue bonds in an amount not to exceed $29,500,000.
Budget Director Joe Baird introduced Attorney Jerry Neil, the
underwriter, and advised that Mr. Neil is here to read the notice
into the record and answer any questions.
Attorney Jerry Neil, of Foley & Lardner, advised the applicant
is a not—for—profit corporation owning and operating 15 retirement
communities. This is a single bond issue for all the Florida
projects.
County Attorney Vitunac questioned whether there is any
financial implication whatsoever for Indian River County, and Mr.
Neil stated there is not; this is a very high rated bond issue with
a Standard and Poors rating of investment grade.
BOOK 99 PAGE 7 72
NOVEMBER 12, 1996 107
BOOK
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Tippin, the Board unanimously approved
advertising for a public hearing to be held on
November 26, 1996 at 9:00 A.M. on the resolution
approving the interlocal agreement with Palm Beach
County Health Authority and the issuance of revenue
bonds in an amount not to exceed $29,500,000, as
recommended by staff.
99 FACE 779
Attorney Neil read the public hearing notice into the record.
ELec-r(Z. iC
GIFFORD PARK BASEBALL FIELD LIGHTING - FLORIDA -
� A V®cG- a�v 11
LUAU - CITY OF CORAL SPRINGS
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of November 5, 1996:
TO: James E. Chandler,
County Administrator
FROM: James W. Davis, P.E.Cp"'
Public Works Director
SUBJECT: Gifford Park Baseball Field Lighting
REF. LETTER: 1) Steven L. Siems, Florida Electric Service Co. Inc.
to Jim Davis dated Sept. 30, 1996
2) Mark Sigmon and Debra Pero, American Lighting
and Signalization. Inc. to Jim Davis dated Aug. 13. 1996
DATE: November 5, 1996
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
Construction of a new baseball field at Gifford Park has begun. To light the
ballfield, the County Public Works Dept. is acquiring four concrete poles from FPL
which will be surplus from the 58th Avenue utility relocation project now also
under construction. FPL will deliver the old poles to the park at no cost to the
County.
In order to get the best price from sport lighting contractors in south and central
Florida, staff contacted major sport lighting contractors and other local
governments that recently installed sport field lighting. Two large contractors in
South Florida, Florida Electric Service Co., Inc in Fort Lauderdale, and American
Lighting and Signalization, Inc in Jupiter. Florida, have recently bid ballfield
lighting jobs in South Florida. Both indicated a willingness to give the County a
price for the work based upon bids recently acquired by local governments in
Florida. The County could piggy -back these existing contracts and not have to go
through the bidding process independently.
Using this procedure, staff requested a price from three large contractors to
furnish materials and installation of a lighting system at Gifford Park. The
following bids were received:
Florida Electric Services Co., Inc - Not to Exceed $ 31.720
American Lighting & Signalization, Inc. - $65,403
NOVEMBER 12, 1996 108
The Florida Electric bid does not include poles (to be supplied from Kings Highway
job) which are valued at $8,800 nor electric service main panel and branch
circuits valued at $12,000. The prices from Florida Electric are the same bid to
the City of Coral Springs (Contract # 96-B-045) earlier this year. The prices
supplied by American Lighting and Signalization. Inc. are the same bid to Palm
Beach County.
ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS
Since South Florida has a larger market base from which competitive bids are
received, staff has determined that the above prices are excellent bids. The
alternatives are as follows:
Alternative No. 1
Award a purchase order to Florida Electric Services Co., Inc. at a
not -to -exceed coast of $31,720 for furnishing and installation of sport
lighting on County supplied poles. The Purchasing Division will
piggy -back on the City of Coral Springs bid.
Alternative No. 2
Instruct staff to bid the project.
RECOMMENDATIONS AND FUNDING
Staff recommends Alternative No. 1 whereby the County will piggy -back onto the
City of Coral Springs contract for sports field lighting with Florida Electric Supply
Co., Inc. in the amount not -to -exceed $31,720. Funding to be from_ a $92.800
FRDAP grant and/or Local Option Sales Tax revenue.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously awarded a
purchase order to Florida Electric Services Co.,
Inc. at a not -to -exceed cost of $31,720 for
furnishing and installation of sport lighting on
County supplied poles and directed the Purchasing
Division to piggy -back on the City of Coral Springs
bid, as recommended by staff.
CONTRACT WILL BE ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE
CLERK TO THE BOARD WHEN EXECUTED AND RECEIVED
NORTH COUNTY RO PLANT CONTRACT INSPECTION SERVICES
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of November 4, 1996:
BOOK 99 FADE 7474
NOVEMBER 12, 1996 109
BOOK 99 PAA75
DATE: NOVEMBER 4, 1996
TO: JAMES E. CHANDLER
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
FROM: TERRANCE G. PINTO
DIRECTOR OF UTILITY SERVICES
PREPARED WILLIAM F. M rILITY
E.
AND STAFFED CAPITAL PRO NEER
BY: DEPARTMENT SERVICES
SUBJECT: NORTH COUNTY R.O. PLANT CONTRACT INSPECTION
SERVICES
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY PROJECT NO. UW -94 -03 -WC
BACKGROUND
On October 1, 1996, the Indian River County Board of County
Commissioners approved a contract for the construction of the
above -referenced project with Warton Smith, Inc. (see attached
agenda item and minutes). As with previous projects, we have
contracted with the engineer for part-time inspection services with
the intent of utilizing a contract inspector for additional
inspection in lieu of extending the engineer's contract. The
Utilities Department staff also intends to maintain this practice
in all future plant expansion projects to reduce engineering costs.
ANALYSIS
As stated in previous projects, (see attached agenda and minutes),
the cost savings associated with the use of a contract employee is
substantial. The cost associated with additional inspection
services with the engineer is approximately $80.00/hr. Our
contract inspector is $22.00/hr., a savings of approximately 75%.
We are proposing to contract for inspection of this project and
request funding for the construction time period of 420 days. The
intent is to use this inspector on an as needed basis and return to
the Board of County Commissioners for additional funding if and
when required. The initial funding request is for $26,400.00.
RECOMMENDATION
The staff of the Department of Utility Services recommends approval
of hiring a contract inspector as outlined above.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by
Commissioner Eggert, the Board unanimously approved
hiring a contract inspector as outlined in staff's
memorandum and as recommended by staff.
CONTRACT WILL BE ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE
CLERK TO THE BOARD WHEN EXECUTED AND RECEIVED
NOVEMBER 12, 1996 110
26TH STREET WATER MAIN PROTECT - FINAL PAY REQUEST - TRI -
SURE CORPORATION
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of November 4, 1996:
DATE: November 4, 1996
TO: JAMES E. CHANDLER
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
FROM: TERRANCE G. PINTO
DIRECTOR OF UTILITY SERVICES
PREPARED WILLIAM F. M IN, P.E.
AND STAFFED CAPITAL P EER
BY: DEPAR ILITY SERVICES
SUBJECT: 26TH STREET WATER MAIN PROJECT, FINAL PAY REQUEST,
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY PROJECT NO. UW -94 -09 -DS
On January 2, 1996, the Board of County Commissioners approved a
contract with Tri -Sure Corporation for the construction of the
above -referenced project. Construction is now complete and we have
received DEP clearance. The department is prepared to finalize the
project, therefore, we are bringing the final pay request before
the Board for approval and signature by the Chairman.
The staff of the Department of Utility Services recommends that the
Board of County Commissioners approve the attached final pay
request in the amount of $187,203.80 to Tri -Sure Corporation and
authorize the Chairman to sign the same as presented.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously approved
the final pay request in the amount of $187,203.80
to Tri -Sure Corporation and authorized the Chairman
to sign the same, as recommended by staff.
PAY REQUEST IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE
CLERK TO THE BOARD
CORRECTIONAL FACILITY WATER AND SEWER FINAL CHANGE
ORDER AND PAY REQUEST - DRIVEWAYS. INC.
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of October 31, 1996:
BOOK 99 F -ASE 776
NOVEMBER 12, 1996 111
BOOK 99 PAE 777
DATE:
OCTOBER 31, 1996
TO:
JAMES E. CHANDLER
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
FROM:
TERRANCE G. PINT/Y.E
DIRECTOR OF UTILI ICES
i
PREPARED
WILLIAM F. MCCAI , P.E.
AND STAFFED
CAPITAL PROJECTS ENGINEER
BY:
DEPARTMENT OF UTILITY SERVICES
SUBJECT:
CORRECTIONAL FAND SEWER
FINAL CHANGE REQUEST
INDIAN RIVER NOS. US -92 -33 -CS
;F*1
UW -92 -33.1 -DS
On September 3, 1996, the Indian River County Board of County
Commissioners approved a contract with Driveways, Inc., for the
above referenced projects. The projects are complete, and the
Utilities Department is prepared to make final payment to the
contractor.
ANALYSIS
The original contract amounts and proposed change orders are as
follows:
Water Main (UW -92 -33.1 -DS)
Original $ 11,360.15
Change Order 959.75
Revised Final $ 12,319.90
Sewer Force Main (US -92 -33 -CS)
Original $ 10,398.88
Change Order 809.75
Revised Final $ 11,208.63
The increase to the water project is due to additional items
required but not included in the original contract; i.e.,
additional sample points, certified as-builts, and densities. The
increase to the sewer project is also due to additional items
required but not included in the original contract; i.e.,
additional restraints, exploratory excavation, drop manhole
connection, and certified as-builts. For details of change order
additions, please see the attached summary sheet. The State
Correctional Facility has paid $613,077.00 in impact fees for their
facility to connect to these lines.
RECOMMENDATION
The staff of the Department of Utility Services recommends that the
Board of County Commissioners approve the change order as submitted
and pay request in the amount of $4,656.40 and authorize the
chairman to execute same.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously approved
the change order as submitted and pay request in the
amount of $4,656 and authorized the Chairman to
execute same, as recommended by staff.
CHANGE ORDER IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE
CLERK TO THE BOARD
NOVEMBER 12, 1996 112
� � r
MASTER PLAN CONTINUING CONSULTING SERVICES - BROWN &
CALDWELL
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of November 4, 1996:
DATE: November 4, 1996
TO: JAMES E. CHANDLER
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
FROM: TERRANCE G. PINT
DIRECTOR OF UT I ERVICES
A.,
PREPARED WILLIAM F. CAI , .E.
AND STAFFED CAPITAL PRO S ENGINEER
BY: DEPAR UTILITY SERVICES
SUBJECT: MASTER PLAN, CONTINUING CONSULTING SERVICES
The firm of Brown and Caldwell is the approved consultant for all
master -planning services (See attached agenda item and minutes).
To date, we have been satisfied with their responsiveness to the
Utilities Department's needs. The department now wishes to
continue with this contract. The approved funding requested for
this work is the same as in the previous year, $45,000 (See
attached invoice). Although only $8,470.79 of last year's approved
amount was utilized, the potential exists in the upcoming year for
the same level of funding.
The duties under the proposed contract (i.e., Work Authorization 9)
will basically remain the same as in previous years (i.e.,
Hydraulic Model Updates, Industrial Waste Pretreatment Analysis,
Sludge Analysis and miscellaneous engineering) with the addition of
various specific financial (Master Plan Related) funding and SCADA
(telemetry) system review as needed. The firm of ,.Brown and -
Caldwell has currently completed a reevaluation of the North County
service area as part of the acquisition of the Sebastian Utilities
and is in the process of completing a detailed control Master Plan
for our effluent delivery system. All of which were previously
approved by the Board. With all of the ongoing work currently
being performed by Brown and Caldwell, staff feels that they are
the most qualified and cost effective firm for the County's master
planning needs in the upcoming year. Funding for this work will be
from account number 472-000-169-146.00 and 471-218-536-033.21, as
needed.
The staff of the Department of Utility Services recommends that the
Board of County Commissioners approve the attached work
authorization, No. 9, and authorize the chairman to execute same.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously approved
Work Authorization No. 9 with Brown and Caldwell and
authorized the Chairman to execute the same, as
recommended by staff.
AUTHORIZATION IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE
CLERK TO THE BOARD
NOVEMBER 12, 1996 113 BOOK
99 PAGE 778
Booz 99 PAGE 779
WEST REGIONAL WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT - CHANGE
ORDER NO. 4 - T. I KIRLIN, INC.
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of November 4, 1996:
DATE: November 4, 1996
TO: JAMES E. CHANDLER
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
FROM: TERRANCE G. PINTO
DIRECTOR OF UTILITY SERVICES
PREPARED WILLIAM F. MCCAIN, P
AND STAFFED CAPITAL PROJECTS INEER
BY: DEPARTMENT OF Y SERVICES
SUBJECT: WEST REGIONAL WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT, CHANGE
ORDER NO. 4, INDIAN RIVER COUNTY PROJECT NO. US -93-
04 -DC
On August 23, 1994, the Board of County Commissioners approved a
contract with John J. Rirlin, Inc., for the above -referenced
project. The current contract amount is $5,738,923.75, which
includes change orders 1, 2, and 3. (See attached agenda item and
minutes). The department now wishes to receive approval of Change
Order No. 4 in the amount of $71,001.55, which will adjust the
contract amount to $5,809,925.30.
A detailed breakdown of the proposed change order items and final
negotiated pay items are presented as "proposal summary" attached
to Change Order No. 4. The project is now substantially complete
and the punchlist items are currently being addressed. Final
completion is projected in late November, 1996. The Utilities
Department concurs with the Engineer's recommendation to approve
the proposed negotiated change order as presented and also to
reduce contract retainage from 10% to 5%, as a result of the
substantial completion. Please reference the attached letter of
recommendation from the Engineer.
The staff of the Department of Utility Services recommends that the
Board of County Commissioners approve the attached change order
with John J. Rirlin, Inc., as presented and authorize the Chairman
to execute same.
Commissioner Tippin expressed his concerns about spending so
much on consultants and engineers and then routinely adding
additional costs; such as the $2,000 additional hardware and almost
$15,000 in improvements. He felt these fees should have been
included at the beginning of the project.
Capital Projects Engineer Bill McCain stated that staff very
heavily reviews these projects but sometimes things just don't get -
caught.
Commissioner Bird wanted to know if the change order resulted
in an increased price for the project and Mr. McCain replied that
it did not.
NOVEMBER 12, 1996 114
ON MOTION by Commissioner
Commissioner Bird, the Board
the change order with John
authorized the Chairman to
recommended by staff.
Eggert, SECONDED by
unanimously approved
J. Kirlin, Inc. and
execute same, as
CHANGE ORDER IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE
CLERK TO THE BOARD
HAMMOCK LAKES SUBDIVISION - DEVELOPER'S AGREEMENT -
OFFSITE UTILITIES
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of October 23, 1996:
DATE: OCTOBER 23, 1996
TO: JAMES E. CHANDLER
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
FROM: TERRANCE G. PIN
DIRECTOR OF UT LIT ICES
PREPARED WILLIAM F. N, P.E.
AND STAFFED CAPITAL P E TS INEER
BY: DEPARTMEM LITY SERVICES
SUBJECT: HAMMOCK LAKES SUBDIVISION DEVELOPER'S AGREEMENT
BACKGROUND
Attached is a proposed developer's agreement with Hammock Lakes
Limited Partnership for reimbursement of offsite utility
construction. The construction consists of a 12 -inch water main on
1st Street, SW (Master -planned) and a 6 -inch force main on 1st
Street, SW and Kings Highway, which is sized to serve the
surrounding area, and is shown on Exhibit A of the attached
developer's agreement with cost-sharing covered in the agreement
under Exhibits B through D.
ANALYSIS
As stated, Exhibits B, C, and D of the attached agreement identify
the cost-sharing between the developer and the County. A summary
of cost-sharing is as follows:
Wastewater Force Main
Developer's share $63,852.29
County's share 94.590.11
Total Project Cost $158,442.40
Water Main
Developer's share $29,250.00
County's share 82.837.80
Total Project Cost $112,087.80
The construction of this system will assist the County in expanding
the water and sewer systems as outlined in the County Master Plan,
as well as allow the owner's property to be developed. The total
estimated cost to the County of $177,427.91 will be paid from the
Utilities impact fee fund. The subdivision will purchase 206 ERUs
of water and sewer capacity for the project, equating to a total
dollar value of $848,926.00 in impact fee funding.
The staff of the Department of Utility Services recommends that the
Board of County Commissioners approve the developer's agreement as
presented and authorise the chairman to execute same.
NOVEMBER 12, 1996 115 BOOK 99 mf, E 7 SO
BOOK
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously approved
the developer's agreement with Hammock Lakes
Associates, Ltd. for the construction of Offsite
Utilities (Wastewater and Water) for Hammock Lakes
Subdivision, as recommended by staff.
AGREEMENT IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE
CLERK TO THE BOARD
99 PAU 781
AUCTION OF OLD COUNTY COURTHOUSE - KARLIN DANIEL
CONTRACT
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of November 7, 1996:
TO: Board of County Commissioners
FROM: Terrence P. O'Brien, Assistant County Attorney
DATE: November 7, 1996
SUBJECT: AUCTION OF COUNTY COURTHOUSE
The Board of County Commissioners at its regular meeting of November
5, 1996 approved the contract with Karlin Daniel Auctioneers for the
auction of the courthouse.
The contract provides in pertinent part that "The real estate listed
herein is being sold on a(n) reserve basis." In staff's memorandum to
the Commission dated October 4, 1996 on this subject which was
considered by the Board at its regular meeting of October 22, 1996 the
term "reserve" was explained as follows: "The reserve format is when
the seller sets the price range and retains the right to accept or reject
the top bid."
Karlin Daniel has now suggested that the Commission may want to
authorize the Chairman to execute the contracts in blank in advance of
the auction. Karlin Daniel would hold them in escrow and will itse them
if the bidding exceeds the minimum reservation amount. This will allow
the contract to be fully executed at the time of auction sale which may
be to the County's advantage. It would, however, remove the right for
the Commission to accept or reject the highest bid. This may not be n
detriment because all bids to be acceptable would have to be over the
minimum amount set by the Commission which is $150,000.00 for the
Courthouse and $125,000.00 for the State Attorney Building.
In view of the foregoing, it is our understanding that the Commission is
willing to accept the minimum prices and therefore it should authorize
the Chairman to execute the contracts in blank for the highest bid at
or over the minimum.
A copy of the proposed contract for sale is attached.
Assistant County Attorney Terry O'Brien advised that Karlin
Daniel has suggested that the Board sign a blank contract. The
highest bidder would sign the contract at the auction.
NOVEMBER 12, 1996
116
After several questions from the Commissioners regarding the
bidding amount, County Attorney Vitunac advised that the Board
would be obligated to the minimum bid advertised.
Commissioner Bird wanted to know what would be the advantage
of having the contract signed in advance.
Karlin Daniel advised the Board that the advantage would be
that the auctioneer would be able to enter into a bilateral
contract with the buyer. The issue is the urgency and certainty of
the sale. Should the contract be returned to the Board for
execution, the buyer would have some time in which to renege on the
bid made at auction.
Commissioner Macht questioned when the escrow monies would be
collected, and Mr. Daniel stated that funds would be collected
immediately upon signing the contract. However, at any time prior
to acceptance by the seller, the buyer can back out of the
contract. A cashier's check is required at the moment the buyer is
declared the highest bidder. The conditions of the auction require
10% down, which goes into an escrow account.
County Attorney Vitunac recommended that the Board sign the
contract.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Macht, SECONDED by
Commissioner Eggert, the Board unanimously approved
the contract with Karlin Daniel & Associates, Inc.
and authorized the Chairman to execute the contracts
in blank for the highest bid at or over the minimum,
as recommended by staff.
CONTRACT WILL BE ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE
CLERK TO THE BOARD WHEN EXECUTED AND RECEIVED
GENERAL COMMENTS BY COMMISSIONER BIRD
Commissioner Bird thanked the Board and staff for their
remembrance of his birthday and the other honors involved in his
retirement from the Board. It was all very moving and meant a
great deal to him. He wished new Commissioner Caroline Ginn the
best of luck and added that he looked forward to remaining a part
of the continuing programs.
NOVEMBER 12, 1996 117 BOOK 99 PAGE 782
Boa 99 PAu 78
SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL DISTRICT
The Chairman announced that immediately upon adjournment, the
Board would reconvene as the Board of Commissioners of the Solid
Waste Disposal District. Those Minutes are being prepared
separately.
ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL BOARD
The Chairman announced that immediately upon adjournment of
the Solid Waste Disposal District Meeting, the Board would
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 11:32 a.m.
ATTEST:
J. K B ton, Clerk
Minutes Approved: %-% 0 -9 b
NOVEMBER 12, 1996
118
QNL Y
Fran B. Adams, Chairman