Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1/21/1997T. MINUTES ATTACHED BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS. INDIAN RIVF;R OOUNTV, FLORIDA A C E N DA TUESDAY, JANUARY 21,1997 9:00 A.M. - COUNTY COMMISSION CHAMBER County Administration Building 1840 25th Street Vero Beach, Florida COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Carolyn K. Eggert, Chairman (District 2) John W. Tippin, Vice Chairman (District 4) Fran B. Adams (District 1) Caroline D. Ginn (District 5 Kenneth R. Macht (District 3) 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 Rev. Elmer Vogelsang Emmanuel Baptist Church 3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - Comm. Carolyn K. Eggert 4. ADDITIONS to the AGENDA/EMERGENCY ITEMS 7.J. Reappointment to County Extension Advisory Council 9.B. Richard Rosenkranz' Invitation to view Portion of AIDS Quilt ll.B. Update from U.S. Army Corps of Engineers on Horned Scullies & Unexploded ordnance 13.C. Comment on Seawall Workshop 13.E. Comment on New Courthouse 5. PROCLAMATION and PRESENTATIONS Proclamation Honoring Charles H. Seifert On His Retirement 1 6. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Special Meeting of Dec. 19, 1996 (Tower Workshop) 7. CONSENT AGENDA A. Approval of Warrants ' (memorandum dated January 9, 1997) 2-8 B. Acceptance of Resignation of James Wellman from Economic Development Council (letter dated January 7, 1997) 9 C. Rape Prevention Grant (memorandum dated January 15, 1997) 10-11 D. Miscellaneous Budget Amendment #009 (memorandum dated January 15, 1997) 12-16 L- pr ­ 7. CONSENT AGENDA (cont'd.): E. Budget Adjustment, Broward County Inmate Revenue - Budget Amendment #010 (letter dated January 9, 1997) F. M.A.C.E. Grant (Multi -Agency Drug Enforce- ment Unit) Project Generated Income - Budget Amendment #011 (memorandum dated January 15, 1997) G. Temporary Water Service Agreement - Indian River County and Ken and Susan Moskowitz (memorandum dated January 6, 1997) H. Transfer of Property from the Federal Government to I.R.C. & Then to IRC Habitat for Humanity (memorandum dated January 7, 1997) I. Partial Payment Totaling $30,000 for the US Dept of the Army, Coastal Engineering Research Center PEP Reef Monitoring Report (memorandum dated January 15, 1997) 8. CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS and GOVERNMENTAL, AGENCIES None 9:05 A.M. 9. PUBLIC ITEMS A. PUBLIC HEARINGS 1 • Kathryn C. Leer and Others' Request to Rezone Approx. 19.9 Acres from A-1 to RM -8 (memorandum dated January 10, 1997) 2. Oslo Plaza Assoc., Inc.'s Request to Rezone Approx. 11.3 Acres from CL to CG (memorandum dated January 8, 1997) 3. Wm. W. Caldwell and E. Peter Prezzano's Request to Rezone Approx. 19.4 Acres from A-1 to RM -6 (memorandum dated January 10, 1997) B. PUBLIC DISCUSSION ITEMS None 10. COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S MATTERS None BACKUP PAGES 17-18 19-31 32-37 38-47 48-50 51-67 68-85 86-100 t M L_ M 11. DEPARTMENTAL MATTERS BABA— -RDP PAGES A. Community Development Request that Board Authorize Board Chairman to Execute Closing Documents Relating to County/ State Purchase of 34 Atlantic Gulf Communities (AGC) Sebastian Highlands Scrub Lots (memorandum dated January 15, 1997) 101-115 B. Emergency Services None C. General Services None D. Leisure Services None E. Office of Management and Budget None F. Personnel None G. Public Works 1. Sandridge Golf Club - Lateral "G" Pump House Design Services Amendment No. 1 to Work Authorization No. 2 (memorandum dated January 15,1997) 116-119 2. Consultant Selection CR 512 Widening/ Paving and Drainage Improvements Between I-95 and Roseland Road Including Bridge Replacement at South Prong of Sebastian River (memorandum dated January 14, 1997) 120-149 H. Utilities 1. Purchase of Biofiltration Unit for Bailey Drive - Repump Station, Seb. Highlands (memorandum dated January 13, 1997) 150-157 2. Revisions to the I.R.C. Water and Waste- water Utility Standards (memorandum dated December 12, 1996) 158 12. COUNTY ATTORNEY Ethics Ordinance (memorandum dated January 9, 1997) 159-160 13. COMMISSIONERS ITEMS A. Chairman Carolyn K. Eggert Elected Officials Bonds (memorandum dated January 10, 1997) B. Vice Chairman John W Tippin C. Commissioner Fran B. Adams D. Commissioner Caroline D. Ginn E. Commissioner Kenneth R. Macht 161-165 14. SPECIAL DISTRICTS/BOARDS A. Emergency Services District' None B. Solid Waste Disposal District 1. Approval of Minutes - Meeting of 11/26/96 2. Approval of Minutes - Meeting of 12/3/96 3. Approval of Minutes - Meeting of 12/10/96 4. Southeast Recycling Corp. - Paper Recycling Agreement (memorandum dated January 8, 1997) 166-168 C. Environmental Control Board 1. Approval of Minutes - Meeting of 10/22/96 2. Approval of Minutes - Meeting of 11/12/96 3. Quarterly Report (memorandum dated January 13, 1997) 169-174 15. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT OVERVIEW 16. 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 4R hmire in arlvanr•o of meeting. Meeting broadcast live on TCI Cable Channel 13 - rebroadcast S: 00 p.m. Thursday through 5: 00 p. m. Friday Falcon Cable Channel 35 - rebroadcast Friday evening INDEX TO MINUTES JANUARY 21, 1997 REGULAR MEETING OF BCC ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA/EMERGENCY ITEMS . . . . . . . . . . . 1 PROCLAMATION HONORING CHARLES H. SEIFERT ON HIS RETIREMENT FROM INDIAN RIVER COUNTY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 APPROVAL OF MINUTES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 CONSENTAGENDA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 A. Approval of Warrants . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 B. Accept Resignation of James Wellman - Economic D e v e 1 o p m e n t council . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 C. Rape Prevention Grant - SafeSpace . . . . . . . . 10 D. Miscellaneous Budget Amendment #009 . . . . . . 11 E. Budget Amendment #010 - Broward County Inmate Revenue . . . . . . . . . . . o.. . . . . . . . 13 F. Budget Amendment #011 - MACE Grant Project Generated Income . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 G. Temporary Water Service Agreement - Moskowitz . . 16 H. Transfer of Property from Federal Government to IRC to IRC Habitat for Humanity . . . . . . . 17 I. PEP Reef Monitoring Report - Partial Payment for U.S. Department of the Army, Coastal Engineering Research Center . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . 18 J. Hildie Tripson Reappointed - County Extension Advisory Council . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 PUBLIC HEARING - KATHRYN C. LEER AND OTHERS, REQUEST TO REZONE APPROXIMATELY 19.9 ACRES FROM A-1 TO RM -8 . . . . . 20 PUBLIC HEARING - OSLO PLAZA ASSOCIATES, INC. - REQUEST TO REZONE APPROXIMATELY 11.3 ACRES FROM CL TO CG . . . . 35 PUBLIC HEARING - CALDWELL AND PREZZANO - REQUEST TO REZONE APPROXIMATELY 19.4 ACRES FROM A-1 TO RM -6 . . . . . . 45 PUBLIC DISCUSSION - RICHARD ROSENKRANZ - INVITATION TO VIEW PART OF AIDS QUILT SPONSORED BY CENTRAL FLORIDA NAMES PROJECT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57 PURCHASE OF 34 ATLANTIC GULF COMMUNITIES (AGC) SEBASTIAN HIGHLANDS SCRUB LOTS - CLOSING DOCUMENTS . . . . . . . 57 U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS - UPDATE ON HORNED SCULLIES AND UNEXPLODED ORDNANCE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59 SANDRIDGE GOLF CLUB - LATERAL "G" PUMP HOUSE DESIGN SERVICES AMENDMENT No. 1 TO WORK AUTHORIZATION No. 2 - CARTER ASSOCIATES, INC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59 CR -512 WIDENING/PAVING AND DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS (1-95 TO ROSELAND ROAD) INCLUDING BRIDGE REPLACEMENT AT SOUTH PRONG OF SEBASTIAN RIVER - MASTELLER & MOLER . . . . . 60 PURCHASE BIOFILTRATION UNIT FOR BAILEY DRIVER REPUMP STATION, SEBASTIAN HIGHLANDS - EG&G BIOFILTRATION . . . . . . . 61 REVISIONS TO WATER AND WASTEWATER UTILITY STANDARDS . . . . 62 ETHICS ORDINANCE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63 SURETY BONDS - ELECTED OFFICIALS - PROCEDURES . . . . . . . 65 B99( COMMENT ON SEAWALL WORKSHOP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68 COMMENT ON . NEW COURTHOUSE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69 SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL DISTRICT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69 ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL DISTRICT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT OVERVIEW . . . . . . . . . 70 U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS - UPDATE ON HORNED SCULLIES AND UNEXPLODED ORDNANCE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73 s � � Tuesday, January 21, 1997 The Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, met in County Commission Chambers, 1840 25th Street, Vero Beach, Florida, on Tuesday, January 21, 1997, at 9:00 a.m. Present were Carolyn K. Eggert, Chairman; John W. Tippin, Vice Chairman; Fran B. Adams; Caroline D. Ginn; and Kenneth R. Macht. Also present were James E. Chandler, County Administrator; Charles P. Vitunac, County Attorney; and Patricia Ridgely, Deputy Clerk. The Chairman called the meeting to order. Commissioner Ginn gave the invocation and Chairman Eggert led the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA/EMERGENCY ITEMS Chairman Eggert requested that a Reappointment to County Extension Advisory Council, item 7.J., be added to the Consent Agenda. She also advised of an addition under public discussion, item 9.B., Richard Rosenkranz (invitation to view a portion of the AIDS Quilt) Commissioner Adams requested a comment on the Seawall Workshop meld last night be added as item 13.C. Commissioner Macht requested the addition of item 13.E., concerning a comment on (recent usage of) the new Courthouse. Administrator Chandler wished to add a update from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers concerning Horned Scullies & Unexploded Ordnance, item 11.B. He advised that Mr. Robert Bridgers and others were enroute from Jacksonville and were expected to arrive about 10 a.m. ON MOTION by Commissioner Adams, SECONDED by Commissioner Ginn, the Board unanimously added the above items to the Agenda. 1 BOOK .U� fAGc 6 January 21, 1997 PROCLAMATION HONORING CHARLES H. SEIFERT ON HIS RETTRF.1y�NT FROM INDIAN RIVER COUNTY Chairman Eggert read the following proclamation and presented it and a retirement award to Mr. Seifert who was present to accept both. PROCLAMATION W1ffJPPA Chwiax Sdfi" onn==es hu tmiremaa from theft" and Brdge anwn and Indimr RiwCatnry Bond of roes Comm manm Jmmmy 2% 19".. MM A$ Ombs K Seifert began hit entpfoyman with Indian Riva Caaay laniary 14.195 5 with the Road and Bridge Di ftm He war hired as a Henry Equip Opamor 1 which B the pmidon he aorv* haldr mdgv. W1MMA Om1a K Saf- hos ppmded mmry Pave of devaed service w dr Caasry. He has as I gaud jrdVnm in hit aaamnpldWw= and hit pafamarra; hos aauiW* tueadad job ragrtoaaaret W]>ER&A Omhs Jt Seifm *-& be miaad by hb fellow as-wmlws and Aw wills him the very bin In hit well emud re>vanent NOW, nW"OR$ BE 1T MOMMM by doe Bawd of Catmry Cammitsanetr of hrdimr Riva Ca nW, Flarda, thin the Bomd wither w eepw drm approdmm w Om1a K 5*0 far hit ded7araar and manOrding "vice w M&M Rive Caarq: BE 1TFUR7f m PROCLI01D dm the Bomd *t*a him the very Um in hb f w e ertdmrars. Dined Brit 21sr day of lmusuy, 19".. BOARDOFCOEW YCOhSMOhMa BY , Card K Eam &_ ,—n—. -ft.•.-% .. .fnA;zn % I/ew Joe" 91"id6 am to to Udit *0 a A E# Pf1tE11f Aw iib iar a�tag patarmaQu aaL Eta � aeratae to .96reltaw �ls+rw �oarl�r ? t �aztd � �aarrll, �ananeboiaew a E tar, � grata of aerates Q as thte And bag d 19 y7 z , �• IaUWW. Daub. P.E 6e.1 irmso at Charles Seifert accepted the plaques with that it had been a pleasure, a challenge, and for the County. 2 January 21, 1997 thanks and advised "different" working BOOK�� FAGS APPROVAL OF MINUTES The Chairman asked if there were any additions or corrections to the Minutes of the Special Meeting of December 19, 1996. There were none. ON MOTION by Commissioner Adams, SECONDED by Commissioner Tippin, the Board approved the Minutes of the Special Meeting of December 19, 1996, as written. CONSENT AGENDA A. Approval of Warrants The Board reviewed a Memorandum of January 9, 1997: TO: HONORABLE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS DATE: JANUARY 9, 1997 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 January 2 to January 9, 1997. ON MOTION by Commissioner Ginn, SECONDED by Commissioner Macht, the Board unanimously approved the list of warrants issued by the Clerk to the Board for the period January 2-9, 1997. 3 January 21, 1997 BOOK FAUE 0279 _I CHECK NAME CHECK CHECK NUMBER DATE AMOUNT 0018053 QUINONES, JOSE G 1/02/97 300.00 0018054 FLORIDA ASSOCIATION OF 1/02/97 75.00 0018055 BARTON, JEFFREY K -CLERK 1/02/97 1,156.60 0018056 MTW ROOFING CO 1/03/97 2,140.00 0018057 BARTON, JEFFREY K -CLERK 1/03/97 242.00 0018058 INDIAN RIVER COUNTY 1/06/97 1,570.00 0018059 FLORIDA ASSOCIATION OF 1/07/97 75.00 0018060 EVERHART, MARK 1/07/97 1,106.31 0018061 INDIAN RIVER ROOFING 1/08/97 450.00 0215445 ACE PLUMBING, INC 1/09/97 78.00 0215446 AERO PRODUCTS CORP 1/09/97 683.70 0215447 ACTION ANSWERING SERVICE 1/09/97 266.00 0215448 AT YOUR SERVICE 1/09/97 1,633.68 0215449 ATCO TOOL SUPPLY 1/09/97 165.00 0215450 AUTO SUPPLY CO OF VERO BEACH, 1/09/97 1,116.62 0215451 ANDERSON, MICHAEL 1/09/97 30.00 0215452 A B S PUMPS, INC 1/09/97 17,538.82 0215453 AMERICAN BUSINESS INFORMATION 1/09/97 4,512.00 0215454 A T & T 1/09/97 123.07 0215455 ALRO METALS SERVICE CENTER 1/09/97 410.49 0215456 ALL SERVICE GRAPHICS, INC 1/09/97 2,147.50 0215457 A T & T 1/09/97 19.10 0215458 A T & T 1/09/97 78.08 0215459 AMERICAN LIBRARY PREVIEW 1/09/97 17.45 0215460 ATLANTIC COASTAL TITLE CORP 1/09/97 205.00 0215461 ABELL STEEL & WOOD FENCE 1/09/97 827.50 0215462 ALL COUNTY EQUIPMENT COMPANY 1/09/97 234.50 0215463 ALLCOMM NETWORKS INC 1/09/97 64,991.38 0215464 AVNET INDUSTRIAL 1/09/97 387.20 0215465 BAKER & TAYLOR, INC 1/09/97 1,226.13 0215466 BAKER BROTHERS, INC 1/09/97 221.95 0215467 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 1/09/97 3,938.07 0215468 BELLSOUTH MOBILITY 1/09/97 107.36 0215469 BERGGREN EQUIPMENT CO, INC 1/09/97 326.06 0215470 B & B INDUSTRIAL SUPPLY CO. 1/09/97 923.33 0215471 BOEBINGER INTERNATIONAL, INC 1/09/97 48.13 0215472 BRODART CO 1/09/97 66.84 0215473 BONET, JAMES RN 1/09/97 80.00 0215474 BRODA, JANICE C 1/09/97 116.89 0215475 BOYNTON PUMP & IRRIGATION 1/09/97 644.47 0215476 B & J LOCKSMITH, INC 1/09/97 93.50 0215477 BELLSOUTH DIRECTORY SALES 1/09/97 52.50 0215478 BETTER BUSINESS FORMS, INC 1/09/97 951.79 0215479 B F I MEDICAL WASTE SYSTEMS 1/09/97 125.50 0215480 BLAKESLEE MAINTENANCE 1/09/97 200.00 -0215481 BAKER & TAYLOR ENTERTAINMENT 1/09/97 25.36 0215482 BELLSOUTH 1/09/97 5,064.65 0215483 BREVARD DRUG SCREENING SERVICE 1/09/97 2,435.00 0215484 BLUE CROSS/BLUE SHIELD OF 1/09/97 17,094.00 0215485 BEERS, RS CONSTRUCTION 1/09/97 500.00 0215486 BURGLASS, MILTON EARL MD 1/09/97 1,209.52 0215487 CHANDLER EQUIPMENT CO, INC 1/09/97 351.15 0215488 CLEMENT COMMUNICATIONS, INC 1/09/97 167.05 0215489 CLEMENTS PEST CONTROL 1/09/97 19.00 0215490 COMMUNICATIONS INT, INC 1/09/97 885.13 0215491 CONSTRUCTION HYDRAULICS 1/09/97 236.36 0215492 CROOM CONSTRUCTION CO 1/09/97 150.75 0215493 CHAMBER OF COMMERCE 1/09/97 22,146.86 0215494 CLARK WATER CONDITIONING 1/09/97 57.00 0215495 COASTAL FUELS MARKETING, INC 1/09/97 14,881.12 0215496 CITGO PETROLEUM CORP 1/09/97 1,631.79 0215497 CAPP CUSTOM BUILDERS, INC 1/09/97 500.00 0215498 COMMON HEADQUARTERS 1/09/97 146.00 0215499 CUES, INC 1/09/97 47.70 0215500 COMMUNITY CHILD CARE RESOURCES 1/09/97 16,479.50 0215501 CONTROL TECHNIQUES DRIVES,INC 1/09/-97 129.25 4 ROOK January 21, 1997 FAuE, E:l CHECK NAME - CHECK CHECK NUMBER DATE AMOUNT 0215502 CLIFFORD, MIKE 1/09/97 100.00 0215503 CITY ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES 1/09/97 12,492.00 0215504 C S R RINKER MATERIALS CORP 1/09/97 9.11 0215505 CUSTOM PUBLISHING SERVICES,INC 1/09/97 683.77 0215506 CDS COMPPUTERS 1/09/97 172.00 0215507 CUES, INC / SHORT SCHOOL 1/09/97 476.00 0215508 CLEM, KAY 1/09/97 250.00 0215509 DAILY COURIER SERVICE 1/09/97 560.00 0215510 DEEP SIX DIVE SHOP, INC 1/09/97 855.80 0215511 DELTA SUPPLY CO 1/09/97 1,519.54 0215512 DEPENDABLE DODGE, INC 1/09/97 9.50 0215513 DICKERSON FLORIDA, INC 1/09/97 280.63 0215514 DIRECTOR, KENNETH L MD 1/09/97 225.00 0215515 FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS 1/09/97 165.52 0215516 DON SMITH'S PAINT STORE, INC 1/09/97 406.37 0215517 DEALERS COST CORPORATION 1/09/97 27.00 0215518 DISCOUNT AUTO PARTS 1/09/97 31.35 0215519 DAVIDSON TITLES, INC 1/09/97 32,164.54 0215520 DRIVEWAY'S, INC 1/09/97 4,482.31 0215521 EAST COAST SOD 1/09/97 445.50 0215522 ELPEX, INC 1/09/97 40.00 0215523 ELPEX, INC 1/09/97 1,110.35 0215524 ENVIRONETICS, INC 1/09/97 705.00 0215525 ENVIRO F X,INC 1/09/97 435.60 0215526 ERICSSON, INC 1/09/97 687,726.50 0215527 FEDERAL EXPRESS CORP 1/09/97 55.25 0215528 FLORIDA EAST COAST RAILWAY CO 1/09/97 73.60 0215529 FLORIDA ASSOCIATION OF 1/09/97 75.00 0215530 F P & L 1/09/97 18,113.76 0215531 FOURTH DISTRICT COURT OF 1/09/97 750.00 0215532 FOX VALLEY SYSTEMS, INC 1/09/97 337.70 0215533 FRED PRYOR SEMINARS 1/09/97 64.45 0215534 FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT 1/09/97 432.00 0215535 FLORIDA TIRE RECYCLING, INC 1/09/97 1,666.80 0215536 FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF 1/09/97 3,079.71 0215537 FLINN, SHEILA I 1/09/97 66.50 0215538 FALZONE, JESSICA 1/09/97 40.38 0215539 FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS 1/09/97 285.00 0215540 FELLSMERE, CITY OF 1/09/97 18.72 0215541 FLORIDAFFINITY, INC 1/09/97 7,029.50 0215542 FALZONE, CHRIS 1/09/97 57.00 0215543 FERGUSON ENTERPRISES, INC 1/09/97 698.86 0215544 FLORIDA LAW WEEKLY 1/09/97 195.00 0215545 FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS 1/09/97 80.00 0215546 GEORGE W FOWLER CO 1/09/97 88.00 0215547 GLIDDEN COMPANY, THE 1/09/97 109.17 0215548 GOODKNIGHT LAWN EQUIPMENT, INC 1/09/97 179.79 0215549 GOVERNMENT FINANCE 1/09/97 275.00 0215550 GRAYBAR ELECTRIC CO, INC 1/09/97 5,044.43 0215551 GOODYEAR TIRE COMPANY 1/09/97 42.75 0215552 GENERAL BINDING CORPORATION 1/09/97 514.05 0215553 GOODYEAR TIRE & RUBBER 1/09/97 2,456.32 0215554 GIANINO, PETER T., P A 1/09/97 220.00 0215555 GOLD STAR SECURITY 1/09/97 1,984.00 0215556 GREEN, CHARLIE 1/09/97 31.00 0215557. GREGORY TILE 1/09/97 1,155.00 0215558 HAMMOND, KATHARINE R 1/09/97 445.00 0215559 HARRIS SANITATION 1/09/97 717.87 0215560 HARRISON UNIFORMS 1/09/97 69.24 0215561 HAZELLIEF, JEANNIE E 1/09/97 63.00 0215562 HBS, INC 1/09/97 210.00 0215563 HIGHSMITH, INC 1/09/97 209.95 0215564 HUMANE SOCIETY OF VERO BEACH 1/09/97 10,470.00 0215565 HERITAGE BOOKS, INC 1/09/97 161.50 0215566 HARDEE MANUFACTURING CO, INC 1/09/97 170.00 0215567 HOLCOMB, BRENT H 1/09/97 187.00 0215568 HAILE DEAN SEED CO 1/09/97 63.50 5 January 21, 1997 ROOK IOU "t.".0. I CHECK NAME NUMBER CHECK DATE CHECK AMOUNT 0215569 HORIZON NURSERY 1/09/97 165.00 0215570 HATFIELD, ERIC 1/09/97 71.25 0215571 H S U S ANIMAL CARE EXPO '97 1/09/97 29.00 0215572 INDIAN RIVER COUNTY SOLID 1/09/97 3.00 0215573 INDIAN RIVER ACE PAINT 1/09/97 51.76 0215574 INDIAN RIVER BLUE PRINT, INC 1/09/97 134.61 0215575 INDIAN RIVER COUNTY UTILITIES 1/09/97 1,192.42 0215576 INDIAN RIVER OXYGEN, INC 1/09/97 485.50 0215577 INTERLINK COMMUNICATIONS OF 1/09/97 620.85 0215578 INDIAN RIVER ANIMAL HOSPITAL 1/09/97 15.00 0215579 INDIAN RIVER OFFICE CENTRE,INC 1/09/97 31.35 0215580 IRVINE MECHANICAL, INC 1/09/97 583.17 0215581 INTERNATIONAL ELECTRIC 1/09/97 2,779.00 0215582 IRC EMPLOYEE HEALTH INSURANCE- 1/09/97 206,484.86 0215583 IKON OFFICE SOLUTIONS 1/09/97 180.00 0215584 JACKSON ELECTRONICS 1/09/97 27.73 0215585 J R REPORTING ASSOCIATES, INC 1/09/97 278.00 0215586 JONES CHEMICALS, INC 1/09/97 8,992.24 0215587 KING & QUEEN BOOKS 1/09/97 108.00 0215588 KIMLEY-HORN & ASSOCIATES, INC 1/09/97 4,858.65 0215589 KING, JOHN W 1/09/97 243.00 0215590 KNIGHT & MATHIS, INC 1/09/97 283•.26 0215591 KELLY TRACTOR 1/09/97 564.02 0215592 KIRBY AUTO SUPPLY 1/09/97 125.93 0215593 KOMARNICKI, WALLY 1/09/97 33.25 0215594 LETTS, DAVID 1/09/97 247.00 0215595 LAB SAFETY SUPPLY, INC 1/09/97 123.32 0215596 LEWIS, RUTH A 1/09/97 29.67 0215597 LIGHT SOURCE -TONER SUPPLY 1/09/97 115.00 0215598 LEXMARK INTERNATIONAL 1/09/97 2,637.80 0215599 LRP PUBLICATIONS 1/09/97 682.00 0215600 LESCO, INC 1/09/97 343.10 0215601 LAPSCO INC 1/09/97 173.70 0215602 LIBERTY BUSINESS MACHINES 1/09/97 1,095.00 0215603 LUCENT TECHNOLOGIES 1/09/97 56.20 0215604 MACMILLAN OIL COMPANY 1/09/97 1,549.41 0215605 MAX DAVIS ASSOCIATES 1/09/97 231.57 0215606 MAXWELL PLUMBING, INC 1/09/97 161.12 0215607 MCDONOUGH, WAYNE R ESQ 1/09/97 91.00 0215608 MICROFORMS MANAGEMENT COR 1/09/97 432.80 0215609 MID COAST TIRE SERVICE, INC 1/09/97 105.95 0215610 MIKES GARAGE 1/09/97 100.00 0215611 MOODY TIRE, INC 1/09/97 36.00 0215612 MAROLF, INC 1/09/97 618.75 0215613 MAIN PAINT & SUPPLY 1/09/97 43.10 0215614 MINER'S MARINA 1/09/97 525.00 0215615 MIDWEST MICRO 1/09/97 316.09 0215616 MONTALBANO, ANTHONY P 1/09/97 1,500.00 0215617 M D MOODY & SONS 1/09/97 96.94 0215618 MARTIN COUNTY PETROLEUM 1/09/97 1,086.75 0215619 MIDWEST TAPE EXCHANGE 1/09/97 386.35 0215620 MIRACLE MEDIA 1/09/97 18.45 0215621 MR BOB PORTABLE TOILET 1/09/97 138.40 0215622 MAIN STREET HARDWARE, INC 1/09/97 12.33 0215623 MOORE MEDICAL CORP 1/09/97 744.43 0215624 NATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR 1/09/97 20.00 0215625 NORTH SOUTH SUPPLY 1/09/97 47.68 0215626 NORTHERN HYDRAULICS, INC 1/09/97 605.50" 0215627 NATIONAL AMBULANCE BUILDERS, 1/09/97 465.50 0215628 NEW HORIZONS OF THE TREASURE 1/09/97 2,185.35 0215629 NATIONAL FIRE PROTECTION 1/09/97 229.40 0215630 NOLEN, VICKIE L 1/09/97 106.57 0215631 OFFICE PRODUCTS & SERVICE 1/09/97 1,277.58 0215632 OXMOOR HOUSE 1/09/97 31.91 0215633 OFFICE DEPOT, INC 1/09/97 1,292.57 0215634 O'NEIL, LEE & WEST 1/09/97 19,790.19 0215635 PARAGON ELECTRIC, INC 1/09/97 21,959.00 6 `� ��1 January 21, 1997 BOOK FAGEti�0 CHECK NAME CHECK CHECK NUMBER DATE AMOUNT 0215636 PARKS RENTAL 1/09/97 139.00 0215637 PETTY CASH 1/09/97 158.20 0215638 PETTY CASH 1/09/97 82.66 0215639 PINTO, TERRANCE G 1/09/97 437.00 0215640 PROCTOR CONSTRUCTION 1/09/97 500.00 0215641 PETRILLA, FRED J JR PHD 1/09/97 500.00 0215642 PORT PETROLEUM, INC 1/09/97 1,844.59 0215643 PROGRESSIVE DATA MGMT, INC 1/09/97 498.00 0215644 PRECISION CONTRACTING 1/09/97 32,199.06 0215645 PINEWOODS ANIMAL HOSPITAL 1/09/97 15.00 0215646 PENSACOLA HISTORICAL SOCIETY 1/09/97 84.49 0215647 RADIO SHACK ACCT RECEIVABLE 1/09/97 63.08 0215648 RIFKIN, SHELDON H PHD 1/09/97 500.00 0215649 RUSSELL CONCRETE, INC 1/09/97 2,563.32 0215650 RAY PACE'S WASTE EQUIPMENT,INC 1/09/97 191.71 0215651 RUBBER STAMP EXPRESS 1/09/97 43.27 0215652 READER'S DIGEST ASSOCIATION 1/09/97 71.92 0215653 RESEARCH INSTITUTE OF 1/09/97 495.00 0215654 RAMER MANUFACTURING INC 1/09/97 31.50 0215655 RED LINE HEALTHCARE 1/09/97 388.22 0215656 RUDY E MANTEL 1/09/97 11500.00 0215657 SAFETY EQUIPMENT COMPANY 1/09/97 156.95 0215658 SCHLITT SERVICES 1/09/97 355.00 0215659 SCOTTY'S, INC 1/09/97 1,201.79 0215660 SEBASTIAN BUSINESS SUPPLY, INC 1/09/97 14.64 0215661 SHELL OIL COMPANY 1/09/97 17.30 0215662 SHERWIN-WILLIAMS 1/09/97 50.75 0215663 SIR SPEEDY 1/09/97 24.00 0215664 SMITH, BRUCE J ESQUIRE 1/09/97 370.00 0215665 SOUTHERN BUILDING CODE 1/09/97 125.00 0215666 SOUTHERN CULVERT, DIV OF 1/09/97 560.00 0215667 SOUTHERN ELECTRIC SUPPLY 1/09/97 2,322.43 0215668 SOUTHERN TRUCK EQUIPMENT 1/09/97 74.91 0215669 STURGIS LUMBER & PLYWOOD CO 1/09/97 572.96 0215670 SUDDEN IMAGES 1/09/97 16.28 0215671 SUNCOAST WELDING SUPPLIES, INC 1/09/97 448.63 0215672 SUNSHINE PHYSICAL THERAPY 1/09/97 75.00 0215673 ST JOHN'S RIVER WATER MGMT 1/09/97 100.00 0215674 SERVICE REFRIGERATION CO, INC 1/09/97 117.50 0215675 SIMON & SCHUSTER CONSUMER 1/09/97 212.56 0215676 SUN TELEPHONE, INC 1/09/97 50.00 0215677 SEBASTIAN ANIMAL HOSPITAL 1/09/97 30.00 0215678 SHADY OAK ANIMAL CLINIC 1/09/97 36.50 0215679 SUBSTANCE ABUSE COUNCIL 1/09/97 6,571.14 0215680 SUN BELT MEDICAL SUPPLY, INC 1/09/97 1,333.25 0215681 SOFTWARE CITY 1/09/97 666.85 0215682 SMITH BROS CONT EQUIP 1/09/97 1,139.30 0215683 SUPERIOR PRINTING 1/09/97 240.00 0215684 SAFECO, INC 1/09/97 1,700.00 0215685 STEWART INDUSTRIES 1/09/97 44,497.30 0215686 SIMS, MATTHEW 1/09/97 117.16 0215687 SOUTHEASTERN EMERGENCY EQUIP 1/09/97 387.79 0215688 SOUTHERN LOCK AND SUPPLY CO 1/09/97 216.72 0215689 SEBASTIAN RIVER AREA CHAMBER 1/09/97 320.00 0215690 SOU SEC SYS OF FT PIERCE INC 1/09/97 330.00 0215691 STINSON, LOMA 1/09/97 42.75 0215692 STAPLES, INC 1/09/97 70.36 0215693 TERRA INTERNATIONAL, INC 1/09/97 1,197.72 0215694 TW COMMUNICATIONS 1/09/97 2,511.58 0215695 TRANS -GENERAL LIFE INSURANCE 1/09/97 5,357.26 0215696 TOTALINE OF FLORIIDA 1/09/97 182.70 0215697 TORRES, JILL 1/09/97 30.00 0215698 SMITH, TERRY L 1/09/97 12.47 0215699 UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA, THE 1/09/97 40.00 7 BOOK .u� PAGE, January 21, 1997 L_ CHECK NAME CHECK CHECK NUMBER DATE AMOUNT 0215700 UNIVERSITY OF CENTRAL FLORIDA 1/09/97 225.UU 0215701 U S FILTER/DAVIS 1/09/97 34,575.44 0215702 VELDE FORD, INC 1/09/97 373.41 0215703 VERO BEACH PRESS JOURNAL 1/09/97 254.88 0215704 VERO BEACH PRESS JOURNAL 1/09/97 1,153.60 0215705 VERO BEACH, CITY OF 1/09/97 25,908.08 0215706 VERO TRAVEL SERVICE, INC 1/09/97 290.00 0215707 VERO BEARING & BOLT 1/09/97 369.13 0215708 VERO BEACH POWERTRAIN 1/09/97 81.01 0215709 WAL-MART STORES, INC 1/09/97 357.36 0215710 WALSH, LYNN 1/09/97 129.92 0215711 WEST PUBLISHING PAYMENT CTR 1/09/97 2,228.75 0215712 W W GRAINGER, INC 1/09/97 137.25 0215713 WIGINTON FIRE SPRINKLERS,INC 1/09/97 814.00 0215714 WILLHOFF, PATSY 1/09/97 104.00 0215715 WASTE NEWS 1/09/97 38.00 0215716 WRAP `N SHIP 1/09/97 30.25 0215717 WHITTINGTON, MEGAN 1/09/97 57.00 0215718 XEROX CORPORATION 1/09/97 1,290.00 0215719 YELLOW SPRINGS INSTRUMENT CO, 1/09/97 54.94 0215720 ZEPHYRHILLS SPRING WATER CO 1/09/97 14.95 0215721 ALAIMO, JOSEPH G 1/09/97 55.32 0215722 CARLIN, NICHOLAS 1/09/97 55.50 0215723 DIETZEN, MARK 1/09/97 52.60 0215724 FULMER BROTHERS INC 1/09/97 52.59 0215725 BOBBYS AUTO SERVICE CENTER 1/09/97 109.96 0215726 LIFE FOR YOUTH RANCH 1/09/97 2,640.00 0215727 HARRIS, A RICHARD 1/09/97 99.54 0215728 VEGA, RICHARD 1/09/97 80.00 0215729 NICKELSON, DONALD 1/09/97 105.92 0215730 WISSEL CONSTRUCTION 1/09/97 105.22 0215731 MAC DONALD, PAUL 1/09/97 52.57 0215732 HALLIDAY, TODD 1/09/97 53.06 0215733 HAMRICK, OTIS C 1/09/97 43.54 0215734 PYLES, SANDRA L 1/09/97 105.20 0215735 MC HENRY, NANCY 1/09/97 79.46 0215736 COOK, RICHARD 1/09/97 73.85 0215737 MAURER, W J & SUZANNE 1/09/97 105.22 0215738 FRANCK, ROBERT R 1/09/97 108.18- 0215739 LEBEL, DONALD 1/09/97 53.38 0215740 SUTTTON JR; JOHN & KIMBERLY 1/09/97 52.58 0215741 BURNEY, LINDA R 1/09/97 52.58 0215742 SANFORD, GENE F 1/09/97 53.22 0215743 GILES, RICHARD M 1/09/97 53.18 0215744 HELSELTH, SANDRA 1/09/97 52.60 0215745 VEALE, ERNEST & ALICE 1/09/97 50.00 0215746 STEIN, ROGER L 1/09/97 52.52 0215747 STENGER, JOHN 1/09/97 60.50 1,478,416.06 8 BOOK 1�J January 21, 1997 B. Accept Resignation of James Wellman - Economic Development Council The Board reviewed a letter of January 7, 1997: X L V I S AO N T H E V I S I O N I N I M A G I N G January 7, 1887 Board of County Commissioners Attention: Mrs. Carolyn Eggert 1840 25th Street Vero Beach, Florida 32960 Dear Mrs. Eggert: P�ki N Qt.,,.T.RE.�.':-;101 1''T Corrm.;ssi-Miers Ar1r Pei S^res ..�...r.. - Community Oev....- Uti,itles Finance OMB Ernerg. Serv. Risk lith. ._ Other It is with regret that I submit my resignation as the Industry Representative on the Indian River County Economic Development Council. I have enjoyed participating in this prestigious group for the past three years but current and projected commitments preclude my continued involvement at this time. I also feel it is a good idea to get someone from a different company with a new and fresh perspective. On a personal note I want to convey my appreciation for your tireless efforts in pursuit of the public good in Indian River County. You, Fran Adams, and others I have had the good fortune to work with, have been an inspiration to me and I wish all of you the best in 1997. If I can be of help on special projects please do not hesitate to contact me. If I have the time I will pitch in and if not I will be polite but candid in declining. Sincerely, y1 es ellman resident ON MOTION by Commissioner Adams, SECONDED by Commissioner Tippin, the Board unanimously accepted the resignation of James Wellman from the Economic Development Council with regret. P. January 21, 1997 BOOK ,110 PAGE 285 C. Rape Prevention Grant - SafeSpace The Board reviewed a Memorandum and Letter of January 15, kv*yz To: Board of County Commissioners From: Carolyn K. Eggert Chairman Date: January 15, 1997 Subject: Rape Prevention Grant The Board has been asked to write a letter of endorsement for the Rape Prevention Grant which helps fund SafeSpace, Inc. The letter has to be in Tallahassee by January 17, therefore, I am asking the Board for retroactive approval to write the letter as Chairman of the Board. I received verbal approval from the Board members on January 15. January 15, 1997 To Whom It May Concern: This letter is in reference to the Rape Prevention Grant and is to inform you that our funding has been a source of funding for SafeSpace, Inc. in Indian River County. Their program is well staffed and extremely effective. We believe they provide a real service to victims of violent crime and their families. The administrative office for the tri -county program is centrally located in Fort Pierce, Florida to be cost effective. We have always received our reports and information from SafeSpace, Inc. in a timely manner. Sincerely Yours, Carolyn K. Eggert Chairman ON MOTION by Commissioner Adams, SECONDED by Commissioner Tippin, the Board unanimously approved the letter written by Chairman Eggert endorsing the Rape Prevention Grant for SafeSpace, Inc., as requested in the Memorandum. 10 BOOK PAGE January 21, 1997 D. Miscellaneous Budget Amendment #009 The Board reviewed a Memorandum of January 15, 1997: TO: Members of the Board of County Commissioners DATE: January 15, 1997 SUBJECT: MISCELLANEOUS BUDGET AMENDMENT 009 -CONSENT AGENDA FROM: Joseph A Baird OMB Director DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS The attached budget amendment is to appropriate funding for the following: 1. On December 3, 1996, the BCC approved emergency repairs for the 911 Communications Center's uninterrupted power supply equipment: The attached entry appropriates funding. 2. A workshop, requested by the BCC, was held November 13, 1996 regarding communication towers. The attached entry appropriates funding for the costs associated with the guest speakers. 3. On December 17, 1996, the BCC approved a Systems Consulting Contract regarding contract negotiates for 911 Center computer aided dispatch system. The attached entry appropriates funding. 4. To reallocate Sheriffs revenues based on final budget estimates. 5. The attached entry appropriates grant monies awarded the Sheriffs Office as follows: Local Law Enforcement Block Grant (Equipment) ............... $77,425 Church Arson Prevention Grant ............................... $4,600 Universal Kning Program (9 new positions) .................... $314,955 6. On December 17, 1996 the BCC approved amending the Supervisors of Elections Office budget for the refund of postal accounts. 7. The attached entry increases the Supervisor of Elections' budget for revenue received from election fees from the Sebastian Inlet Tax District. 8. The M.A.CR Unit had BCC approval to purchase equipment at a cost of $1,695 in the 1995/96 fiscal year, but did not purchase the equipment until 1996/97. 9. The Sheriffs Office has requested that $6,810 of the Multi -Agency Criminal Enforcement Confiscated Property (PGI) be distributed to the Substance Abuse Council. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners approve the attached budget amendment 009. 11 January 21, 1997 o ,wt , ON MOTION by Commissioner Adams, SECONDED by Commissioner Tippin, the Board unanimously approved Miscellaneous Budget Amendment #009, as recommended in the Memorandum. TO: Members of the Board of County Commissioners FROM: Joseph A Baird' OMB Director BUDGET AMENDMENT: 009 Entry Number Funds/DepartmeWAccount Name Account Number Increase Decrease 1. EXPENSE 911 SURCHARGE/Communications Center/Comm. Equipment Maintenance 120-133-519-044.71 $8,322 $0 911 SURCHARGE/ Reserve for Contingency 120-133-581-099.91 $0 $8,322 2. EXPENSE M.S.T.UdPlanning/ Other Professional Services 004-205-515-033.19 $2,729 $0 M.S.T.U./Reserve for Contingency 004-199-581-099.91 SO $2,729 3. EXPENSE 911 SURCHARGE/Communications Center/Other Contractual Services 120-133-519-033.49 $10,000 $0 911 SURCHARGE1 Reserve for Contingency 120-133-581-099.91 SO $10,000 4. REVENUE GENERAL. FUND/Interest-Sheriff 001-000-361-033.00 $47,000 $0 GENERAL FUND/SheriffRevemres 001-000-341-052.00 $0 $47,000 5. REVENUE GENERAL FUND/Sheriff Revenues 001-000-341-052.00 5396,979 $0 EXPENSE GENERAL FUND/Law Enforcement (Local Law Enforcement Block Grant Equipment). 001-600-586-099.04 $77,424 $0 GENERAL FUND/Law Enforcement (Church Arson Prevention Grant) 001-600-586.099.04 $4,600 SO GENERAL FUND/SheriWLaw Enforcement (Universal hiring Program- Nm Nine (9) new positions) 001-600-586-099.04 - - $314,955 $O 6. EXPENSE GENERAL FUND/Supervisor of Elections/Budget Transfer 001-700-586-099.11$16,047 I GENERAL FUND/ Reserve for Contingency 001-199-581-099.91 $0 1 $16,047 12 BOOK DO PAGE �,'� January 21, 1997 Entry Number Funds/Department/Account Name Account Number Increase Decrease •; EXPENSE 1840 25th Street Vero Beach, FL 32960-3394 7. GENERAL FUND/Supervisor of Elections/Budget Transfer 001-700-586-099.11 $2,392 $0 GENERAL FUND/ Reserve for Contingency 001-199-581-099.91 $o $2,392 S. REVENUE MULTI -AX REVENUE/ Cash Forward 1264000-389-040.00 $1,695 $o EXPENSE MULTI-JUR/Sheriff/ Other Machinery & Equipment 126-600-521-066.49 $1,695 $o 9. REVENUE MULTI-JUR. REVENUE/ Cash Forward 126-000-389-040.00 $6,810 $0 EXPENSE MULTI-JUR/ Substance Abuse Council 126-600-521-088.69 $6,8I0 $0 .l E. Budget Amendment #010 - Broward County Inmate Revenue The Board reviewed a Memorandum of January 9, 1997: � GARY C. WHEELER •INDIAN RIVER COUNTY MEMBER FLORIDA SHERIFFS' ASSOCIATION e�itf MEMBER OF NATIONAL SHERIFFS ASSOCIATION 4055 41st AVENUE VERO BEACH, FLORIDA 32960-1808 L ' PHONE (561) 569-67C January 9, 199740, r.. ✓yis 9j C-, l �fF���j��;r The Honorable Carolyn K Eggert, Chairman •; Board of County Commissioners 1840 25th Street Vero Beach, FL 32960-3394 Re: Budget Adjustment, Broward County Inmate Revenue--BA010 Dear Mrs. Eggert: This letter is a request to amend our fiscal year 1996-97 Operating Budget by $417,870. These funds represent the revenue generated from the housing of Broward County inmates for the first three months of the fiscal year. A portion of time funds will be used to purchase vehicles for the nine (9) new officers we received through the recently approved Universal Hiring Program. We will expend another part of the monies to prepare the helicopter acquired from the City of Miami for law enforcement use. An additional portion will allow us to purchase two additional "police dogs" (K9s) and related vehicles, equipment and January 21, 1997 L- 13 11 BOOK u11 SAGE ti supplies. The balance of the monies will be used to increase the Corrections salary budget to cover overtime expenses, increase the Corrections expense budget and allow us to purchase equipment items for the food service area These added expenses are directly related to the increased inmate population. The budget amendment will be distributed as follows: Law Enforcement Expense $ 66,652 Law Enforcement Capital 250,936 Corrections Salaries 20,765 Corrections Expense 71,425 Corrections Capital Outlay —8,092 Total $ 417,870 I am requesting this item be placed on the "Consent Agenda" for your January 21, 1997, meeting. If you have any questions or any ftuther information is required, please let me know. Sincerely: Gary C. Wheeler, Sheriff ON MOTION by Commissioner Adams, SECONDED by Commissioner Tippin, the Board unanimously approved Budget Amendment #010, as requested in the letter from Sheriff Wheeler. TO: Members of the Board of County Commissioners FROM: Joseph A. BairdI OMB Director \ BUDGET AMENDMENT: 010 DATE: January 15, 1997 Entry Number Funds/Department/Account Name Account Number Increase Decrease 1. REVENUE GENERAL FUND/Sheriff 001-000-341-052.00 $417,870 $0 EXPENSE GENERAL FUND/Sheriff2aw Enforcement 001-600-586-099.04 $317,588 $0 GENERAL FUND/Sheriff/Detention Center 001-600-586-099.14 $100,282 $0 I I u 14 BOOK JU F'AE09K 0 January 21, 1997 _I F. Budget Amendment #011 - MACE Grant Project Generated Income The Board reviewed a Memorandum of January 15, 1997 and attached list: TO: Members of the Board of County Commissioners DATE: January 15, 1997 SUBJECT: M.A.C.E. GRANT (MULTI -AGENCY DRUG ENFORCEMENT UNIT) PROJECT GENERATED INCOME - BUDGET AMENDMENT 011 CONSENT AGENDA FROM: Joseph A. Baird OMB Director DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS Indian River County Sheriff's Department wants to apply to the state to use anti-drug abuse grant M.A.C.E. Unit income in the amount of $13,771. The M.A.C.E. Unit income was generated from confiscating property in drug related activities. The Sheriff's Department will use the funds to purchase the items as shown in the attachment. Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners approve the use of funds for equipment and authorize the Chairman to sign the Project Generated Income. ON MOTION by Commissioner Adams, SECONDED by Commissioner Tippin, the Board unanimously approved the use of $13,771 to purchase listed items and authorized the Chairman to sign the Project Generated Income Agreement with Department of Community Affairs, as recommended in the Memorandum; and approved Budget Amendment #011 to cover the transfer of funds. PROJECT GENERATED INCOME AGREEMENT IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD TO: Members of the Board of County Commissioners FROM: Joseph A Baird OMB Director BUDGET AMENDMENT 011 DATE: January 15. 1997 Entry Number FundwDepartment/Account Name Account Number Increase Decrease 1. REVENUE MULTI-JUR REVENUE/ Cash Forward 126-000-389-040.00 $13,771 $0 EXPENSE MULTI-JUR/Sherff Other Machinery & Equipment 126-600-521-066.49 513,771 $0 15 January 21, 1997 BOOK �.UU fAGEN, G. Temporary Water Service Agreement - Moskowitz The Board reviewed a Memorandum of January 6, 1997: TO: JAMES E. CHANDLER DATE: JANUARY 6, 1997 COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR FROM: TERRANCE G. PINTO DIRECTOR OF UTILIfNT RVICES PREPARED JAMES D. CHASTA AND MANAGER OF ASS SPROJECTS STAFFED BY: DEPARTMENT OF UTILITY SERVICES SUBJECT: TEMPORARY WATER SERVICE AGREEMENT INDIAN RIVER COUNTY AND KEN AND SUSAN MOSKOWITZ BACKGROUND Ken and Susan Moskowitz have requested that temporary service be installed from the water line on Arcadia Drive to service their property on 103 Tracy Drive, Sebastian, Florida 32958 prior to the installation of a water main on Tracy Drive. ANALYSIS The Agreement states that the Indian River County Department of Utility Services shall provide temporary water service to Mr. and Mrs. Moskowitz until such time that a water line may be constructed on Tracy Drive by assessment. They agree to pay all fees required to make this connection. They further agree to participate in the assessment and to reconnect to this water line as required by the Indian River County Department of Utility Services. RECOMMENDATION The Department of Utility Services recommends that the Board of County Commissioners approve the attached Agreement with Mr. and Mrs. Moskowitz on the Consent Agenda. ON MOTION by Commissioner Adams, SECONDED by Commissioner Tippin, the Board unanimously approved the temporary water service agreement with Ken and Susan Moskowitz, as recommended in the Memorandum. AGREEMENT HAS BEEN PLACED ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD 16 866 January 21, 1997 _I H. Transfer of Property from Federal Government to IRC to IRC Habitat for Humanity 1997: The Board reviewed Memoranda of April 26, 1996 and January 7, TO: Board of County Commissioners FROM: Terrence P. O'Brien - Assistant County Attorney 10 DATE: April 26, 1996 SUBJECT: TRANSFER OF PROPERTY FROM FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TO INDIAN RIVER COUNTY The Federal Government has acquired title to several lots in the Gifford area as a result of drug seizure/forfeiture proceedings. There exists a federal program called "The Weed and Seed Initiative" which is designed to reclaim and rejuvenate neighborhood communities impacted by drug trafficking and other violent criminal activity. In furtherance of this effort, the United States transfers property forfeited from criminals and drug dealers through state and local law enforcement agencies to local public agencies and private non-profit organizations. The following parcels in Indian River County were forfeited to the Federal Government because they were used to facilitate the sale of drugs. a. 4425 34th Court b. 3395 44th Place C. vacant land 34th Court d. 4546 49th Avenue e. 2610 42nd Street f. 38th Lane and 18th Avenue The Indian River County Habitat for Humanity, Inc. has expressed an Interest in acquiring these sites for new Habitat homes. The Federal Government because of the way the law is written must transfer the property through the local government. Accordingly, staff has made preliminary arrangements with the United States Attorney for the Southern District of Florida and the United States Marshall to have the property conveyed to Indian River County and then reconveyed to the Habitat for Humanity. If the Board' is willing to participate in this transfer, it is recommended that the Chairman be authorized to execute all documents necessary to accomplish the transfer of the above listed properties from the Federal Government to IRC to Habitat. 17`� BOOK iU J F,1GE tiP e3 January 21, 1997 TO: Board of County Commissioners � FROM: Terrence P. O'Brien, Assistant County Attorney oI �' 0 DATE: January 7, 1997 SUBJECT: TRANSFER OF PROPERTY FROM THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TO INDIAN RIVER COUNTY AND THEN TO IRC HABITAT FOR HUMANITY RE: MY MEMORANDUM TO BCC, THIS SUBJECT, APRIL 26, 1996 The Hoard of County Commissioners at its regular meeting of May 7, 1996 approved the procedures to effect the subject transfer. The Federal Government on December 23, 19% transmitted to Indian River County deeds for the subject property. It is now our obligation under the agreed to procedures to in tum deed these properties to the Habitat for Humanity. It is recommended that the Chairman be authorized to sign the statutory deed as set forth in Section 125.441, F.S., transferring the subject properties. ON MOTION by Commissioner Adams, SECONDED by Commissioner Tippin, the Board unanimously authorized the Chairman to sign the statutory deed as set forth in Section 125.441, F.S., transferring the subject property, as recommended in the Memorandum. 6 -Co R b CJ, -C-AP=-OF-G.,NTY DEED IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD I. PEP Reef Monitoring Report - Partial Payment for U.S. Department of the Army, Coastal Engineering Research Center The Board reviewed a Memorandum of January 15, 1997: TO: James E. Chandler, County Administrator ' CONSENT AGENDA FROM: James W. Davis, P.E., Public Works Director-' -- 4 SUBJECT: Partial Payment Totaling $30,000 for the US Department of the Army, Coastal Engineering Research Center (CERC) - PEP Reef Monitoring Report REF: LETTER: Thomas W. Richardson(CERC) to James W. Davis, dated 12/23/96 DATE: January 15, 1997 1s Januar 21 1997 BOOK �� Y PAGE9: DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS The Coastal Engineering Research Center(CERC), which has contracted with the County to provide monitoring reports for the PEP Reef project, is requesting partial payment for the October 1996 report. The report is presently under review by County staff, and CERC has experienced some "learning curves" which account for much of the delay in issuing the report. Attached is the request letter and Article 2 - Responsibility of the Board taken from the Original Agreement with CERC. The contractor is requesting partial payment of $30,000 for incremental payment Number 3 of Article 2 ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS In analyzing the agreement, a payment of $60,000 is to be paid upon receipt of the final draft of the October, 1996 Quarterly Report. CERC has made a good faith attempt to complete the work on time. The report has gone through a lengthy review process in order to present it in a professional manner so that the regulatory permit conditions can be met. RECOMMENDATIONS AND FUNDING Staff has reviewed the attached request and recommends that the partial release of incremental payment dumber 3 in the amount of $30,000 be approved. Funding to be from 12&144-572-0x33: 4 ON MOTION by Commissioner Adams, SECONDED by Commissioner Tippin, the Board unanimously approved partial release of incremental payment Number 3 in the amount of $30,000 to the Coastal Engineering Research Center, as recommended in the Memorandum. T. Hildie Tripson Reappointed - County Extension Advisory Council The Board reviewed a Memorandum of January 15, 1997: To: Board of County Commissioners From: Alice E. White Executive Aide Date: January 15, 1997 Subject: County Extension Advisory Council There was an error in the reappointment list that was approved by the Board on January 14, 1997. Mrs. Hildie Tripson should have been reappointed to the County Extension Advisory Council instead of Betty Gipson and Mike Ziegler - they were reappointed last year. Please reappoint Mrs. Tripson to this committee for another three-year term. 19 BOOK iU FA G E 19,� January 21, 1997 I ON MOTION by Commissioner Adams, SECONDED by Commissioner Tippin, the Board unanimously reappointed Mrs. Hildie Tripson to the County Extension Advisory Council, as requested in the Memorandum. PUBLIC HEARING - KATHRYN C. LEER AND OTHERS' REQUEST TO REZONE APPROXIMATELY 19.9 ACRES FROM A-1 TO RM -8 PRESS -JOURNAL Published Daily Vero Beach, Indian River County, Florida COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER: STATE OF FLORIDA Before the undersigned authority personally appeared Darryl K. Hicks who on oath says that he is President of the Press-Joumal, a daily newspaper published at Vero Beach in Indian River County, Florida; that the attached copy of advertisement, being in the matter of� in the Court, was pub- lished tslisped in said newspaper in the issues of Q 111 Affiant further says that the said Press -Journal is a newspaper published at Vero Beach, in said Indian River County, Florida, and that the said newspaper has heretofore been continuously published in said Indian River County, Florida, each daily and has been entered as second class mail matter at the post office in Vero Beach. in said Indian River County, Florida, for a period of one year next preceding the first publication of the attached copy of advertisement; and affiant further says that he has neither paid nor promised arty person, firm or corporation any discount, rebate, commission or refund for the purpose of securing this advertisement for publication In said newspaper. bscribed before me day o ,D, , 9 7 Y/�. ./J�.il► N qr% .� 7: MY epi • OCT. It. 1 = 1.t1>1ZII.A 1L Tt1ITLL. NOTAR! PtlHI1C ��• CC311063•, Q. State of Norms. my Commission UP. 10/11/01 OF FU • Com niadon Number. CC311063 s OF FU 0 l Netur. 8XIMA 13. Torn& nava rtarstat�ow pa1-�e _ CN ' subject ,LAM PropertY N I'm r Wom :'; to -t RM -6 N 16th AT NOT1cE - PUBLIC FEARM Th a e►a ar ae ptbod Rlroanct�My. yuntFlorfdao0�1zwgiii�p ap�ilFud pistriq 1 tnR7Sfmm ) inR� � nr °A AS= UMWWO- oew eReWdDIN 41P 10 6d toy KOM C. Lear and others. TM SOWNty s bated on ar WUM ales d sR ap MXk"eAr IAN fW ngteq ie9 � Pa us in1pne eou p 3 w sats � a sa �ont+mn � Coin. F�. Mn9 WV 10 A Pub10 Mrs" at vAiah Paha he Ysrsat and ollkrr Wd have an Wal rdy b be hoard, wi MAZYC �out.Fbrdida. h the C4 Commba re10nawdm " b=W d WO 251h�ssal v Fbr- ida an Tues". Jrwry 21. 1997. at s}•06 a m. TMrly w ardhar= to fig" ftsubW N4pOINANCE OF Nww RAVER COUNTY. FLORDA. AWENDN3 THE ZONNG ORDNANCE AND THE ACCObPANYNG ZONNG MAP FROM A -t To RMB, FOR PROPERTY LOCATED ON TW SOM SDE OF SR 60. APPROMMATELY 1.656 FEET YMEST OF GM AVENUE. AND DE- SCRBED tEREN. IND PROVDNW FOR EFPEC- TIVETMDAp� rxdnarroe May be i� t►r P,ble°Qdu p ,esFlar bU*en Ilan at t o °af- ab a +M Cork to ar Wore a Catasfr Cor For donors. 1610 25th street v«o Wesdt, � MM kdo m lb aontami Jdn Waded d 567• BWO, exto ab n 247. The Word d Canty 0=1 7; may aOoP anoths mrir" dnbbl cow frau b dgbt ra guested provided a s waHn tM cams gowd use Anpm who may wish :60"V. o appNl rty deCi& I, %tith may to made at thin :60 wi row to er► WN dint a verbaft record a to proasrlt"s e mala. who vewn fnd vaq and erier,oe upon wtadr the aDDer is band. ArWW who rlBedS a apodal OWMMOd"M fpr �s must oomaG Ou panty's AnWtW1_ jwtumb 223 d *W 48 khan stn ad = msesr"�oof C WYt Wv:•s•Ftan W. Adams. CloWman 135W_ t Community Development Director Bob Keating reviewed in detail a Memorandum of January 10, 1997, with the aid of a site map (projected on the EIMO) of the subject property which appeared in the agenda back-up materials on page 62: 20 BOOK �,U� FAQ€ January 21, 1997 TO: James'E. Chandler County Adminsitrator HEAD CONCURRENCE THROUGH: Sasan,il Rohani, AI �r Chief;, Long -Range Planning FROM: John Wachtele9 Senior Planner, Long -Range Planning DATE: January 10, 1997 RE: Kathryn C. Leer And Others, Request To Rezone Approkimately 19.9 Acres From A-1 To RM -8 (RZON 96-12-0062) It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at its regular meeting of January 21, 1997. DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS This request is to rezone approximately 19.9 acres from A-1, Agricultural District (up to 1 unit/5 acres) to RM -8, Multiple - Family Residential District (up to 8 units/acre). Located approximately 1,556 feet west of 66th Avenue, the subject property extends from SR 60 to 16th Street. The purpose of this request is to secure the zoning necessary to develop the site, consistent with its comprehensive plan land use designation, at a greater residential density. On January 9, 1997, the Planning and Zoning Commission voted 7-0 to recommend that the Board of County Commissioners approve this request to rezone the subject property to RM -8. Existing Land Use Pattern The subject property, adjacent property on east, and property to the south are zoned A-1. The subject property consists of 2 equal sized lots under separate ownership. Each of those lots contains active citrus groves and 1 single-family house. To the east of the subject property, abutting land consists of an empty field. Citrus groves exist to the south of the subject property, across 16th Street. Bordering the subject property on the west is the Lake -in - the -Woods multiple -family residential development. That development is zoned RM -6, Multiple -Family Residential District (up to 6 units/acro). The Vista Plantation Condominiums, zoned RM -4, Multiple -Family Residential District (up to 4 units/acre), are to the north of the subject property, across SR 60. Future Land Use :attern The subject property and properties to the north, east, and west are designated M-1, Medium -Density Residential -1, on the county future land use snap. The M-1 designation permits residential uses with densities tip to 8 units/acre. To the south of the subject property, land is designated AG -1, Agricultural -1. The AG -1 designation permits agricultural uses and residential uses with densities up to 1 unit/5 acres. 21 January 21, 1997 BOOK 1U@ PAGEI'23 7 Environment 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 lines extend to the site from the West Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant, while potable water lines extend to the site from the South County Reverse Osmosis Plant. Transportation System The site is bounded on the north by SR 60. Classified as a principal urban arterial on the future roadway thoroughfare plan map, this segment of SR 60 is a four lane road with approximately 130 feet of public road right-of-way. The portion of SR 60 extending from 66th Avenue to 82nd Avenue is programmed for expansion to six lanes and 200 feet of public road right-of-way by 2010. The site is bounded on the south by 16th Street. Classified as a collector road on the future roadway thoroughfare plan map, this segment of 16th Street is a two lane unpaved road with approximately 80 feet of public road right-of-way. This portion of 16th Street is programmed to be paved by 2010. ANALYSIS In this section, an analysis of the reasonableness of the rezoning request will be presented. Specifically, this section will include: • an analysis of the request's impact on public facilities; • an analysis of the request's consistency with the county's comprehensive plan; • an analysis of the request's compatibility with the surrounding area; and • an analysis of the request'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 fcr: 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 rezoning requests, conditional concurrency review is required. 22 BOOK �� FAGEA209 January 21, 1997 Conditional concurrency review examines the available capacity of each facility with respect to a proposed project. Since rezoning requests are not projects, county regulations call for the concurrency review to be based upon the most intense use of the subject property based upon the requested zoning. For residential 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 zoning. The site information used for the concurrency analysis is as follows: 1. Size of Area to be Rezoned: 3. Existing Zoning District: ±19.9 acres A-1, Agricultural District (up to 1 unit/5 acres) 4. Proposed Zoning District: RM -8, Multiple -Family Residential District (up to 8 units/acre) S. Most Intense Use of Subject Property Under Existing Zoning District: 4 Single -Family Units 6. Most Intense Use of Subject Property Under Proposed Zoning District: 159 Single -Family units - Transportation As part of the concurrency review process, the applicant has submitted a Traffic Impact Statement (TIS). The county's Traffic Engineering Division has reviewed and approved that TIS. A TIS reports 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 zoning district, and assigns those trips to impacted roads. 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. According to the TIS, the existing level of service ("D" or better) on impacted roadways would not be lowered by the traffic generated by development of 159 single-family units on the subject property. The table below 'identifies each of the impacted roadway segments associated with a 159 unit single-family residential development on the subject property. 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" 1920E S.R. 60- — -- -- 82nd Avenue 66th Avenue 3110 1920W S.R. 60 82nd Avenue 66th Avenue 3110 1925E S.R. 60 66th Avenue 58th Avenue 2840 1925W S.R. 60 66th Avenue 58th Avenue 2840 1930E S.R. 60 58th Avenue 43rd Avenue 2840 1930W S.R. 60 58th Avenue 43rd Avenue 2840 3010N 58th Avenue 4th Street 8th Street 760 3010S 58th Avenue 4th Street 8th Street 760 3015N 58th Avenue 8th Street 12th Street 760 3015S 58th Avenue 8th Street 12th Street 760 302ON 58th Avenue 12th Street 16th Street 880 3020S 58th Avenue 12th Street 16th Street 880 3025N 58th Avenue 16th Street S.R. 60 1890 3025S 58th Avenue 16th Street S.R. 60 1890 23 January 21, 1997 ROOK iuM FAGS20 9 Existing Demand Total Available Positive Roadway Existing Vested Segment Segment Project Concurrency Segment Volume Volume Demand Capacity Demand Determination 1920E 1120 768 1888 1222 37 Y 1920W 1294 708 2002 1108 37 Y 1925E 1170 1367 2537 303 30 Y 1925W 1288 1336 2634 216 30 Y 1930E 1116 1455 2571 269 11 Y 1930W 1209 1429 2638 202 11 Y 301ON 288 127 415 345 8 Y 30105 336 127 463 297 8 Y 3015N 418 231 649 111 10 Y 30155 364 230 594 166 10 Y 302ON 460 290 750 130 13 Y 30205 440 291 739 149 13 Y 3025N 510 616 1126 764 14 Y 3025S 564 614 1178 712 14 Y - Water With the proposed zoning, the subject property could accommodate 159 residential units, resulting in water consumption at a rate of 159 Equivalent Residential Units (ERU), or 39,750 gallons/day. This is based upon a level of service of 250 gallons/ERU/day. Development on the subject property would be 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 rezoning. - Wastewater Based upon the most intense use allowed under the proposed zoning, development of the property will have a wastewater generation rate of approximately 159 Equivalent Residential Units (ERU), or 39,750 gallons/day. This is based upon the level of service standard of 250 gallons/ERU/day. County wastewater service is available to the site from the West Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant, which currently has a remaining capacity of more than 200, 000-galloris/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 159 unit residential development would be anticipated to house approximately 366 people (2.3 X 159). 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 867 (366 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 courty landfill can accommodate the additional solid waste generated by the site under the proposed zoning district. - Drainage All developments are reviewed for compliance with county stormwater regulations which require on-site retention, preservation of floodplain storage and minimum finished floor elevations. In addition, development proposals must meet the discharge 24 BOOK 100 PAGE J�o January 21, 1997 M M M 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 zoning district, the maximum area of impervious surface would be approximately 606,791 square feet, or 13.9 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 614,695 cubic feet. In order to maintain the county's adopted level of service, the applicant would be required to retain approximately 470,404 cubic feet of runoff on-site. With the soil characteristics of the subject property, it is estimated that the pre -development runoff rate is 114.64 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 470,404 cubic feet of runoff for the most intense use of the property. As with all development, a more detailed review will be conducted during the development approval process. - Recreation A review of county recreation facilities and the projected demand that would result from the most intense development that could occur on the property under the proposed zoning district indicates that the adopted levels of service would be maintained. The table below illustrates the additional park demand associated with the proposed development of the property and the existing surplus acreage by park type. Based upon the analysis conducted, staff has determined that all concurrency -mandated facilities, including drainage, roads, solid waste, recreation, water, and wastewater have adequate capacity to accommodate the most intense use of the subject property under the proposed zoning district. Therefore, the concurrency test has been satisfied for the subject request. Consistency with Comprehensive Plan Rezoning requests are reviewed for consistency with all policies of the comprehensive plan. Rezonings must also be consistent with the overall designation of land uses as depicted on the Future Land Use Map, which include agriculture, residential, recreation, conservation, and commercial and industrial land uses and their densities. Commercial and industrial land uses are located in nodes throughout the unincorporated areas of Indian River County. 25 800 �� FAGEI January 21, 1997 ' LOS Project (Acres per Demand Surplus Park Type 1000 population) Acres Acreage Urban District 5.0 1.83 170.661 Community (south) 1.25 0.46 6.203 Beach 1.5 0.55 61.598 River 1.5 0.55 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 zoning district. Therefore, the concurrency test has been satisfied for the subject request. Consistency with Comprehensive Plan Rezoning requests are reviewed for consistency with all policies of the comprehensive plan. Rezonings must also be consistent with the overall designation of land uses as depicted on the Future Land Use Map, which include agriculture, residential, recreation, conservation, and commercial and industrial land uses and their densities. Commercial and industrial land uses are located in nodes throughout the unincorporated areas of Indian River County. 25 800 �� FAGEI January 21, 1997 ' The goals, objectives and policies are the most important parts of the comprehensive plan. Policies are statements in the plan which identify the actions which the county will take in order to direct the community's development. As courses of action committed to by the county, policies provide the basis for all county land development decisions. While all comprehensive plan policies are important, some have more applicability than others in reviewing rezoning requests. Of particular applicability for this request are the following objectives and policies. - 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 request is consistent with Future Land Use Element Objective 1. Future Land Use Element Policies 1.13 and 1.14 Future Land Use Element Policy 1.14 states that the M-1, Medium - Density Residential -1, land use designation is intended for residential uses with densities up to 8 units/acre. In addition, Future Land Use Element Policy 1.13 states than these residential uses must be located within the urban service area. Since the subject property is located within an area designated as M-1 on the county's future land use plan map and is located within the county's urban service area, and the proposed zoning district would permit residential uses no greater than the 8 units/acre permitted by the M-1 designation, the proposed request is consistent with Policies 1.13 and 1.14. - 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 SR 60/I-95 Commercial/Industrial Node, and the SR 60/58th Avenue Corimercial/Industrial Node. Those nodes are two of the county's largest employment centers. Most people who work in those nodes live in moderately -priced, low to medium -density housing. The RM -8 zoning district is intended for such uses: Therefore, the proposed rezoning 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 request implements Future Land Use Element Objective 4. - 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 rezoning 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. 26 BOOK I " PAGE'132 January 21, 1997 - 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, consistent with its comprehensive plan land use designation, 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 provide higher densities along major transportation corridors in order to facilitate future mass transit provision. Since the proposed rezoning will increase the allowed density along SR 60, one of the county's major transportation corridors, this request implements Mass Transit Element Policy 1.2. As part of its consistency analysis, staff compared the proposed request to all the objectives and policies in the plan and found no conflicts. Therefore, the request is consistent with the comprehensive plan. Compatibility with the Surrounding Area Staff's position is that multiple -family residential development is appropriate for the site and that such development would be compatible with surrounding land uses. Multiple -family development is already prominent in that area of the county. Located near the SR 60/58th Avenue commercial/ industrial node, the subject property is particularly well suited to meet the demand for multiple -family housing generated by development within that node. In effect, the proposed rezoning would increase the opportunity for people to live near their place of employment. The primary impacts of development on the subject property would be on the Lake -in -the -woods development. Abutting the subject property's west boundary, Lake -in -the -Woods is a multiple -family residential development that is zoned RM -6. With respect to the potential impacts development of the subject property may have on Lake -in -the -Woods, there are several mitigating factors. The first factor relates to the layout of Lake -in -the -Woods. That project is designed with most buildings located in, and oriented towards, the interior of the development. In contrast, most open space and stormwater retention areas are located along the development's perimeter, thus acting as a buffer. The required site plan approval process for multiple -family development would work to provide similar features for such a project on the subject property. Additionally, under the requested RM -8 zoning district, building coverage for multiple -family development on the site would be restricted to a!maximum of 25% of the lot, while a minimum of 305 of the site mush be open, or green, space. Finally, county LDRs require side yards that are at least 10 feet wide (chapter 911), perimeter landscaping (chapter 926), and landscaping of parking lots and open space (chapter 926). For these reasons, staff feels the requested land use designation and zoning district would be compatible with adjacent residential development. 27 January 21, 1997 BOOK PAGE 33 Similarly, incompatibilities between the subject property and adjacent A-1 zoned land are not anticipated. With respect to zoning, the county's policy has always been to retain agricultural zoning on property rather than changing it when the underlying land use designation increases. This not only reflects the county's policy of using agricultural zoning as a "holding" category, but also recognizes that urbanization occurs incrementally with various tracts remaining agricultural for longer periods. Two factors, however, indicate that urban type zoning districts would be appropriate for agriculturally zoned land in this portion of the county. The first factor is the underlying designation on the future land use map. This area is within the urban service area and is deemed appropriate for residential development with densities of up to 8 units/acre. Equally important is the development pattern in that area. Located near two C/I nodes, and a regional mall, that area is one of the fastest growing sections of the county. Additionally, that area has convenient access to the county's transportation system. These factors indicate a trend toward continued urbanization in that portion of the county. For these reasons, staff feels that the requested RM -8 zoning would be compatible with development in the surrounding area. Potential Impact on Environmental Ouality Being a citrus grove, the site has been cleared. Since it contains no environmentally important land, such as wetlands or sensitive uplands, 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 zoning district is compatible with surrounding areas, is consistent with the comprehensive plan, meets all concurrency criteria, will have no negative impacts on environmental quality, and meets all applicable rezoning criteria. Most importantly, the subject property is located in an area deemed suited for medium -density multiple -family residential uses. For these reasons, staff supports the request. RECOMMENDATION Based on the analysis conducted, staff and the Planning and Zoning Commission recommend that the Board of County Commissioners approve this request to rezone the subject property from A-1 to RM -8. 28 January 21, 1997 BOOP( IDU" PA.GE3 J �t J MAUiS'.,cXl' $ 29 6.2 - January 21, 1997 BOOK 100 PAGE1'o The Chairman opened the public hearing and asked if anyone wished to be heard in this matter. Gerald Heck, chairman of the Lake -in -the -Woods condominium association, questioned the capatibility element in the proposed rezoning to RM -8. He would prefer a less dense development. He cited the problems with traffic currently experienced in the area on SR -60 and believed more problems would occur due to the additional development. Warren Dill, attorney representing CED Construction Company, advised that he felt staff had made a thorough analysis of the project. He understood staff is trying to prevent SR -60 from looking totally commercial as on SR -192 in Melbourne. He advised that the proposed project represented a textbook rezoning application, that it met all the criteria in the Comprehensive Plan. He also stated that it was submitted in accordance with the County's regulations and that the Planning & zoning Commission had taken a hard look at it and had approved it unanimously. He was prepared to answer any questions. It was determined that no'one else wished to be heard and the Chairman closed the public hearing. Commissioner Ginn asked if the project would be eligible for an affordable housing density bonus, and Director Keating advised that the applicant had indicated to staff that they do intend to apply for the income tax credit program, but that they do not intend to apply for a density bonus under the County's program. Responding to further questions from Commissioner Ginn, Director Keating confirmed that a certain percentage of their units have to be for low and moderate income and that the applicant had indicated that the units will be rental. Commissioner Ginn felt that the project, while consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, was not compatible with the surrounding area, that it should be less dense. She also felt that the Land Development Regulations needed to be worked on, that they are inadequate, particularly regarding landscaping and perhaps set backs. For these reasons, she advised she could not vote in favor of the rezoning to RM -8, but later stated that she could vote for RM -6. Commissioner Adams would have preferred it to be RM -6 and had concern that in looking at the minutes of the Planning & Zoning Commission meeting, there was no public input. 30 ma January 21, 1997 Commissioner Eggert pointed out that once rezoned, this property could be sold and something totally different done with it. Commissioner Adams thought perhaps the Board needed a workshop on the affordability housing unit/element in the Comprehensive Plan so there is a consistency. One of the things that concerned her was the effort of the builders coming in and asking for their land valuations to be reappraised for tax purposes because of tax credits. Chairman Eggert reminded them of the ex parte restrictions concerning the River Park Place hearing which will be before them on January 28, 1997. THE CHAIRMAN CALLED THE QUESTION and the motion carried 3-2 with Commissioners Ginn and Macht casting the dissenting votes. (Ordinance No. 97-01 adopted.) Attorney Dill expressed his thanks and advised the Board that he has been assured by his clients that they will not apply for density bonus for this project and he has seen the proposed site plan for this project and assured the Board that all units are focused as much as possible to the center of the tract. There is extensive open space on the west side and he thought that the neighbors would find it compatible once it goes into place. County Attorney Vitunac cited the Snyder case and advised them that once the applicant showed that he had met all the County's criteria, the burden was on the County to show by evidence that it would be better to keep the existing zoning. He thought that with the evidence presented by staff that the Board was obligated to vote for it. Commissioner Ginn was not sure that all the conclusions were consistent and reiterated her feelings against the rezoning. County Attorney Vitunac explained that it was a dramatic change in the powers of County Commissioners to deny zoning. From now on, they are required to have a presentation with facts and competent evidence to show that the County has the right to deny rezoning. Commissioner Macht thought there was no argument on that, but thought it was an anomaly of the law that produces a very undesirable product that the Board can do nothing about. Kyle's Run came to his mind as a shocking example of one of the ugliest intrusions along an otherwise beautiful boulevard. 32 January 21, 1997 BOOK l u a f,,, 3J 7 Director Keating advised that the subject came up late at the P & Z meeting, probably around 10 PM, after another controversial subject. He understood that there were some people in attendance to speak on this matter, but they had left the meeting before it was discussed. Commissioner Macht wanted to. have as part of staff's presentation, the possibility of any affordable housing, because that materially changed his attitude toward the project. Chairman Eggert understood, but pointed out that it was legal under our present ordinances and perhaps the Board would want to consider changing them in the future. While he concurred the Comprehensive Plan was not perfect, Commissioner Tippin felt our Plan was as good as any in the state of Florida. MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Tippin, SECONDED BY Commissioner Adams, to adopt the ordinance in accordance with staff's recommendation. Under discussion, Commissioner Ginn commented that she thought the Comprehensive Plan is good but that there are nuances in it that show up which can increase densities because of affordable housing bonuses, which really are not in our Comprehensive Plan. Director Keating advised, however, that the bonuses are in the Plan. Chairman Eggert pointed out that the bonuses are required by the State, and Director Keating clarified that it is part of our State Housing Initiatives Partnership (SHIP) program. He added that staff had to prepare a housing incentive plan showing how the County was trying to promote and accommodate affordable housing and this was one of the ways it had been accomplished. Commissioner Ginn cited the Indian River Apartments on Indian River Boulevard as being more dense than 10 units per acre for which it is zoned. She estimated it was more like 12 units per acre and Director Keating agreed. She also felt the landscaping was inadequate and it was much too crowded. Commissioner Adams asked how Lake -in -the -Woods got a higher density, and Director Keating explained how the calculations were made and how the credits were figured based on the ACLF. Commissioner Macht commented there was a wide gulf of usage of the properties that were not even on the same plane. 31 Bm 100 PAGE 31d January 21, 1997 A � i Commissioner Tippin disagreed with the degree of ugliness and suggested he and Commissioner Macht might have a debate on what constitutes beauty and what constitutes ugly. ORDINANCE NO. 97-01 AN ORDINANCE OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE AND THE ACCOMPANYING ZONING MAP FROM A-1 TO RM -8, FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF SR 60, APPROXIMATELY 1,556 FEET WEST OF 66TH AVENUE, AND DESCRIBED HEREIN, AND PROVIDING FOR EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission, sitting as the local planning agency on such matters, has held a public hearing and subsequently made a recommendation regarding this rezoning request; and WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, did publish its Notice of Intent to rezone the hereinafter described property; and WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners has determined that this rezoning is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan of Indian River County; and WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners has held a public hearing pursuant to this rezoning request, at which parties in interest and citizens were heard; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED, by the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, that the zoning of the following described property situated in Indian River County, Florida, to -wit: THE WEST TEN (10) ACRES OF THE EAST 20.47 ACRES OF TRACT 10, AND THE WEST TEN (10) FEET OF THE EAST 10.47 ACRES OF TRACT 10, SECTION 6, TOWNSHIP 33 SOUTH, RANGE 39 EAST, INDIAN RIVER FARMS COMPANY SUBDIVISION, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF, AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 2, PAGE 25, OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA; SAID LAND NOW LYING AND BEING IN INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA. TOGETHER WITH: THE WEST 10 ACRES OF THE EAST 20.48 ACRES OF TRACT 15, SECTION 6, TOWNSHIP 33 SOUTH, RANGE 39 EAST. ACCORDING TO THE LAST GENERAL PLAT OF LANDS OF INDIAN RIVER FARMS COMPANY. FILED IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK OF THE COURT OF ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA. IN PLAT BOOK 2, PAGE 25. SAID LAND LYING AND BEING IN INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA. Be changed from A-1 to RM -8. All with the meaning and intent and as set forth and described in said Land Development Regulations. Approved and adopted by the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, on this 21th day of January, 1997. 33 January 21, 1997 BOOK NO PAGE A ORDINANCE NO. 97-01 This ordinance was advertised in the Vero Beach Press -Journal on the 11th day of January, 1997 for a public hearing to be held on the 21th day of January, 1997 at which time it was moved for adoption by Commissioner Tippin , seconded by Commissioner Adams and adopted by the following vote: Chairman Carolyn K. Eggert Ave Vice -Chairman John W. Tippin Ave Commissioner Fran B. Adams Ave Commissioner Caroline D. Ginn Nay Commissioner Kenneth R. Macht Nay BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY BY: K. EggAr&-, Chairman ATTEST BY: C 1 ) Jef f�y/K�. �3Cton� irk Acknowledgement by the Department of Sta6e of the State of Florida - this 3©v;`�. day of ya_ .71 1997. Effective upon filing with the Department of State. This ordinance was filed with the Department of State on the following date: , 079. 99-7- u\v\j\TJ=.ord January 21, 1997 34 BOOK I Ud FACE -310 1 PUBLIC HEARING - OSLO PLAZA ASSOCIATES, INC. - REQUEST TO REZONE APPROXIMATELY 11.3 ACRES FROM CL TO CG PRESS -JOURNAL Published Daily Vero Beath, Indian River County, Florida COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER: STATE OF FLORIDA Before the undersigned authority permully appeared Darryl K. Wks who on oath says that he is President of the Press,lournal, a day newspaper pubiished at Vero Beach in Indian River County, Florida. that the attached copy of attnrtlsement, being in the matter of -�C- C e I In the Court, was pub- fC1ished in said newspaper in the Issues of l Affiant further says that the said Pnws Journal is a newspaper published at Vero Beach, in said Indian Rhier Continuously publishCounty. Florida, ed in Rim and that the said newspaper has heretofore been second Fbida, each dally and has been entered as Class mals matter at the post office inn Verro� Beach, In said Man River Canty, Florida, for a period of one year next preceding the first pt0cation of the attached copy of adviceorrtipsoermwit; and affiant further says that he has neither paid nor promised any person, firm tion adverd aserrhent fany Mian in said newspaper. refund for the purpose of sectxitTg this it�tliAitin� '' bgtxibed before me this da 112-4912 074 W Canfe. E*res<:At OCT. 11. 1997 ' Bog" AL Mil.. AfUY PUBLiC No.CC311063Z -- - - _ -- _ mx—t- ` m Combdon Number. CC311063 Mw .qY• XaWr SM&A AL . W= Community Development Director Bob ..�. Rs' -3 ��• - cL ce ao CL NOTICE - PUBLIC HEARM TA. eoene Ca 3 24' . . otNdwal RMer Coualr. Fhorida. w=94 004111— �i aaatas b aeopmn a cab. I b cXa �ee�wd eaone+.c by o°ri°o"`FrM eesaOK Tari w�iae ry boated at ft norowaat eom. a A.ewe and Cab Road, agnoapxctoyi Is, app tomwey 11.3 tats 7ftsa= T � i aouHt % aecfon of berg in Mei wrarar . F7o�l0aRa"� 3 . q:ip .w a�r,e ahel h f Midi °`fat inrrreet aw ePDaosay 10 be 11011r0. re be hath0 byf» Bard of County caraftmm of donmCha�n� m of fit ei,>o- e4 bated at 1840 25O Soak Yeo Bi P1 Aw. 1 on Tweday. Jewry 21, 19U. at 9.15 am. The F -; , I d o PG M 10 ewona ft aabjea dhrONANCE OF WOMI RMR Cally. FLOFWA. AMSOM THE ZONNG OPOKm" ft wac auYq PrOPOW rapadJbaW bwrM ; Aao,eeW 0°1 fa a fie aria to ft Board of CWAr Comm abrara 184825M Stment Vaaet V610 Ba4 C" Faa MOM rdonnafr4 contact John wachid at MY. Oft aocrMon 247. The Bowd of county mdo queeh.0.PwiOed R r wWn ft WN aaew"fe M atw Mehr W to 1"Ch may be Meda at fie Inem w8 r�iea00= aue fit a Vebefm record a ft peooea - Be r which h a�VW r�baeed'mfm0� aal atldrpa fi s��op aoraap�fr aouuya Ano km IM UndWee Act VADA) Coordnsta M 5P_f000 I- I'm 223 at rest 48 hen in a m at y_ `^`^^'meq Jen 8.1 13MM Keating reviewed a Memorandum of January 8, 1997 with the aid of a site map (projected on the ELMO) of the subject property which appeared in the agenda back-up materials on page 76: 35 January 21, 1997 BOOK luo PAGE •3 i i TO: James E. Chandler County Administrator DEPAIVMENT HEAD CON CE c Robert M. Reatin , AICP Community Develo meat rector THROUGH: Sasan Rohani, AICP S if- Chief, Long -Range Planning FROM: John Wachtel p/ Senior Planner, Long -Range Planning DATE: January 8, 1997 RE: OSLO PLAZA ASSOCIATES, INC.'S REQUEST TO REZONE APPROXIMATELY 11.3 ACRES FROM CL TO CG (RZON 96-05-0151) It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at its regular meeting of January 21, 1997. DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS This is a request to rezone approximately 11.3 acres from CL, Limited Commercial District, to CG, General Commercial District. Located at the northwest corner of 27th Avenue and Oslo Road (9th Street, S.W.), the subject property is owned by Oslo Plaza Associates', Inc. The purpose of this request is to secure the necessary zoning to permit a restaurant with a drive-through on the subject property. On December 19, 1996, the Planning and Zoning. Commission voted 5-0 to recommend that the Board of County Commissioners approve this request to rezone the subject property to CG. Existing Land Use Pattern With the exception of one building in the northwest portion of the site, the subject property and abutting land to the west, zoned CG, are vacant and wooded. The western ±650 feet of the site's northern boundary abut a wooded area, zoned RS -3, Single -Family Residential District (up to 3 units/acre). That wooded area contains one single-family house. North of the subject property, land along 27th Avenue is zoned CL. A drive-through beverage store abuts the subject property on the north. Except for a convenience store at the northeast corner of Oslo Road and 27th Avenue, land to the east of the subject property, across 27th Avenue is vacant and is zoned CL. The Holiday Village Mobile Home Park, zoned RMH-6, Mobile Home Residential District (up to 6 units/acre) is located at the southeast corner of Oslo Road and 27th Avenue:- Land south of the subject property, across Oslo Road, is predominately wooded and undeveloped, and is zoned CL. That land contains a well drilling and repair business. West of that parcel, land is zoned RS -3. Future Land Use Pattern The subject property, abutting property to the west, property to the east (across 27th Avenue), and the east ±630 feet of the property to the south (across Oslo Road) are designated C/I, Commercial/ Industrial on the future land use map. North of the 36 January 21, 1997 BOOK I U-0 PAGE subject property, properties within approximately 300 feet of 27th Avenue are also designated C/I. The C/I designation permits various commercial and industrial zoning districts. The remaining land north and south of the subject property, and land at the southeast corner of Oslo Road and 27th Avenue are designated L-2, Low -Density Residential -2, on the future land use map. The L-2 designation permits residential uses with a density of up to 6 units/acre. Environment Portions of the site, particularly along 27th Avenue, have been cleared for development. The majority of the site, however, consists of pine flatwoods. Examination of aerial photographs indicates that the western portion of the site contains a small wetland area. According to Flood Insurance Rating Maps, the subject property is not within a flood hazard area. Utilities and Services The site is within the Urban Service Area of the county. Water lines extend to the site from the South County Reverse Osmosis Plant. Wastewater lines from the South Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant also extend to the site. Transportation System The subject property abuts Oslo Road and 27th Avenue. Both of those roads are two-lane paved roads that are classified as urban principal arterial roadways on the future roadway thoroughfare plan map. This segment of 27th Avenue has approximately 100 feet of existing public road right-of-way. The portion of Oslo Road that abuts the site has approximately 130 feet of existing public road right-of-way. Both of those roads are programmed for expansion to 4 lanes by 2005. Zoning District Differences There are many similarities and some differences between the existing CL zoning district and the proposed CG district. The CL district is intended to serve, and be more compatible with, nearby residential development. Therefore, in terms of permitted uses, the CL district is generally more restrictive. In contrast, the CG district allows somewhat more intense commercial development. The differences between the districts are best illustrated by their purpose statements. These purpose statements are as follows: • CL, Limited Commercial District. The CL, limited commercial district, is intended to provide areas for the development of restricted commercial activities. The CL district is intended to accommodate the convenience retail and service needs of area residents, while minimizing the impact of such activities on any nearby residential areas. • CG, General Commercial District. The CG, general commercial district, is intended to provide areas for the development of general retail sales and selected service activities. The CG district is not intended to provide for heavy commercial activities, such as commercial service uses, heavy repair services nor industrial uses. 37 January 21, 1997 BOOK !U@ FAG- X13 ANALYSIS In this section, an analysis of the reasonableness of the application will be presented. The analysis will include a description of: • concurrency of public facilities; • compatibility with the surrounding area; • consistency with the comprehensive plan; and • potential impact on environmental quality. Concurrency of Public Facilities This site is located within the county Urban Service Area, an area deemed suited for urban scale development. The comprehensive plan establishes standards for: Transportation, Potable Water, Wastewater, Solid Waste, Drainage and Recreation (Future Land Use Policy 3.1). The adequate provision of these services is necessary to ensure the continued quality of life enjoyed by the community. The comprehensive plan also requires that new development be reviewed to ensure that the minimum acceptable standards for these services and facilities are maintained. Policy 3.2 of the Future Land Use Element states that no development shall be approved unless it is consistent with the concurrency management system component of the Capital Improvements Element. For rezoning requests, conditional concurrency review is required. Conditional concurrency review examines the available capacity of each facility with respect to a proposed project. Since rezoning requests are not projects, county regulations call for the concurrency review to be based upon the most intense use of the subject property based upon the requested zoning district. For commercial rezoning 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 rezoning. The site information used for the concurrency analysis is as follows: 1. Size of Area to be Rezoned: *11.3 acres 2. Land Use Designation: C/I, Commercial/Industrial 3. Existing Zoning Classification: CL, Limited Commercial 4. Proposed Zoning Classification: CG, General Commercial 5. Most Intense Use under Existing Zoning Classification: *113,000 sq. ft. of Retail Commercial (Shopping Center in the 5th Edition ITE Manual). 6. Most Intense Use under Proposed Zoning Classification: ±113, 000 sq. ft. of Retail Commercial (Shopping Center in the 5th Edition ITE Manual). As per section 910.07(2) of the Concurrency Management Chapter of the County's Land Development Regulations, projects which do not increase density or intensity of use are exempt from concurrency requirements. This rezoning request is exempt from concurrency review because the requested zoning would not increase the use intensity of the site. By changing the zoning of the subject property from CL to CG, some commercial uses not currently allowed would be permitted on the 3 BOOK i - wE 3i January 21, 1997 8 O site. However, because the most intense use of the property would be the same with either zoning district, changing the property's zoning from CL to CG would not create additional impacts on any concurrency facilities. In this case, a detailed concurrency analysis will be done in conjunction with site development. That concurrency analysis will address facility service levels and demand. Compatibility with the Surrounding Area Staff's position is that both the CL and the CG zoning districts are appropriate for land within the Oslo Road/27th Avenue commercial/industrial node. Applying either of those zoning districts to the subject property would result in development compatible with surrounding property. In fact, since adjacent land to the west is zoned CG, the request is for a continuation of an existing zoning district pattern. The principal impacts of development on the subject property would be on abutting RS -3 zoned land to the north. In terms of traffic generated, hours of operation, noise, and overall intensity of use, the impacts of development under the requested CG district would be anticipated to be somewhat greater than the impacts of development under the existing CL district. There are, however, several circumstances which would serve to mitigate the potential impacts associated with this request. Those circumstances are listed below. • Required front and rear yard setbacks ensure some separation. • Development of the site will require the installation and maintenance of buffers and landscaping. The site is large enough to accommodate required buffers. Additionally, abutting residentially designated parcels are large enough to easily buffer "themselves" from commercial development on the subject property. 0 All commercial development is required to undergo site plan review. Through this process, potential impacts will be minimized with site design. • The large overlap of uses permitted under both the proposed CG zoning district and the existing CL zoning district reduces the chances that granting this request will result in an increase in impacts on the surrounding area. For these reasons, the proposed rezoning is anticipated to result in development that is compatible with surrounding property. Consistency with Comprehensive Plan Rezoning requests are reviewed for consistency with all policies of the comprehensive plan. Rezonings must also be consistent with the overall designation of land uses as depicted on the Future Land Use Map, which include agriculture, residential, recreation, conservation, and commercial and industrial land uses and their densities. Commercial and industrial land uses are located in nodes throughout the unincorporated areas of Indian River County. The goals, objectives and policies are the most important parts of the comprehensive plan. Policies are statements in the plan which identify the actions which the county will take in order to direct the community's development. As courses of action committed to by the county, policies provide the basis for all county land development decisions. While all comprehensive plan policies are 39 January 21, 1997 n UU, o important, some have more applicability than others in reviewing rezoning requests. Of particular applicability for this request is Future Land Use Element Policy 1.15. - Future Land Use Element Policy 1.15 Future Land Use Element Policy 1.15 states that the commercial land use designation is intended for uses such as retail and wholesale trade, offices, business and personal services, residential treatment centers, limited residential uses, and other similar type uses. In addition, that policy states that all commercial uses must be located within an existing or future urban service area. Since the subject property. is located within a commercial/ industrial node within the county's urban service area, the request is consistent with Future Land Use Element Policy 1.15. While the referenced policy is particularly applicable to this request, other comprehensive plan policies and objectives also have relevance. For that reason, staff evaluated the subject request for consistency with all plan policies and objectives. Based upon that analysis, staff determined that the request is consistent with the comprehensive plan. Potential Impact on Environmental Quality Staff's position is that, since environmental protection regulations are the same under both the existing CL and the requested CG zoning districts, the requested zoning change will not negatively impact the environmental quality of this site. In this case, the county's 10-15% native upland plant community set-aside requirement would apply to any commercial development on the site. If an environmental survey determines that the site contains jurisdictional wetlands, county, state, and federal wetlands protection regulations would apply. CONCLUSION The requested zoning is compatible with the surrounding area, consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies of the comprehensive plan, and meets all applicable concurrency criteria. The subject property is located in an area deemed suitable for general commercial uses. The request meets all applicable criteria. For those reasons, staff supports the request. RECONNEMATION Based on the analysis, staff and the Planning and Zoning Commission recommend that the Board of County Commissioners approve this request to rezone the subject property from CL to CG. 40 January 21, 1997 M M dud M I CANA .•� } • f c •}' f W W I C O W f� • • d >t><>e W V cca N y a y Z ' a o i Ar W •W f• W Q a } } — W m 3. z RM 6 vs U. LL. J W m C •i't•t' aW�� 3 13 2 .o r } am 0-0 loo I • -STM ST. Sr — -- - T Rio • •@ I ova r 1 • n �1• 31 ' 1 F 3 ■ 19 30 ZMERSO ILL T W_ •TH •T. •t CL t• E c F w G H — — I Rio • TR.1S •TTM •T. •w - t M RS -3 X TWO C ■ w X CL r.w■ ,r ■ Y ■ ■ x X 1 ' " ■ X 1 ■ 1 CGK......, K S,.re. I —0 su R M 6 pro 9TH T W TR. ESTAT S SUSS C �. 3 3 CL r TH ST. S.W. RMH-6 C4' PM -3 , - I ITH — r'—"--1 f IT. ATTAt:ci,;:M 3 41 January 21, 1997 NOF. i MCC F_ Commissioner Adams found it odd that under CL or CG, one zoning category allowed a drive-through discount beverage store and the other did not. She felt the existing drive-through discount beverage store was the grossest, nastiest looking place and that beautiful oak trees had been cut down to accommodate it. Commissioner Macht commented that the Board had not paid enough attention to transition zoning and they needed to pay more attention to it. Chairman Eggert pointed out that many shopping centers exist surrounded by multiple -family housing. Commissioner Macht commented that multiple -family is a transition. The Chairman opened the public hearing and asked if anyone wished to be heard in this matter. Attorney Bruce Barkett advised that he was present on behalf of the applicant and was available to answer any questions. He commented that the request for rezoning is compatible with the Comprehensive Plan and surrounding land use. It is at an intersection that is undergoing improvement in both directions. He advised that when talking of transition zoning, you start at the busiest intersection with the most intense zoning. It was determined that no one else wished to be heard and the Chairman closed the public hearing. MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Adams, SECONDED BY Commissioner Ginn, to adopt the ordinance in accordance with staff's recommendation. Commissioner Tippin wanted to be sure the rare magnolia tree in the area is preserved and not destroyed during construction. Attorney Barkett thought that the tree was on Department of Transportation (DOT) right-of-way. THE CHAIRMAN CALLED THE QUESTION and the motion carried unanimously. (Ordinance No. 97-02 adopted) Commissioner Adams requested that staff be directed to pursue with DOT to save the magnolia tree. 42 bwx lui -f$a &8 January 21, 1997 � � r Director Keating advised them that as soon as DOT finishes the resurfacing project on 27th Avenue, the plans call for them to give the property to the County. Commissioner Tippin wanted to be sure that the word about the preservation of the magnolia tree is passed on to Public Works Director Jim Davis who was not present at the meeting. ORDINANCE NO. 97-02 AN ORDINANCE OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE AND THE ACCOMPANYING ZONING MAP FROM CL TO CG, FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF 27TH AVENUE AND OSLO ROAD (9TH STREET, SOUTHWEST), AND DESCRIBED HEREIN, AND PROVIDING FOR EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission, sitting as the local planning agency on such matters, has held a public hearing and subsequently made a recommendation regarding this rezoning request; and WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, did publish its Notice of Intent to rezone the hereinafter described property; and WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners has determined that this rezoning is in conformance with the Comprehensive 'Plan of Indian River County; and WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners has held a public hearing pursuant to this rezoning request, at which parties in interest and citizens were heard; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED, by the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, that the zoning of the following described property situated in Indian River County, Florida, to -wit: COMMENCING AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF TRACT 16, SECTION 22, TOWNSHIP 33 SOUTH, RANGE 39 EAST, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT OF INDIAN RIVER FARMS COMPANY, WHICH SAID PLAT WAS FILED MARCH 23, 1915 AND RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 2, PAGE 25, PUBLIC RECORDS OF ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA, THENCE RUN NORTH ON THE EAST BOUNDARY LINE OF SAID TRACT 16, 297 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING, THENCE RUN NORTH ON THE EAST BOUNDARY LINE OF SAID TRACT 16, 297 FEET, THENCE RUND WEST PARALLEL TO THE SOUTH BOUNDARY LINE OF SAID TRACT 16, 330 FEET, THENCE RUN SOUTH PARALLEL TO THE EAST BOUNDARY LINE OF SAID TRACT 16, 297 FEET, THENCE RUN EAST 330 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING; AND BEGINNING AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF TRACT 16, SECTION 22, TOWNSHIP 33 SOUTH, RANGE 39 EAST, AND RUN NORTH ON THE EAST LINE OF SAID TRACT 16, A DISTANCE OF 297 FEET, THENCE RUN WEST A DISTANCE OF 330 FEET, THENCE SOUTH ON A LINE PARALLEL TO THE EAST LINE OF SAID TRACT 16 TO THE SOUTH LINE OF TRACT 16, THENCE EAST ON THE SOUTH LINE OF TRACT 16 TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING SAID LANDS NOW LYING AND BEING IN INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA; AND 43 January 21, 1997 mor. NO wt.319 ORDINANCE NO. 97-02 THE SOUTH 5 ACRES OF THE WEST 10 ACRES OFTHE EAST 20 ACRES OF TRACT 16, SECTION 22, TOWNSHIP 33 SOUTH, RANGE 39 EAST, LESS ROAD RIGHTS-OF-WAY, ACCORDING TO THE LAST GENERAL PLAT OF LANDS OF THE INDIAN RIVER FARMS COMPANY, ASFILED IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA, IN PLAT BOOK 2, PAGE 25, SAID LANDS NOW LYING AND BEING IN INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA; AND THE SOUTH 5 M ACRES OF THE EAST 10 ACRES OF THE WEST 20.68 ACRES OF TRACT 16, SECTION 22, TOWNSHIP 33 SOUTH, RANGE 39 EAST, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT OF LANDS OF INDIAN RIVER FARMS COMPANY, WHICH SAID PLAT WAS FILED MARCH 23, 1915, AND RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 2, PAGE 25, PUBLIC RECORDS OF ST. LUCIE . COUNTY, FLORIDA, SAID LANDS NOW LYING AND BEING IN INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA. Be changed from CL to CG. All with the meaning and intent and as set forth and described in said Land Development Regulations. Approved and adopted by the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, on this 21th day of January, 1997. This ordinance was advertised in the Vero Beach Press -Journal on the 8th day of January, 1997 for a public hearing to be held on the 21th day of January, 1997 at which time it was moved for adoption by Commissioner Adams , seconded by Commissioner Ginn and adopted by the following vote: Chairman Carolyn K. Eggert Vice -Chairman John W. Tippin Commissioner Fran B. Adams Commissioner Caroline D. Ginn Commissioner Kenneth R. Macht Ave Aye Ave Ave Aye BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY BY: Caro K. Eg t, Chairman ATTEST BY: Jef�y K. Barton, Clerk Acknowledgement by the Department of State of the State of Florida this ZDiLk_ day offj�¢.,�.� , 1997. Effective upon filing with Uthe Department of State. This ordinance was Ailed with the Department of State on the following date: . 02 9 u\v\j\opa.ord 44 January 21, 1997 1InSw AM CA I ApprOved 13 1 -mm I.-1iAll s"A Devi. M 9r. a oma t0 _I PUBLIC HEARING - CALDWELL AND PREZZANO - REQUEST TO REZONE APPROXIMATELY 19.4 ACRES FROM A-1 TO RM -6 PRESS -JOURNAL Published Daily Vero Beach, Indian River County, Florida COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER: STATE OF FLORIDA Before the trldersigned authority personally appeared Darryl K Flicks who on oath says that he is President of the Press -Journal. a dally newspaper published at Vero Beach in Indian River Courity. Florida, that the attached copy of advertbement, being in the matter of d- / 2 the / 9 Court, was pub` lashed In said newspaper In the issues of Ql-� � l ` Affiant further says that the said Press,dotrnal Is a newspaper published at Vero Beach. in said Man River County. Florida, and that the said newspaper has heretofore been continua* published in said Indian River County. Florida, each daffy and has been entered as f�adam period off one yearmatter s the post office in Vero n preceding the first publication of the County, � of advertisement; and affiant further says that he has neither paid nor promised any person. firm �Eorpors«a�t fortypublication � inr ate or refund for the purpose of secxrklg this 11 'V l29a%�. ed beforeme th day al D.1 074 t) OCT. 11. 1997 j No. CC311063 i til�M 1L TUiTLL NO?ART PUBt1C '•_ j' a+.1. Rf r- AA. Y. Cammisdae t:a. 10111 WA �.1;:'•' �s ..rmmisdos Nawber. CC311063 OF F� r j 6k dt� xotad?: atm► >uc. nlrns 33rd ST sub]6tct + ............ ,:. A_1 lath T i.. � ws�— �a�'►ior TM Bard dm�,�y Oen s d Men am C=q, FioAdkf �wpi� o1porr2'dw ft -inn ► a 1 W1�s km ^.I. mub- WW* Rparfodps�d 01tt1et ppb 6 urta"q IftW. rd E Pe1erReaenTly quiet WW" k Wad m h rrw6r doe d 2661 SaMt approlbrr * 1,600 teat wet d 66th Av"a end , , I * is SMNQ lira * 16.1 aeraw flu00fam lee h ft aouf so it aee0on a 8 f & ly!hRmp 3W, Wq and W1 in amen ihttiara as Weser o•ma is rawaat aro oppwWft b he awed. WB d Oe !rid dr sr Bowe a ca wisbnws Won awren d a re Z=uon e=iut= an�Tueabdey �Iwe y 221. 1W SWVat ams aBONA im. 7t1a piopoe�d erdYrwroe to _== tate -deet IN o d �ep�Ir bsi mW nous of 6a d lir b b Bowd d pwfy Conwi- etorlwa 1640 25M Srat Varo Such. Floilda For mora r11m.a r4 ooraaet doth wamm at 567- 6000, saknmen 247. CIM0 4 presided it k now ar sw a qW" use catqpy- wt be Vrnadi b MY � b opped any daeisbn meeanp Wes new b Waue tna a varbaBm record of ft prop"*" k meds. vN1id1 Yibbas Mtlerwp and evwwra upon wMeh Mn gipped k twra& rimnraea mum amtedit ooutpa0 wi °hwieve TM okeedaN Aa PON Comindw at s _WW askro�on 723 91 ked 46 trona in adwr m at ���CC� ap�a dwr. 6.14!7 1356066 Community Development Director Bob Keating reviewed a Memorandum of January 10, 1997 with the aid of a site map (projected on the ELMO) of the subject property which appeared in the agenda back-up materials on page 96: 45 January 21, 1997 ma dui p� ;k TO: James E. Chandler County Administrator DE TME14T HEAD CONCURRENCE Robert Keatin , AIC THROUGH: Sasan Rohani, AICP Chief, Long -Range Planning FROM: John Wachtel Senior Planner, Long -Range Planning DATE: January 10, 1997 RE: William W. Caldwell and E. Peter Prezzano's request to rezone approximately 19.4 acres from A-1 to RM -6 (RZON 96-12-0014) It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal consideration by -the Board of County Commissioners at its regular meeting of January 21, 1997. DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS This request is to rezone approximately 19.4 acres from A-1, Agricultural District (up to 1 unit/5 acres) to RM -6, Multiple - Family Residential District (up to 6 units/acre). The subject property is located on the north side of 26th Street, approximately 1,600 feet west of 66th Avenue. The purpose of this request is to secure the zoning necessary to develop the site, consistent with its comprehensive plan land use designation, at a greater residential density. On January 9, 1997, the Planning and Zoning Commission voted 7-0 to recommend that the Board of County Commissioners approve this request to rezone the subject property to RM -6. Existing Land Use Pattern The subject property and adjacent property on the east, west and north are zoned A-1. Although the surrounding A-1 zoned land contains both active and inactive citrus groves, the subject property has been cleared, except for several oak trees and sabal (cabbage) palm trees. The Vista Plantation Condominiums, zoned RM - 4, Multiple -Family Residential District (up to 4 units/acre), are to the south of the subject property, across 26th Street. Future and Use Pattern The subject property and adjacent properties to the east and west are designated L-2, Low -Density Residential -2, on the county future land use map. The L-2 designation permits residential uses with densities up to 6 units/acre. Land abutting the subject property on the north is designated L-1, Low -Density Residential -1, on the county future land use map. The L-1 designation permits residential uses with densities up to 3 units/acre. Land to the south of the subject property, across 26th Street, is designated M- 46 January 21, 1997 � � r 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. Environment Although the site contains several oak trees and sabal (cabbage) palm trees,_.. the subject property is not designated as environmentally important or environmentally sensitive by the comprehensive plan. No wetlande 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 60 feet of existing public road right-of-way. This portion of 26th Street is programmed for paving by 1998. ,ANALYSIS In this section, an analysis of the reasonableness of the rezoning request will be presented. Specifically, this section will include: • an analysis of the request's impact on public facilities; • an analysis of the request's consistency with the county's comprehensive plan; • an analysis of the request's compatibility with the surrounding area; and • an analysis of the request'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 rezoning requests, conditional concurrency review is required. Conditional concurrency review examines the available capacity of each facility with respect to a proposed project. Since rezoning requests are not projects, county regulations call for the concurrency review to be based upon the most intense use of the Elv► January 21, 1997 ma,� A subject property based upon the requested zoning. For residential 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 zoning. The site information used for the concurrency analysis is as follows: 1. Size of Area to be Rezoned: ±19.4 acres 3. Existing Zoning District: A-1, Agricultural District (up to 1 unit/5 acres) 4. Proposed Zoning District: RM -6, Multiple -Family Residential District (up to 6 units/acre) 5. Most Intense Use of Subject Property Under Existing Zoning District: 4 Single -Family Units 6. Most Intense Use of Subject Property Under Proposed Zoning District: 116 Single -Family Units - Transportation As part of the concurrency review process, the applicant has submitted a Traffic Impact Statement (TIS). The county's Traffic Engineering Division has reviewed and approved that TIS. A TIS reports the number of peak hour/peak season/peak direction trips that would be generated by the most intense use of the subject property and assigns those trips to impacted roads. 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. According to the TIS, the existing level of service ("D" or better) on impacted roadways would not be lowered by the traffic generated by development of 116 single-family units on the subject property. The table below identifies each of the impacted roadway segments associated with the proposed zoning district. 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) January 21, 1997 48 BOOK � pgt $ � . Segment Roadway Capacity Segment Road From To LOS •D" 1915E S.R. 60 I-95 82nd Avenue 1,890 1915W S.R. 60 I-95 82nd Avenue 1,890 1920E S.R. 60 82nd Avenue 66th Avenue 3,110 1920W S.R. 60 82nd Avenue 66th Avenue 3,110 1925E S.R. 60 66th Avenue 58th Avenue 2,840 1925W S.R. 60 66th Avenue 58th Avenue 2,840 312ON 66th Avenue S.R. 60 26th Street 760 31205 66th Avenue S.R. 60 26th Street 760 313ON 66th Avenue 26th Street 41st Street 1,230 3130S 66th Avenue 26th Street 41st Street 1,230 3330N 82nd Avenue 12th Street S.R. 60 760 3330S 82nd Avenue 12th Street S.R. 60 760 3340N 82nd Avenue S.R. 60 65th Street 600 3340S 82nd Avenue S.R. 60 65th Street 600 4720E 26th Street 66th Avenue 58th Avenue 880 472OW 26th Street 66th Avenue 58th Avenue 880 January 21, 1997 48 BOOK � pgt $ � . M r M Existing Demand Total Available Positive Roadway Existing Vested Segment Segment Project Concurrency Segment Volume Volume Demand Cavacity Demand Determination 1915E 925 529 1454 436 8 Y 1915W 1039 481 1520 370 5 Y 1920E 1120 768 1888 3222 27 Y 1920W 1294 708 2002 1108 24 Y 1925E 1170 1367 2537 303 4 Y 1925W 1288__. 1336 2634 216 8 Y 312ON 214 76 290 -470 17 Y 3120S 169 77 339 514 10 Y 313ON 196 143 305 891 5 Y 3130S 162 143 305 925 9 Y 3330N 171 56 227 533 4 Y 33305 238 67 305 455 3 Y 3340N 48 39 87 513 5 Y 3340S 44 40 84 516 4 Y 4720E 26 143 169 711 3 Y 4720W 19 143 162 718 3 Y - Water With the proposed zoning, the subject property could accommodate 116 residential units, resulting in water consumption at a rate of 116 Equivalent Residential Units (ERU), or 29,000 gallons/day. This is based upon a level of service of 250 gallons/ERU/day. Residential development on the subject property would be 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 rezoning. When the North County Reverse Osmosis Plant is complete, it will serve residential development on 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 116 Equivalent Residential Units (ERU), or 29,000 gallons/day. This is based upon the level of service standard of 250 gallons/ERU/day. County wastewater service is available 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 116 unit residential development would be anticipated to house approximately 267 people (2.3 X 116). 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 633 (267 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. 49 January 21, 1997 tmw IUJ �'a, 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 zoning district, the maximum area of impervious surface would be approximately 507,038 square feet, or 11.6 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 585,432 cubic feet. In order to maintain the county's adopted level of service, the applicant would be required to retain approximately 444,363 cubic feet of runoff on-site. With the soil characteristics of the subject property, it is estimated that the pre -development runoff rate is 157.05 cubic feet/second. Based upon staff's analysis, the drainage level of service standard would be met by limiting off-site discharge to the IRFWCD's maximum discharge rate of two inches in twenty-four hours, and requiring retention of 444,363 cubic feet of runoff for the most intense use of the property. As with all development, a more detailed review will be conducted during the development approval process. - Recreation A review of county recreation facilities and the projected demand that would result from the most intense development that could occur on the property under the proposed zoning district indicates that the adopted levels of service would be maintained. The table below illustrates the additional park demand associated with the proposed development of the property and the existing surplus acreage by park type. Based upon the analysis conducted, staff has determined that all concurrency -mandated facilities, including drainage, roads, solid waste, recreation, water, and wastewater have adequate capacity to accommodate the most intense use of the subject property under the proposed zoning district. Therefore, the concurrency test has been satisfied for the subject request. 50 January 21, 1997 LOS Project (Acres per Demand Surplus Par); Type 1000 population) (Acres -Y Acreage Urban District 5.0 1.34 170.661 Community (north) 3.0 0.80 15.895 Beach 1.,5---- -- - - 0.40 61.598 River 1.5-- 0.40 - 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 zoning district. Therefore, the concurrency test has been satisfied for the subject request. 50 January 21, 1997 Consistency with Comprehensive Plan Rezoning requests are reviewed for consistency with all policies of the comprehensive plan. Rezonings must also be consistent with the overall designation of land uses as depicted on the Future Land Use Map, which include agriculture, residential, recreation, conservation, and commercial and industrial land uses and their densities. Commercial and industrial land uses are located in nodes throughout the unincorporated areas of Indian River County. The goals, objectives and policies are the most important parts of the comprehensive plan. Policies are statements in the plan which identify the actions which the county will take in order to direct the community's development. As courses of action committed to by the county, policies provide the basis for all county land development decisions. While all comprehensive plan policies are important, some have more applicability than others in reviewing rezoning requests. Of particular applicability for this request are the following objectives and policies. - 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 request is consistent with Future Land Use Element Objective 1. - Future Land Use Element Policies 1.11 and 1.12 Future Land Use Element Policy 1.12 states that the L-2, Low - Density Residential -2, land use designation is intended for residential uses with densities up to 6 units/acre. In addition, Future Land Use Element Policy 1.11 states that these residential uses must be located within the urban service area. Since the subject property is located within an area designated as L-2 on the county's future land use plan map and is located within the county's urban service area, and the proposed zoning district would permit residential uses no greater than the 6 units/acre permitted by the L-2 designation, the proposed request is consistent with Policies 1.11 and 1.12. - 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. Those nodes are two of the county's largest employment centers. Most people who work in those nodes live in moderately -priced, low to medium density housing. The RM -6 zoning district is intended for such uses. Therefore, the proposed rezoning 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 request implements Future Land Use Element Objective 4. 51 January 21, 1997 - 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 rezoning 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 provide higher densities along major transportation corridors in order to facilitate future mass transit provision. Since the proposed rezoning will increase the allowed density along and near several major transportation corridors, this request implements Mass Transit Element Policy 1.2. As part of its consistency analysis, staff compared the proposed request to all the objectives and policies in the plan and found no conflicts. Therefore, staff's position is that the request is consistent with the comprehensive plan. Compatibility with the Surrounding Area Staff's position is that multiple -family residential development is appropriate for the site and that such development would be compatible with surrounding land uses. Multiple -family and mobile home development are already prominent in that area of the county. Located near the SR 60/58th Avenue commercial/industrial node, the subject property is particularly well suited to meet the demand for multiple -family housing generated by development within that node. In effect, the proposed rezoning would increase the opportunity for people to live near their place of employment. Development of the subject property would be expected to have little or no impact on the Vista Plantation Condominiums to the south. That project, zoned RM -4, Multiple -Family Residential District (up to 4 units/acre), contains a vegetative buffer, golf course and ponds along its north boundary, which is 26th Street. Similarly, incompatibilities between the subject property and adjacent A-1 zoned land are not anticipated. With respect to zoning, the county's policy has always been to retain agricultural zoning on property rather than changing it when the underlying land use designation increases. -This not_ only reflects the county's policy of using agriculturazoning as a "holding-"- category, but also recognizes that urbanization occurs incrementally with various tracts remaining agricultural for longer periods. Two factors, however, indicate that urban type zoning districts would be appropriate for agriculturally zoned land in this portion of the county. The first factor is the underlying designation on the future land use map. This area is within the urban service g 52 EBoor. IUO n,, Vf%W January 21, 1997 M M M area and is deemed appropriate for residential development with densities of up to 6 units/acre. Equally important is the development pattern in that portion of the county. Located near two C/I nodes, a regional mall, Dodgertown, and Vero Beach Municipal Airport, that portion of the county is one of the fastest growing areas of the county. Additionally, that area has convenient access to the county's transportation system. These factors indicate a trend toward continued urbanization in that portion of the county. For these reasons, staff feels that the requested RM -6 zoning would be compatible with development in the surrounding area. Potential Impact on Environmental Ouality Except for several oak trees and sabal (cabbage) palm trees, the site has been cleared and contains no environmentally important land, such as wetlands or sensitive uplands. According to county land development regulations, a tree. removal permit must be issued prior to removal of any of those trees. Additionally, residential development of the site must receive site plan approval. That process uses site design and building location to minimize the need to remove trees. For those reasons, no adverse environmental impacts associated with this request are anticipated. CONCLUSION Based on the analysis, staff has determined that the requested zoning district is compatible with surrounding areas, is consistent with the comprehensive plan, meets all concurrency criteria, will have no negative impacts on environmental quality, and meets all applicable rezoning criteria. Most importantly, the subject property is located in an area deemed suited for low-density multiple -family residential uses. For these reasons, staff supports the request. RECOMMENDATION Based on the analysis conducted, staff and the Planning and Zoning Commission recommend that the Board of County Commissioners approve this request to rezone the subject property from A-1 to RM -6. 53 January 21, 1997 MraK ArfAciiqW , 54 mox :!UJ,' oqtWu January 21, 1997 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 _Tippin, SECONDED by Commissioner Adams, the Board unanimously adopted Ordinance No. 97-03 amending the Zoning Ordinance and the accompanying Zoning Map from A-1 to RM -6 for the property located on the north side of 26th Street, approximately 1600 feet west of 66th Avenue in accordance with staff's recommendation. ORDINANCE NO. 97- 03 AN ORDINANCE OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE AND THE ACCOMPANYING ZONING MAP FROM A-1 TO RM -6, FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF 26TH STREET, APPROXIMATELY 1600 FEET WEST OF 66TH AVENUE, AND DESCRIBED HEREIN, AND PROVIDING FOR EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission, sitting as the local planning agency on such matters, has held a public hearing and subsequently made a recommendation regarding this rezoning request; and WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, did publish its Notice of Intent to rezone the hereinafter described property; and WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners has determined that this rezoning is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan of Indian River County; and WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners has held a public hearing pursuant to this rezoning request, at which parties in interest and citizens were heard; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED, by the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, that the zoning of the following described property situated in Indian River County, Florida, to -wit: THE EAST 20.32 ACRES OF THE WEST 30.32 ACRES OF TRACT 15, SECTION 31, TOWNSHIP 32 SOUTH, RANGE 39 EAST, ACCORDING TO THE LAST GENERAL PLAT OF LANDS OF THE INDIAN RIVER FARMS COMPANY, FILED IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA, IN PLAT BOOK 2, PAGE 25; NOW A PART OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, LESS THE SOUTH 60 FEET THEREOF. Be changed from A-1 to RM -6. 55..,P 9 ' �-� ROCK �.UU f'AG€. ' January 21, 1997 ORDINANCE NO. 97- 03 All with the meaning and intent and as set forth and described in said Land Development Regulations. Approved and adopted by the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, on this 21th day of January, 1997. This ordinance was advertised in the Vero Beach Press -Journal on the 8th day of January, 1997 for a public hearing to be held on the 21th day of January, 1997 at which time it was moved for adoption by Commissioner Tippin , seconded by Commissioner Adams and adopted by the following vote: Chairman Carolyn K. Eggert Aye Vice -Chairman John W. Tippin Aye Commissioner Fran B. Adams Hye Commissioner Caroline D. Ginn Aye Commissioner Kenneth R. Macht Ave BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY BY: /1. Caro. n K. t, Chaix ATTEST BY: �+ Jef rey K. Barton, Acknowledgement bya Department of State of the State of Florida r - this ZU day oU 1997. Effective upon filing with the Department of State. This ordinance was filed with the Department of State on the following date: ie�+nAirw Ca ApDr�veo Oe u\v\i\ctnwrL.ora PAdmin 1 Dep gr. 56 M '( January 21, 1997 I PUBLIC DISCUSSION - RICHARD ROSENKRANZ - INVITATION TO VIEW PART OF AIDS QUILT SPONSORED BY CEN'T'RAL FLORIDA NAMES PROTECT Richard Rosenkranz, 11145 Roseland Road, Roseland, invited the Board to attend the Central Florida Names Project "Launch Reception" on Monday, January 27, 1997, at 7 p.m. at the First Baptist Church in Vero Beach. He said it would be wonderful to have them there; light refreshments will be served. Mr. Rosenkranz advised that there will be a display of a portion of the AIDS Quilt at the First Baptist Church from April 4- 7, 1997. This portion of the quilt now has over 500 panels and 200 locally -made panels will be added. The full AIDS Quilt now totals 50,000 panels and is much too large to be transported for display. Mr. Rosenkranz then gave numerous statistics concerning AIDS and HIV-positive cases that have been reported in Florida and nationally. Mr. Rosenkranz enumerated all the organizations that were helping with the display of the quilt in Vero Beach and hoped to be able to come before them again prior to the April display of the quilt. PURCHASE OF 34 ATLANTIC GULF CO IES (AGC) SEBASTIAN HIGHLANDS SCRUB LOTS - CLOSING DOCUMENTS The Board reviewed a Memorandum of January 15, 1997: TO: James E. Chandler County Administrator 7RTMENT HEAD CONCURRENCE: obert M. eat g, P Community Developme6Director p FROM: Roland M. DeBlois,FAICP Chief, Environmental Planning DATE: January 15, 1997 SUBJECT: REQUEST THAT THE BOARD AUTHORIZE THE BOARD CHAIRMAN TO EXECUTE CLOSING DOCUMENTS RELATING TO COUNTY/STATE PURCHASE OF 34 ATLANTIC -GULF COMMUNITIES (AGC) SEBASTIAN HIGHLANDS SCRUB LOTS It is requested that the information herein presented be given formal consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at its regular meeting of January 21, 1997. 57 January 21, 1997 ma U t-,33 DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS On November 19, 1996, the Board of County Commissioners approved County purchase of 34 clustered Atlantic Gulf Communities (AGC) scrub lots in Sebastian Highlands (at the appraised value of $86,000), and authorized the Board Chairman to coordinate with county staff and execute documents necessary for closing and Florida Communities Trust (FCT) cost -share funding. Attached are documents required by the FCT for closing, entitled "FCT Grant Award Agreement" and "Reconciliation of Total Project Costs." Since these documents require the Board Chairman's signature, they are herein presented for the Board's consideration. ANALYSIS The FCT Grant Award Agreement is a document that the FCT requires be executed and recorded in the public records at the time of closing. The Grant Award Agreement reflects the obligations the County made in accepting the State grant, and largely relates to property management commitments. Since the County will obtain full title to the property, this document is a way to ensure that FCT's grant award conditions will be fulfilled. The conditions within the Grant Award Agreement are consistent with the property management plan approved by the Board of County Commissioners. The Purchaser's Reconciliation of Total Project Costs Statement is a closing document that breaks down specific costs to be paid by the County and the FCT at closing as cost -share partners in the acquisition. Even though the County is buying and will principally manage the 34 AGC scrub lots, FCT requires that the City of Sebastian execute these closing documents as well because the property is located within Sebastian city limits. County staff is coordinating with City staff to expedite the City's execution of the documents, which will be forthcoming. RECONMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Board authorize the Board Chairman to execute the attached closing documents relating to County Purchase of the 34 AGC Sebastian Highlands scrub lots. MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Adams, SECONDED BY Commissioner Ginn, to approve staff's recommendation as set forth in the memorandum. Under discussion, Commissioner Ginn asked if there are any plans for the management of this property, and Community Development Director Bob Keating responded that there is a management plan which was required under Florida Communities Trust required project plan and staff hopes to have the City of Sebastian participate in the management plan. Jim Granse, 36 Pine Arbor Land, stated that it seemed to him there is a cloud floating over this issue. He also thought it was interesting that the original plan of purchasing 50 lots ended up as 34 lots. THE CHAIRMAN CALLED THE QUESTION and the motion carried unanimously. 58 £? January 21, 1997 ON MOTION by Commissioner Adams, SECONDED by Commissioner Ginn, the Board unanimously authorized the Chairman to sign the Amendment No. 1 to Work Authorization No. 2 of Carter Associates, Inc., as recommended in the memorandum. AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO WORK AUTHORIZATION NO. 2 IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD CR -512 3ME UNG/PAVING AND DRAINAGE D4 ROVEWENTS (1-95 TO ROSELAND ROADS INCLUDING BRIDGE REPLACEMENT AT SOUTH PRONG OF SEBASTIAN RIVER - MASTELLER & MOLER The Board reviewed a Memorandum of January 14, 1997: TO: James Chandler County Administrator THROUGH: James W. Davis, P.E. Public Works Director FROM: Roger D. Cain, P.E. County Engineer SUBJECT: IRC Project No. 9611 - Consultant Selection CR512 Widening, Paving and Drainage Improvements between I-95 and Roseland Road including Bridge Replacement at South Prong of Sebastian River DATE: January 14, 1997 DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS As approved by the Board of County Commissioners on September 24, 1996, staff has negotiated the attached Professional Engineering Services Agreement with Masteller & Moler, Inc, Vero Beach, which provides for professional engineering services described as CR512 Widening, Paving and Drainage Improvements between I-95 and Roseland Road including Bridge Replacement at South Prong of Sebastian River for a not to exceed fee of $420,000 for design services and $51,500 for construction services for a total of $471,500. RECOMMENDATION & FUNDING. Staff recommends authorization for the Chairman to execute the attached agreement. Funding to be from CR512 to continue as a multi-year contract, Account No. 101-157-541- 067.73. 60 '01 0'^ January 21, 1997 s � � COPY OF PARTIALLY EXECUTED RECONCILLIATION OF PURCHASERS' COSTS IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD AWAITING FULLY—EXECUTED DOCUMENT FROM DCA COPY OF PARTIALLY EXECUTED GRANT AWARD AGREEMENT IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD AWAITING FULLY—EXECUTED DOCUMENT FROM FCT U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS - UPDATE ON HORNED SCULLIES AND UNEXPLODED ORDNANCE (Clerk's Note: When the Chairman called this item, Administrator Chandler informed her that Mr. Bridgers had not arrived from Jacksonville. The Chairman postponed the item to the end of the meeting.) SANDRMGE GOLF CLUB - LATERAL "G" PUMP HOUSE DESIGN SERVICES AMENDMENT No. 1 TO WORK AUTHORIZATION No. 2 - CARTER ASSOCIATES, INC. The Board reviewed a Memorandum of January 15, 1997: TO: James Chandler County Administrator THROUGH: James W. Davis, P.E. Public Works Direct FROM: Terry B. Thompson, RE� Capital Projects Manager SUBJECT: Sandridge Golf Club Lateral 'G' Pump House Design Services Amendment No. 1 to Work Authorization No. 2 DATE: January 15, 1997 Carter Associates, Inc. is under contract with Indian River County to provide professional engineering and construction inspection services for a wastewater transmission system to interconnect the Hobart Road North Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant to the Gifford Wastewater Treatment Plant Included in the project is the installation of a new line from the Lateral 'G' Canal right-of-way to the effluent receiving pond at Sandridge. The Consumptive Use Permit for Sandridge Golf Course requires that the County make an odsting hydraulic pump in the Lateral °G' Canal permanent at its present location. The pump is used to supply water to a Sandridge irrigation lake. To facilitate the construction of this pump house, the Utilities Departrrt is wining to bid this work with the effluent line that is being constructed in the same area. Public Works will administer the design contract with the engineer and Utilities will administer the construction contract in an overall Courrty cooperative effort Attached is Amendment No. 1 to Work Authorization No. 2 for the design of the pump station in the Lateral 'G' Canal. The lump sum fee for design, bidding, construction administration, inspection and surveying is $6,720.00. This added to the current contract amount of $86,715.00, will result in a new contract amount of $93,435.00. Staff recommends that the Board authorize the Chairman to sign the attached Amendment No. 1 to Work Authorization No. 2. Funding is from Sandridge Enterprise Fund. 59 January 21 1997 3 MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Adams, SECONDED by Commissioner Ginn, to authorize the Chairman to sign the agreement with Masteller & Moler, Inc. for a total of $471,500, as recommended in the Memorandum. Under discussion, Commissioner Ginn commented that she found it interesting that design engineering cost so much more than the construction, and County Engineer Roger Cain explained that the amount mentioned for construction is for one year only and this will be a multi-year project. The construction will end up costing about $2.5 to $3 million for the whole thing. THE CHAIRMAN CALLED THE QUESTION and the motion carried unanimously. Former County Commissioner Maggy Bowman suggested that if the widening does occur that it should be on the south side which has already been cleared, instead of the north side in order to preserve the beautiful hammock area. Mr. Cain advised that he did not know exactly where the widening will occur, but that consideration would be given to her suggestion. Commissioner Adams and Chairman Eggert concurred with Ms. Bowman's suggestion. PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING SERVICES AGREEMENT IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD PURCHASE BIOFILTRATION UNU FOR BAILEY DRIVE REPUMP STATION, SEBASTIAN HIGHLANDS - EG&G BIOFILTRATION The Board reviewed a Memorandum of January 13, 1997: DATE: JANUARY 139 1997 TO: JAMES E. CHANDLER COUNTY ADMINISTRATOFJ FROM: TERRANCE G. tIN*iRVICESDIRECTOR OF PREPARED GENE A. RAUTHgAle,�` AND STAFFED BY: MANAGER OF WATER / WASTEWATER OPERATIONS SUBJECT: PURCHASE OF BIOFILTRATION UNIT FOR BAILEY DRIVE - REPUMP STATION, SEBASTIAN HIGHLANDS 61 January 21, 1997 �o� B ROOK'E ►J• BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS: The Indian River County Board of County Commissioners approved, in the 96 197 fiscal budget year the purchase, in the amount of $18,000.00, of a Biofiltration unit from EG&G Biofiltration for the elimination of Hydrogen Sulfide Gas. This unit was originally budgeted for the lift station at Vista Royale, at which time was having an odor problem with Hydrogen Sulfide Gas. Since then, additional counter measures have been taken at the Vista Royale location to manage the odor problem. At this time, it is the recommendation of this department to utilize the budgeted Biofiltration Unit at the Bailey Drive - Repump Station, in Sebastian Highlands, where high levels of Hydrogen Sulfide Gas is creating an odor problem and customer sensitivity. The proposed price of the unit and including shipping is $17,940.00. EG&G Biofiltration is the only company who produces this complete filter system. The EG&G Biofiltration is being utilized at other lift stations in the county. Therefore, due to being sole - source and the County's intent to standardize its' equipment, staff is seeking approval from the Board for this purchase. RECONII UMATION: The staff of the Department of Utility Services recommends that the Board of County Commissioners approve the purchase of the Biofiltration unit from EG&G Biofiltration in the amount of $17,940.00 for the Bailey Drive - Repump Station, in Sebastian Highlands. MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Adams, SECONDED BY Commissioner Ginn, to approve staff's recommendation as set forth in the memorandum. Under discussion, Commissioner Adams assumed this was state- of-the-art equipment, and Utility Services Director Terry Pinto advised one of the problems has been determining the state-of-the- art. The only draw back to this system is the size and appearance of it. THE CHAIRMAN CALLED THE QUESTION and the motion carried unanimously. REVISIONS TO WATER AND WASTEWATER Ui LM STANDARDS The Board reviewed a Memorandum of December 12, 1996: DATE: DECEMBER 12, 1996 TO: JAMES E. CHANDLER COUNTY ADMINISTRATO FROM: TERRANCE G. PINT DIRECTOR OF UTI SERVICES PREPARED TERRY H. DRUM lit? AND STAFFED G.I.S. COORDINATOR BY: DEPARTMENT OF UTILITY SERVICES G.I.S./MAPPING DIVISION SUBJECT: REVISIONS TO THE INDIAN RIVER COUNTY WATER AND WASTEWATER UTILITY STANDARDS 62 nor. -1-W FADE -3t January 21, 1997 BACKGROUND The Indian River County Department of Utility Services Water and Wastewater Utility Standards were adopted on November 1987 and revised in January 1995. Periodic revision of the Standards is necessary to keep pace with industry standards, County needs, advances in engineering design, and surveying technology. ANALYSIS The Department of Utility Services has made and adopted revisions and additions since the last Standards were completed in January 1995. These revisions were made to provide alternatives to maintain flexibility in consideration of the quality and cost aspect and to accommodate new, advanced concepts and specifications. Attached is one set of the 1997 Standards for approval and one copy of the current Standard sheets that are being revised, along with their respective revised Standard sheets. RECO16MNDATION The staff of the Department of Utility Services recommends that the Board of County Commissioners approve the revised Indian River County Water and Wastewater Utility Standards dated January 1997. ST.4�/D ie,Ds' �A/ oo�/ L .� THD: nr �/ L E �y 0G Attachments - ON MOTION by Commissioner Adams, SECONDED by Commissioner Tippin, the Board unanimously approved the revised Indian River County Water and Wastewater Utility Standards dated January 1997, as recommended in the Memorandum. WATER AND WASTEWATER STANDARDS ARE ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD ETHICS ORDINANCE The Board reviewed a Memorandum of January 9, 1997: TO: Board of County Commissioners FROM: Terrence P. O'Brien - Assistant County Attorney IFO DATE: January 9, 1997 RE: ETHICS ORDINANCE At its regular meeting of December 18, 1996 the Board of County Commissioners discussed the County's ethics ordinance and the matter was referred to Commissioner Macht for his consideration after consultation with our office. 63 January 21, 1997 BOOK 100 PAGE -3'9,49 One of the areas of concern that was discussed with the Commissioner was how to treat invitations to open house type receptions given by persons or firms who do business with the County. Receptions of this nature typically occur during the holiday season or on the anniversary of a firm or grand opening. Under the current ethics code, attendance is not prohibited but the cost of the food or drink consumed is regulated to $6.00 for luncheons and $12.00 for dinners. This causes several concerns 1) how do you ascertain the cost of food and drink, 2) which figure do you apply to an early evening reception is it lunch or dinner and 3) in a City of this size many relationships are built on years of friendship and the invitation may be based on that friendship rather than the person's official position. A solution to this problem could be to allow attendance at group functions of this nature without regard to the cost of food and drink consumed by the attendee. The only requirement would be that the attendee file a statement with the Clerk within 5 days after attending a reception as follows: On December 15, 1996 1 attended a reception given by XYZ firm commemorating their 10th Anniversary. Signature Date This disclosure statement would make public the person's attendance and should remove any question of appearance that may be generated by attendance. The County Code of Ethics embodied in Section 104.06 Indian River County Code has for its purpose establishing a level of conduct over and above that required by the Florida Legislature in Chapter 112, Florida Statutes. It, like most laws, cannot explicitly cover every situation that may arise which could give rise to an ethics question. Therefore, an appeal procedure could be established whereby the opinion of the County Attorney may be reviewed to determine if a County employee's or County Commissioner's participation in a particular activity is allowed by of the code. This review process would function along the following lines. 1. Any County employee, Commissioner or member of a County Board or Commission may request an interpretive ruling on a particular set of facts from the County Attorney's Office as to whether participation in a described activity would violate the code of ethics. Said request would be in writing. 2. If the opinion is that there is no violation that ends the matter. 3. If the opinion Is that there is a violation that opinion may be appealed as follows: a. In the case of a county employee under the jurisdiction of the County Administrator, said employee may appeal to the County Administrator. The County Administrator could overrule, sustain or refer the matter to the Chairman. This same procedure could apply to employees of the executive aide to the Commission and the County Attorney who would hear the appeal of employees under their jurisdiction. b. In the case of a member of a County Board or Commission, said member could appeal to the Chairman. C. In the case of a Commissioner, the appeal would be to the Board County of Commissioners. d. When an appeal is to the Chairman, the Chairman may overrule, sustain or refer the opinion to the Commission for its decision. Commissioner Adams advised that she had duplicated and circulated copies of her memorandum of December 9, 1996 and Assistant County Attorney Terry O'Brien's memorandum of November 14, 1996 and a copy of the new State Statute (Chapter 96-328, Senate Bill No. 2206) on ethics in government. She believed the 64 BOOK JU PAGE 340 January 21, 1997 new Statute was pretty good, was liveable and took a lot of the burden off the Commissioners. She reiterated her recommendation that the Board adopt the State Statute on ethics in lieu of the County's current Ethics Ordinance. Chairman Eggert felt that concerns over the Ethics Ordinance had reached the "silly point" and the community was finding it more amusing than ethical. Commissioner Ginn felt that Commissioners had a tendency to turn down everything in response to the current ordinance rather than being perceived to be in violation of it. She recognized why the Board went the way they did and felt it was needed at that time. She commended Commissioner Macht for his efforts to keep the Board on the "straight & narrow". Commissioner Macht specified that it was simply to lay down a codification of standards of acceptable conduct and notify the community of the standards expected. It seemed that periodically the newspaper was filled with "unpleasantries" regarding employees or something. He thought it was wise to err on the side of strictness. He did not recall what the Statute set out as minimum for acceptance of gifts and so forth. Commissioner Ginn had not had an opportunity to read the Statute and requested time to do so. ON MOTION by Commissioner Ginn, SECONDED by Commissioner Adams, the Board unanimously deferred the matter for one week. SURETY BONDS - ELECTED OFFICIALS - PROCEDURES The Board reviewed a Memoranda of January 10, 1997: To: Board of County Commissioners From: Alice E. White Executive Aide Date: January 10, 1997 Subject: Elected Officials Bonds As some of you are aware, we have had a very difficult time getting the elected officials' bonds processed this year. As of today, I believe we have finally received all of the necessary information for the state to issue the commissions. 65 January 21, 1997 R BOOK FA""E 341 I can't tell you why we experienced the problems this year - some of it was because of miscommunication, some because of possibly not understanding how urgent the processing is - I really can't give you a clear answer. All I can tell you is that I do not intend to go through another such experience. In 1993, 1 thought it would be a good idea to go out to bid for the commissioner's bonds because of the large difference in cost. The bonds were placed under the Risk Management Division, but it does not appear that they ever went out to bid. A substantial amount of money was saved on the Clerk's and Tax Collector's bonds by going through the Florida League of Cities, however, getting the information from them has been a nightmare. I have discussed the problem with Beth Jordan, Jim Chandler and Ron Baker. Mr. Baker has assured me that, if purchase of the bonds is left with the Risk Management Division, this will not happen again. He understands the urgency of getting the bonds, having them approved and sent to Tallahassee - hopefully before the officials take office. This was not the case this year. Mr. Zimmermann and I briefly discussed the idea of having the elected officials talk to our legislators and try to get the state to agree to have the individual counties cover their officials under the counties' self-insurance programs and abolish the antiquated bond system that we presently have. This seems to make more sense to me than obtaining the low bonds they are required to have now. The present amounts were probably adequate in the late 1800, early 1900's, but they are rather ridiculous now. I will abide by whatever decision the Board wants to make - you can either leave the purchase of the bonds under the Risk Management Division with the assurance of Mr. Baker that this situation will not happen again, or you can place them back under the County Commission Office. Cc: County Administrator Ron Baker Beth Jordan Constitutional Officers TO: James E. Chandler, County Administrator FROM: Beth Jordan, Risk Manager DATE: 10 January 1997 SUBJECT: Public Officials' Bonds The following information is provided to clarify the recent difficulties in obtaining public officials' surety bonds for recently elected and/or appointed public officials. As discussed in the documentation provided to you by Alice White,. Executive Aide to the Board of County Commissioners, public officials' bonds were previously handled by individual elected officials, 66 ROOK luj PnF vy42 January 21, 1997 M and paid variously through Board accounts and taxing districts. On December 21, 1993, based upon information provided by staff, the Board approved funding for the Tax Collector's four-year bond, directed staff to a bid process for bonds, and directed staff to notify the Mosquito Control District Board that they will be required to pay for their own bonds in the future. Following this Board action, I explored options for obtaining public officials' surety bonds. The Board action was for staff to proceed with the bid process. While such a process is most often the method by which to obtain competitive insurance coverages, the issue of public officials' surety bonds is somewhat unique. Suchbondsare purchased at a specific point in time (following an election) and are based upon an application completed by the newly elected official. While other public entities may be able to bid their bonds because they are required by the State or their own internal regulations to maintain position schedule bonds, the County must purchase public officials bonds. For clarification, position bonds can be purchased at any time, and cover the position regardless of who fills it. They are often the tool used by towns and villages. Public official bonds are based upon an individual application and cover only the named elected official; they will not cover any successors, etc. At the present time, the surety market is stable. In the recent past, however, the market has undergone an internal collapse with a number of smaller sureties going out of business and there is a limited market for such specialized bonds. To competitively bid such bonds would require a lead time which would be unmanageable given the election date, individual application, and deadline for completion to the Secretary of State. For those reasons, I approached the Florida League of Cities, the Countys excess insurer since 1990. As a municipal pool, the League deals exclusively with governmental entwes and logically would have access to the required market. The League has maintained a stable market with AetnalTravelers for several years. Based upon the volume of over 400 such bonds placed through the League on an annual basis, the surety has passed on no price Increases since July, 1993, making the League's offerings financially attractive. On September 17, 1996, 1 sent a facsimile to Byrn Beard, League underwriter, requesting an updated price quotation to purchase the required bonds. His underwriting assistant, Valerie Morrison, responded to me on the following day, and we began the process to prepare to purchase the bonds which would be needed following the election. Bond applications were completed by the elected officials, and sent to the League for handling. What we did not know was that the State of Florida, Secretary of State, had changed the bond process to require completion by the surety of the State's form. In the past, original bonds were attached to the State's form and were accepted. This year, the Secretary returned the submittal of Commissioners Ginn and Adams, and the Tax Collector because the State form was not completed and signed by the licensed resident agent The League is not a resident agent; instead they use an insurance broker in Orlando who submits the applications to AetrWrravelers' regional office in Tampa All paperwork flaws through the League to the broker to Aetna/Travelers, back through the broker to the League. Aet;*Travelers, because of their broker agreement, would not deal dimly with the League until the past several days, when we demanded that the forms be handled now. The broker granted formal permission for direct communication with the League, and through overnight mail, the bonds have been delivered. The Clerk completed a bond application for the League program. With the delay in receipt of the executed forms, however, he purchased his bond from the local insurance agent from whom he had previously purchased such coverage. Commissioner Adams also purchased her bond without our involvement Commissioner Tippins has a four-year bond for which he made arrangements upon his election, but payments are made annually, I will follow up on why these are annual payments instead of one for the term of coverage. With clear hindsight, we can reconstruct the difficulties encountered with the bond purchase this Yaw. We submitted completed bond application forms to the League, which were sent as outlined above to the surety. Unfortunately, we did not have the Secretary of State's form to accompany these applications. I had no knowledge that the State requirements had changed. No one in the underwriting process recognized the State's requirements for execution of their own form had been changed despite the fad that the League handles a large volume of these documents. They accepted our application submittal and transmitted it on to the broker, then to the surety, apparently without checking the complete sufficiency of the request. In their defense, they provided the requested bond; they simply did not have, nor did they initially complete, the State's form. In the past, executed bonds were attached to the State's form and were acceptable; this year they were not. 67 January 21, 1997 BOOKu"PAGE .3 _I In the future, there are at least two (2) options for handling the purchase of these specialty bonds. First, we can allow individual elected officials to secure their own bonds, usually through their local insurance agent who will most likely have access to a surety market Costs will vary, but control vmll remain with the elected official and an agent with whom he or she has an established relationship. Secondly, we can again purchase the bonds as a group through the County's agent, currently the League. If that occurs, we will need to submit the entire packet of materials received from the Secretary of State with the applications. In that manner, we will be certain that the surety has ag the information needed to prepare a complete submittal packet to the State. A third option, however, should also be considered. We have briefly discussed with Alice White the inherent flaws in the public officials bond system, and she is preparing to bring an item to the Board to address this issue. I do not want to usurp her plans to do so, but I concur with her that the entire issue of such bonds is antiquated and that the legislature should be lobbied to abolish the requirement Certainly, a $2,000.00 surety bond, although a substantial sum when the law was enacted nearly 100 years ago, has no basis in reality as far as affording any protection as to the honesty of the elected official. The County, as a self-insured public entity, should be recognized as sufficient to stand behind the actions of its elected officials, perhaps through its errors and omissions coverages. Conversely, if bonds remain in force, how much of a bond would be enough? The current limits are abysmally low, but how much is enough? And more importantly, should taxpayers have to pay for an increased bond? I first became involved in the purchase of public officials bonds in 1983, and have never had an occurrence such as the delays experienced this year. Regardless of the direction such purchases take in the future, I will gladly cooperate in any manner to make the process as smooth and efficient as possible. I trust that this year's stressful confusion will never be repeated. Commissioner Adams stressed that she was uncomfortable with her bond being handled by the Risk Management Department and wanted the responsibility and procedure for the surety bonds to be returned to the Board of County Commissioners' office. She also supported a change in the State Statutes that would allow the County to underwrite its own surety bonds under its self insurance. She felt it was unnecessary to continue supporting the bond companies. Commissioner Ginn suggested that the Treasure Coast Council of Local Governments consider the matter also. ON MOTION by Commissioner Adams, SECONDED by Commissioner Macht, the Board unanimously approved returning the responsibility for surety bonds to the Board of County Commissioners office and pursuinq legislation to remove the bonds or to change bonding procedures and criteria. COMMENT ON SEAWALL WORKSHOP Commissioner Adams commented that there had been a very successful seawall workshop the previous night put together by Coastal Engineer Jeff Tabar. Dr. Cliff Truett from the Mote Marine Laboratories and Dr. Lee Harris from Florida Institute of Technology gave great presentations. There was active participation from the large audience in attendance. She felt 68 January 21, 1997 ROOK PAGE -3 there was surely an interest in what is going on at the beach and what can be done about it and the urgency of looking at solutions to erosion. She thought it was the first of many more workshops. A schedule is presently being worked out. COAUNIEENT ON NEW COURTHOUSE Commissioner Macht advised of a huge craft show held on the Courthouse grounds recently, and he had observed that a lot of the grass had been killed and some of the shrubbery damaged. He had asked the appropriate staff person if he had authorized it and he knew nothing about it. Commissioner Macht also commented that some other things have been going on at the Courthouse which have not been sent through the appropriate channels, namely Administrator Chandler and his designated employee. He felt the notification or approval procedure should be strengthened or do whatever is necessary to prevent this from happening again. Discussion ensued to try to determine who might have authorized holding the event on the Courthouse property, and Commissioner Ginn suggested they might call somebody over at the City of Vero Beach. _ Commissioner Adams suggested sending a bill for re -sodding to the person in charge of the craft show. Chairman Eggert recessed the Board of County Commissioners meeting at 10:12 a.m. to hold the District meetings below. SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL DISTRICT Chairman Eggert announced that the Board would reconvene sitting as the Commissioners of the Solid Waste Disposal District. Those Minutes are being prepared separately. ulMOOI W 1 ' Chairman Eggert announced that immediately upon adjournment of the Solid Waste Disposal District meeting the Board would reconvene sitting as the Commissioners of the Environmental Control District. Those Minutes are being prepared separately. Following a 5 -minute break, Chairman Eggert reconvened the Board of County Commissioners meeting at 10:21 a.m. 69 BOOK January 21, 1997 �UPAGE• COADILTNUY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT OVERVIEW Community Development Director Bob Keating gave an overview of his department using the following charts and statistics as the structure for his report. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT BUILDINGN,O PLANNING DIVISION DIVISION PLAN REVIEW STANDARD CODES/ SUCCI OTHER CODES VIOLATIONS/ COMPLIANTS RESPONSE TO CODE QUESTIONS BUILDING INSPECTION STANDARD CODES/SSCCI VIOLATIONS/ COMPLAINTS UNLICENSED CONTRACTOR CITATIONS PERMUTING ISSUE OVER -THE. COUNTER PERMITS POST COMPUTER RECORDS GUIDANCE TO PUBLIC CONTRACTOR LICENSING REGISTER CERTIFIED . CONTRACTORS ISSUE COMPETENCY CARDS HANDLE COMPLAINTS:. LICENSED AND UNLICENSED CONTRACTORS ADMINISTRATIVE COMPLIANCE WITH FEMA REGULATIONS CODE ANALYSIS/ INTERPRETATIONS MAINTENANCE OF PUBLIC RECORDS CONDEMNATIONS/SUBAC January 21, 1997 CONTINUING TRANSPORTATION PLANNING TIP UPWP TRAFFIC MODELING LONG RANGE TRANS. PLANNING CONGESTION MGMT SYSTEM • TRANSP. SYSTEM DATA SPECIAL PLANS BICYCLE/ PEDESTRIAN PLAN TRANSIT REVEL PLAN TRAFFIC IMPACT FEE STUDY UR ASSISTANCE TO LOCAL GOVT'S TRANSIT PLANNING TRANSIT GRANTS LIASION TO FDOT ENHANCEMENT GRANTS COMP PLAN RENEW GIS TCIP OTHER TASKS PUBLIC INQUIRIES COMMITTEE STAFFING MPO TAC BAC COMMITTEE MEMBERSHIP FOOTTAC MPOAC LONG-RANGE ENVIItONMEN i AL CURREIJT PLANNING PLANNING DEVELOPA�NT SECTION BECKON SECTION COMPREHENSIVE PLAN COMP PLAN AMENDMENTS REZONING REQUESTS EAR • COMP PLAN RELATED TASKS ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT OEDP OEDP ANNUAL REPORT EDSP ED MARKETING PLAN - E.B. STUDY CA DATA SOURCE E.D. INCENTIVES ED RELATED TASKS • EDA GRANT ACTIVITIES COMACTIVITIES AFFORDABLE HOUSING LHAP AHIP SHIP LOANS AN RELATED TASKS TRANSPORTATION DISADVANTAGED CTDP TO RELATED TASKS • TO GRANT ACTIVITIES DATA MAINTENANCE AND DISSEMINATION • CENSUS DATA ESTIMATES PROJECTIONS SPECIAL STUDIES NET BAN REVITALIZATION GUIDE ADVISORY COMMITTEE STAFFING EDC AHAC LRC TDLCB AH PARTNERSHIP GROUP LRC OTHER TASKS - TIF CONCURRENCY Tms • POD 70 0 ENVIRONMENTAL PERMITS/REGS. LAND CLEARING TREE REMOVAL WETLAND PROJECTS DUNE MMAINTEN- ANCE NATIVE UPLANDS SAI"M • HISTORIC ARCHAE - LAGOON BUFFERS - CCCL ZONING PERMITS SIGNS HOME OCCUP. ALCOHOL BEV. • RELEASE OF EASEMENT COVENANTS - POND PERMITS MINING PERMITS ENVIRON. LANDS PROGRAM SITE EVALUATION GRANTS/ COSTSHARE MANAGE PLANNING MANAGE IMPLE- MENTATION ADVISORY COMMITTEE STAFFING • LMC MANWAC HRAC CODE ENFORCEMENT CODE BOARD ZONING ENFORCE- MENT DUMPING CITATIONS INTER- AGENCY s ENFORCE- MENT COORD. C.O. INSPECT. SPECIAL PROGRAMS FEMA/CRS WELL PLUGGING LONG RANGE PROJECTS MANATEE CMP HCP DEVELOPMENT REVIEW SITE PLANS SUBDIVISIONS PLANNED DEVELOP- MENTS DRIB LOT SPLITS ZONING R -O -W ABANDON- MENTS PLAT VACATIONS VARIANCES TEMPORARY USE PERMITS CHANGE OF USE DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS WORKSHOP/ RESEARCH DEVELOP- MENT ISSUES - LDR AMENDMENTS SPECIAL PROJECTS CORRIDOR PLANNING • COUNTY/ SCHOOL COOPERA- TIVE SITE PLANNING INFORMATION PUBLIC INFO ON DEVELOP- MENT CONFIR- MATION AND VERIFI- CATION LETTERS STAFFING TRC PSAC BOA PZC CORRIDOR TASK FORCE TUU Planning Division Measured Activities (FY 95-98) A. Division -Wide: Planner -of -the -day IP.D.D.) Dudes FY95-96 IACTUAU In UlrteS by phone 3,617 1 ulNes by Walkdn Z935 sin /e family reviews 1,716 B. Current Development C. Environmental Planning/Code Enforcement FY95-96 IACTUAU Ma or site plans approved 47 Minor site Plans approved 22 Administrative approvals Approved 160 WMMInarV plats approved 12 Final plats approved 1s Formal pmapp. conferences 67 TUPs approved 106 7YW removal pemM 71 C. Environmental Planning/Code Enforcement -347 January 21, 1997 71 E00K ,UJ PAGE FY95-96 (ACTUAU A/dro. bev. license 22 Home occu . permft 368 milts 123 POW permits 13 Easement re/eat covenants 65 MIN179 PerIMUftneWaIS 5 Land CWHI79 permits 97 7YW removal pemM 71 Wetland resource permlu 12 COm /a/M received 1439 Notice Of vio/adMS 605 Orders find. violation 172 vlo/ationsreso/ved 1.345 Site InspeMns 323 Certificate Of 9pupancy 163 Agency dredge/Flit reviews 9 C= reviews 48 RSF dock reviews 41 WNW 1900 -347 January 21, 1997 71 E00K ,UJ PAGE D. Long -Range Planning E. Planning Technicians & Cartographer F. MPO FY95-96 (ACTUAL) Fation cont. 25 (P&M 13 Bezonln s ®CO 9 CompDian amend. M27 7 BCC QDMP Plan Amendment 6 SPD letters 830 ODnqMncV certificates 731 SHIP loans 1 56 E. Planning Technicians & Cartographer F. MPO ACUVItV FY95.96 (AC7VAU MPO OoKeming Board Meetings e MPO Advisory Committee Meetings 16 (BA CA TAO G BUILDING DMS/ON AC77VMES FY95-96 (ACTUAU Address/parcel & related Inquiries handled 3,079 Flood Information Inquiries handled 537 Location maps 286 Site plans 2W Aerials 242 Mnsparendes 111 Blue prints 795 ACUVItV FY95.96 (AC7VAU MPO OoKeming Board Meetings e MPO Advisory Committee Meetings 16 (BA CA TAO G BUILDING DMS/ON AC77VMES 72 ItOOK t January 21, 1997 FY95-96 (ACTUAL) Plan Review New COnstruction/AddltionStAlterations Inspections New Construction/addltions/Alterations Coordinate A royals and Issue Permits Z825 26,048 Z825 Issue Misc. over the -counter Permits 7,904 Register State Certified Contractors 217 Issue New PMpqten Cards 118 Renew Eidsting Mmpepgrycy Cards 1.060 Issue CertiRcates of qqqfflancV 855 Issue unlicensed Contractor Citations 84 Condemnations by IRC 14 Notices to Property Owners Substandard Hous/n 100 Public viewing of PUNC Records 1,263 72 ItOOK t January 21, 1997 U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS - UPDATE ON HORNED SCULLIES AND UNEXPLODED ORDNANCE Emergency Services Director Doug Wright reviewed his memo dated January 17, 1997: 6" T •'��, B d of County Commissioners THROUGH: Jim Chandler, County Administrator FROM: Doug Wright, Director Emergency Services DATE: January 17, 1997 SUBJECT: Horned Scullies/Unexploded Ordnance Update As you know, the US Army Corps of Engineers has a contractor on site in the South Beach area removing offshore beach obstacles (horned scullies). During this removal project, a substantial amount of unexploded ordnance has been located which has caused a substantial concern to staff in terms of public safety. As a result, staff has contacted the USACOE District Office in Jacksonville and requested that project staff be available to speak to the Board of County Commissioners regarding future plans to locate and remove any remaining unexploded ordinance. It was also requested that a public meeting be held to provide local citizens and the media with information about the project and future USACOE plans regarding this problem. I have been advised that USACOE Civil Engineer Robert Bridgers will be available to speak to the County Commission on Tuesday, January 21, 1997, at 10:00AM on this issue. He will be accompanied by other staff from the Huntsville Engineering Center who can address specific concerns regarding the military ordnance. A presentation by the same USACOE officials has also been arranged for the public and media to ask questions and obtain information regarding COE plans or activities in the South Beach area. It has been scheduled for Tuesday, January 21, 1997, at 7:OOPM at the Bethel Creek House. County staff is in the process of assisting the COE in disseminating information regarding the planned meeting. Staff will continue to keep you informed regarding this matter. Robert Bridgers, Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE), Jacksonville District, Project Manager and Program Manager for the project, advised that he was representing Colonel Terry Rice, the Commander of the Jacksonville District. He reported he was accompanied by Mr. Carl Overstreet from the Safety Office, Mr. Greg Fuderer from Public Affairs Office, and Chief Warrant Officer Steven Bebow from the Navy Explosive Ordnance Disposal (EOD) Detachment in Mayport, Mr. Karl Blankinship the Project Manager in the Huntsville Engineering Support Center, and Mr. Jerry Thornton from the Safety 73 January 21, 1997 BOOK PAGE 34 Office in Huntsville. They will all be available at the meeting to be held this evening. (Bethel Creek House) Mr. Bridgers recounted that in 1986, the Super Fund Amendments and Reauthorization Act created the Defense Environmental Restoration Fund (DERF). The program had two components. The installation/restoration portion dealt with active military installations and gave certain authorities to the base commanders for clean up of properties on his compound. The formerly used defense sites portion of the program was assigned to the ACOE for responsibility. Under the program, the ACOE would be responsible to inventory all properties that were formerly used by the Department of Defense (DOD) and no longer under their jurisdiction. The next phase would be to conduct a preliminary assessment of each site to make a determination if there are hazards on the properties and prepare an inventory project report. This report would include information concerning the findings and determination of eligibility on the parcel for remediation. The report would then go through the chain of command for approvals and then to be approved at the Washington level. Mr. Bridgers recalled that preliminary assessment for the Ft. Pierce project was begun in the 1990's by the Jacksonville ALOE. The report was prepared in 1991 and the project was approved sometime in 1991-1992. Since ordnance and explosive items were known to have been used in the area, Huntsville Engineering commissioned the St. Louis District of the ACOE to conduct an archive search at the local and national levels. They also came to the area and their findings were published in 1994, by the St. Louis District ACOE, in "U.S. Naval Amphibious Training Base - Ft. Pierce". The report was made available to Indian River and St. Lucie Counties since the project covered a two -county area as well as a small portion of Martin County. (Clerk's Note: Mr. Bridgers provided two documents for the record entitled Former Ft. Pierce Naval Amphibious Training Base and Fact Sheet Update (2/96) Former Ft. Pierce Naval Amphibious Training Base which have been placed on file with back u records in p the office of the Clerk to the Board.) Mr. Bridgers related that using the information in the report, the Huntsville Division then began the investigation of what they called an "environmental engineering evaluation and cost analysis" of the area. The development of the analysis required a more detailed site characterization. ESE, Inc. of Gainesville was under contract to Huntsville. They began the process of developing plans, and actually came to the area in March 1995 and began the site investigations. Public meetings were held before they started 74 MOK 1U0 FADE 9. 50 January 21, 1997 Ll M M the work as they wanted to make sure the residents and media knew why they were here and what they were doing. That process culminated in the draft Engineering Cost Analysis document, in late 1995. Mr. Bridgers specified that public meetings were held on February 26 and 27, 1996, and public input was solicited from both counties. The public was advised what was found, what they knew, what they did not know, and their recommendations were discussed. At that time, the alternative deemed to be most prudent was basically local community awareness. Increased community awareness is still being proposed in the form of informational brochures to be made available to county offices, such as the building permit department, so that if a landowner comes in for a permit he would be advised that the area was used in the 19401's for military training, that ordnance was used, and that if they find anything that looked like ordnance, they should not touch it and call 9-1-1 immediately. In addition, they proposed that public information signs, perhaps like an historical monument or marker, be placed. They will be coordinating with the County for the wording on the signs. Then the signs will be fabricated and made available to the County for placement or the ALOE could take that responsibility. They will work with Mr. Wright's office to determine that. Chairman Eggert asked the status of the signs, and Mr. Bridgers advised they were working through contractual matters to get the signs prepared and printed. Mr. Bridgers added that the signs would also be made available to dive shops in the area so recreational divers would also be informed. Mr. Bridgers reported that in addition to the ordnance items, that the ACOE has been promising for years to come back and take care of the horned scullies and in 1996 they were authorized funding for that project. Plans and specifications for the job were developed and in late September a contract was awarded to Cas Colosimo of Pittsburgh, PA. The original delivery order was for the removal of 110 horned scullies and his original contract at that time was for $225,000. Now, additional horned scullies are to be removed and they will be working to issue another delivery order using FY 1997 funds. As a result of the area and the available information, they were advised by the Huntsville Ordnance Center that they really needed to have some on- site explosive expertise to advise and to assist the contractor to make sure he did not get into something that would be potentially dangerous. Thus the Navy EOD detachment from Mayport agreed to support the project. They 75 January 21, 1997 BOOK DO FAGE have been on-site for a number of weeks and will be here additional weeks. Mr. Bridgers described that EOD personnel are going into the area where the contractor is required to work, and to the extent within their capabilities, they're giving what is called a "clearance", saying they do not see anything right in that area, and the contractor can move in there and start removing the horned scullies. If the contractor finds something, he would notify them and the EOD would go back to look and determine exactly what the contractor has discovered. Mr. Bridgers related that the Navy has found items, the contractor has also found items and actually picked up one of the items and placed it inside of his piece of equipment. It was then removed by the Navy. Mr. Bridgers reported that last week, for the first time, there was an incident where land mines were found on the beach by a local citizen, he believed. Since the Navy was in the area the citizen asked them to take a look at what he found. Mr. Bridgers stressed that this was the first time they have had an incident such as this in the 50 years since the DOD left the area. Mr. Bridgers then used a large display board which identified the 15 or 16 areas where they have documented incidents where ordnance has been found. Down on the south end of South Hutchinson Island, 200 land mines were found buried in a trench. He believed that was in 1982 and it was reported by The Miami Herald. They were not laid out in a pattern as those found last week, but had been collected from the beach and placed in what someone thought at that time to be a "safe area". Mr. Bridgers then asked Mr. Blankinship to briefly give an overview or update on the status of the items of activity that Huntsville was responsible for working on in conjunction with Jacksonville, the Engineering Evaluation Cost Analysis (EECA), since new information is now available. Mr. Blankinship will be working with him to determine what they need to do next based upon this new information. Karl Blankinship advised that Huntsville is the center of expertise for the Corps of Engineers as it relates to ordnance and explosive wastes. They have a large group of "ex-EOD", explosives - trained people retired from the military, on their staff. They supplement the district or division personnel in the district with the technical expertise to safely handle ordnance items on any project within the United States or U.S. territory. 76n m January 21, 1997 Mr. Blankinship then gave a quick update on the EECA advising that the public meetings are completed. An action memorandum, or a summary of all the comments and concerns is put together and submitted up through the chain of command for approval. That document is complete and is in the approval process right now. That approval authorizes them to proceed with the next phase of the project. Mr. Blankinship confirmed that the funding for the Community Action Plan and the signs are in the work plans for the second quarter which started this month. So, they have three months to put together the contract package to get that plan in place. They plan to do that within the three months, given that they get their approval from headquarters. He did not expect there would be a problem with that approval. In summary, he believed that within the next three months they should have at least a package together and someone to get started working on the County's signs and brochures. A draft should be available very soon afterwards. They have contractors already under contract and just issue a task order to them for this type work. They have examples that have been used elsewhere, so it should not be a time-consuming activity. Chairman Eggert asked if there was any way to fast track this process, and Mr. Blankinship replied they will proceed with the signs and brochures as soon as they get the approval from headquarters. It has to be done within this quarter, which is within the next two months. Chairman Eggert asked if the signs have to be ready in the next two months, and Mr. Blankinship advised that the contract has to be awarded in that time period. Then Chairman Eggert asked how long before the signs might be ready, another 3-6 months, and Mr. Blankinship replied it should not be that long. He did not have a schedule, but expected it would be 60-90 days at the most. Chairman Eggert stressed that the Board was especially concerned about safety here. Mr. Blankinship thought they were budgeted to do a very good job with the signs. The public awareness program will be coordinated through the County's Emergency Management office. He will make sure that there are the appropriate number and types of signs and brochures that will satisfy the County's needs. He stated that the entire intent is to make sure that the Board is happy with the job they are doing and that it addresses the needs. Commissioners Adams and Ginn inquired about the wording and goals of the signs, and Mr. Blankinship advised that the wording 77 January 21, 1997 MO. 1 'w has not yet been decided, that they will be signs of warning that past activities may have left ordnance in the area. He added that normally a picture of some sort would be on the signs to give people an idea of what items they might find and exactly what to do if they see anything. Based on the mine that was found last week, Mr. Blankinship specified that his preliminary recommendation to his headquarters will be to come back and do some type of investigation along the beach in the area where the mines were found to confirm that is all that are there. He feels they are all gone, but would feel much better if they confirm it. If that is satisfactory with the Board, that will be what he would like to proceed to recommend to his organization. Commissioner Adams assumed that the survey on the beach that they are preparing to do will be comprehensive, that nothing will be missed and that they have the capability of removing anything that is found. Mr. Blankinship responded that they have the capability of detecting to a certain depth based on size. Part of the problem is isolating the areas where the mines were actually placed and tested, and the project covers about 21 miles of beachfront. What they are really trying to do is gather all the historical records that they can find to truly isolate the problem. That is the reason for continuing the archives search. They are still trying to find those old records from the 1940's that give some definition of the area, so that they do not have to undertake a 20 -some -odd mile geophysical investigation. Chairman Eggert reiterated her concerns about safety and frustration since February 1996 and they are still talking about signs. Commissioner Adams commented that signs are one thing, but the effort to retrieve and remove the debris would be her #1 priority. And Chairman Eggert agreed. Commissioner Adams knew getting funds into their budget took a long time, and asked if there was something the Board could do to make sure their contingency fund covers the finality of this project and it gets done. It was difficult to get them here and the Board wanted to make certain that the complete job is accomplished while they are still in the area. Mr. Blankinship responded that at this point, he did not foresee any problems, but if they do, he will be glad to let the Board know. 78 January 21, 1997 BOOK 1UJ �A'GE 354 -I If there is a problem, Commissioner Adams wanted him to let them know before the equipment is pulled out. Mr. Blankinship wanted the Board to keep in mind that the horned scullies project will be separate from the ordnance investigation, because of the difference in the type of work. Commissioner Adams stressed that from the Board's aspect both projects are very, very important, but, obviously, the ordnance would take a little more priority because of the severity involved, but she did not want them to leave until both have been done. She emphasized her willingness to help. Mr. Blankinship underscored that the more public involvement, the better the process works. He knew people are living here who have seen items on the beach, or people around who know what may have gone on back in the 1940's and 1950's. The more information they can get like that, the better they can isolate the problems and approach the project. Commissioner Tippin observed that many people do not realize that this part of Florida was almost like a war zone in World War II with the air base. He estimated they averaged more than one plane crash a day. He recalled that people were prohibited from the beach except they were allowed to go on Saturday or Sunday to what is now Humiston Park. Many of the Navy people leased homes in the old Rio Mar section. There were many German submarines off shore and on a regular basis ships were torpedoed and sunk right off our beaches. Then the submarines would surface and murder the life boat occupants. One Sunday, he and his brothers were privileged to go to the beach where they found the splintered remnants of a life boat, demolished-, full of large calibre bullet holes. He recalled that a German submarine sank right off the Ft. Pierce Inlet and it is still there. Commissioner Tippin continued that many of our local community leaders were volunteers. He did not know if it was called Coast Guard Auxiliary, but they had watch towers and they were out there at night to identify any lights they saw, airplanes and so forth. They would radio in. He admitted that people forget that right here, within a few miles, German military were killing primarily Merchant Marine people. There were always rumors about all the demolition and they were not allowed to go anywhere near that place. He recalled that at the Lutheran Church, they would get acquainted with the military people; they called them "demolition experts". Some of them came back and married local women. There was so much rumor then, it was very mysterious, hearing explosions at night, and they would not talk about it. They would say, we are 7 9�A,> January 21, 1997 just demolition experts, and hinted of what was going on down there. All these many years later it comes back. He wished he could meet up with a few of them and say, yes, what about all that stuff you left down there for later years. Chairman Eggert suggested that Commissioner Tippin was the one with whom the Navy needed to talk (because of his long time residency in the county). Commissioner Adams wondered about the accuracy of the archival information they were finding, and Mr. Blankinship replied that some is good, some is not, but they try to make use of everything they learn. Commissioner Macht asked if the ordnance actually explodes as it was designed and intended. Chief Warrant Officer Steven Bebow stated that they have to assume what they are finding is "live" and a few have been confirmed as being "live." Every piece they find is different and is potentially dangerous. It depends on many factors such as the condition, if it has been buried or moved around by the ocean. Most of what they have found had their detonating mechanisms broken off, but the ordnance still contained high explosives. It would be impossible to determine how these items might be activated by movement or other action. Commissioner Ginn asked his level of concern for persons who may be walking the beach, and CWO Bebow commented that the beach changes every day and residents there said they had never seen these conditions before. They are seeing all kinds of different ordnance and the beach face changes from day-to-day. He could not insure 100% that the area is safe. Mr. Blankinship advised that part of the engineering evaluation they do is a risk analysis. That risk analysis shows a very relative low risk based on other contaminated areas in the state. He believed one of the estimates he saw was one item or less within 100 acres and it might not necessarily be a "live" piece of ordnance. Commissioner Macht asked if the recent find would change that, and Mr. Blankinship agreed it would. Commissioner Ginn asked if they were using metal detectors, and CWO Bebow agreed they were. CWO Bebow gave as example that they had received a report that there were 10-12 rockets. What they found were 8 exposed tops of anti-tank mines. Those were removed and they began investigating further because of their uniform placement. Another 40 were discovered in the area. So, everywhere they find ordnance, they go 80 January 21, 1997 MY , -a fob .. M M back and try to cover a larger area to determine if all were removed and clean it up as much as possible. Commissioner Adams pointed out that there is also the possibility of unexploded ordnance away from the beach area, which is why it is important for the building department to give out information. Mr. Bridgers, using a map showing locations where ordnance has been found locally, discussed the radius of safety and evacuation of the homes, police support, and re-routing of traffic. He mentioned safety measures taken used in Belleair Beach because of findings near the former Indian Rocks Air -to -Ground Gunnery Range. Cooperation of the Board is necessary based upon findings in our area. He hoped the residents would be willing to cooperate by evacuating and stressed the need for it. He assured that residents would be given advance notice, 24 hours if possible, but there could be a need for an emergency evacuation. They will work with Mr. Wright's office and would like to use local uniformed police, someone recognizable by the residents that it is not some kind of hoax, but serious business. Mr. Bridgers advised that residents and citizens will be informed this evening at a 7 p.m. public meeting at the Bethal Creek House. His group will be there to explain, answer questions and brochures will be available. Mr. Bridgers emphasized that they want to do a good job in the clean up of what is found and stressed that the DOD will still be responsible if something else is found after they are finished. Commissioner Adams inquired about the plans for removal, and Mr. -Bridgers advised that the land mines had already been transported to an area where they could be detonated -- at Cape Canaveral, he believed. Because a Delta rocket blew up at the Cape the other day, the mines are still there awaiting destruction. Commissioner Adams and Chairman Eggert expressed appreciation for the group coming to the meeting. David Gregg, resident of Porpoise Point, spoke from the audience. He has owned his property over 25 years and he had seen beach erosion of about 40 feet. He had watched the Navy remove the tank traps last week and admired them for their fortitude. On Saturday morning, on the beach, he saw cranes in Surfside, and along came a bulldozer approximately 100 feet to the north of where the tank traps were found. He felt that if anything had been there, the bulldozer and the house could have been blown up. He thought that someone ought to inform the people putting in sea walls of the possible dangers. He also was concerned about the 81 V i January 21, 1997 L dangers of a twisted metal piece he had seen and suggested it should be taken out while the equipment was available. He hoped they would get it done even if the County had to pay for it. Commissioner Ginn and Chairman Eggert thought it made good sense. Commissioner Adams requested Mr. Tabar to address the question of the removal of the "trash" being picked up on the beach. Coastal Engineer Jeff Tabar advised that the twisted metal mentioned by Mr. Gregg was in fact some ship wreckage which had been dragged up on the beach face years ago. He had spoken with the contractor and ACOE to see if the County could get some cooperation while they are in the area to remove some of the rubble and debris on the beaches. The contractor had said he would try to cooperate by removing anything in the area he was in. Mr. Tabar felt they were still learning how to remove some of the obstacles and ordnance they have been finding. Their intent is to aid the County, but he suggested there is a need to keep the pressure on to make sure that it is done while they are in the area. Commissioner Ginn wanted to be certain that it is done and other Commissioners agreed. Emergency Services Director Doug Wright advised that he had been informed that the removal of the shipwreck debris is outside the scope of the existing contract. He suggested staff be authorized to look into engaging the contractor to do it as another task that would be under the County's purview. ON MOTION by Commissioner Ginn, SECONDED by Commissioner Tippin, the Board unanimously approved that Mr. Wright be authorized to engage the government's contractor to remove the large debris on the beach and the County will be responsible for the cost. 82( s rF1' January 21, 1997 There being no further business, on Motion duly made, seconded and carried, the Board adjourned at 11:28 a.m. ATTEST: J. arton, Clerk Minutes approved on 0� - If- Iti 83 January 21, 1997 Carolyn . Eggert, airman