HomeMy WebLinkAbout1/27/1998MINUTES ATTACHED
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
A G E N D A
TUESDAY, JANUARY 27,1998
9:00 A.M. - COUNTY COMMISSION CHAMBER
County Administration Building
1840 25th Street, Vero Beach, Florida 32960
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
John W. Tippin, Chairman (District 4)
Kenneth R Macht, Vice Chairman (District 3)
Fran B. Adams (District 1)
Carolyn K. Eggert (District 2)
Caroline D. Ginn (District 5)
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 None
3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - Comm. John W. Tippin
4. ADDITIONS to the AGEN-DA/EMERGENCY ITEMS
1. Add Item 13.1)., Appointment of Bob Tenbus to the Economic Development Council.
5. PROCLAMATION and PRESENTATIONS
None
6. APPROVAL OF MRgUTES
Regular Meeting of January 13, 1998
7. CONSENT AGENDA
A. Received & Placed on File in Office of Clerk to
the Board: 1) St. Johns River Water Management
District documents satisfying the requirements of
Section 189.418, Fla. Statutes, to file creation
documents and District map (as filed with the Fla.
Dept. of Comm. Affairs) 2) LR. Farms Water Con-
trol Dist., Notice that Bd. of Supvs. meets on the
2nd Thursday of each month, unless otherwise
advertised and posted. 3) I.R. Farms Water Con-
trol District, minutes of Board of Supvs. meetings
for period of Oct., 1996 thru Sept., 1997
B. Proclamation of Interfaith Memorial Service
Honoring Four Army Chaplains 1
C. Proclamation Honoring Robert "Bob" Brackett
for His Service to the Community 2
7. _CONSENT AGENDA (cont'd.): BOOK IU4 rnE iO5 BACKUP
PAGES
D. Appointment of Raymond G. Coniglio to Economic
Development Council
(memorandum dated January 20, 1998) 3-4
E. Declare Equipment Surplus for Sale or Disposal
(memorandum dated January 16, 1998) 5-6
F. Turner Builders of Vero Beach, Inc.'s Request
for Final Plat Approval for Somerset S/D -
Ouasi-Judicial
(memorandum dated January 19, 1998) 7-11
G. Frank Hooper's Request for Final Plat Approval
for a Private Road R -O -W Ouasi-Judicial
(memorandum dated January 21, 1998) 12-18
H. Payments to Vendors of Court Related Costs
(memorandum dated January 16, 1998) 19
I. Release and Substitution of Edmonds/Moolenaar
Conservation Easement - Lindsey Lanes S/D
(memorandum dated January 20, 1998) 20-23
J. Retroactive Approval for Comm. Macht to Attend
Groundbreaking of Veterans Clinic in Melbourne,
FL on 1-6-98
(no backup provided)
8. CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS and
GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES
None
9:05 A.M. 9. PUBLIC ITEMS
A. PUBLIC HEARINGS
HGI and Ralph Evans, Trustee, Request to Amend
the Comprehensive Plan to Redesignate Approx.
26.4 Acres from M-1 to C/I; and to Amend the
Comprehensive Plan to Redesignate Approx. 26.4
Acres from C/I to C-1 Legislative
(memorandum dated January 19, 1998) 24-46
B. PUBLIC DISCUSSION ITEMS
None
C. PUBLIC NOTICE ITEMS
None
10. COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S MATTERS
None
11. DEPARTMENTAL MATTERS
A. CommunitYDevelopment
None
0 0
0
11. DEPARTMENTAL MATTERS (cont'd.):
B. Emergengy Services
1. Renewal of 9-1-1 Communications Center
Annual UPS Maintenance Agreement w/
MGE UPS Systems
(memorandum dated January 9, 1998)
2. Approval of Biomedical Technical
Services Agreement w / Physio -Control
(memorandum dated January 12, 1998)
C. General Services
None
D. Leisure Services
None
E. Office of Management and Budget
None
F. Personnel
None
G. Public Works
1. Wabasso Causeway Park Beautification
Project - Resolution for Fla. Dept. of
Transportation Grant
(memorandum dated January 21, 1998)
2. Amendment No. 7, Kings Highway
Improvements
(memorandum dated January 20, 1998)
H. Utilities
North County R.O. Plant (Hobart Park)
Retainage Reduction
(memorandum dated January 15, 1998)
12. COUNTY ATTORNEY
None
13.
A. Chairman John W. TiRpin
B. Vice Chairman Kenneth R. Macht
C. Commissioner Fran B. Adams
BACK
PAGES
47-49
50-56
57-63
64-67
68-72
EOOK 104 rKE at.06
13. COMSSIONERS ITEMS (cont'd.Z�'u�K �U F�1GE .L9, � BACKUP
MI
PAGES
D. Commissioner Carolyn K. Eggert
E. Commissioner Caroline D. Ginn
IRC Children's Services Network Guide: Discussion
on Standardized Outcomes Guided by Year 2000
National Objectives
(backup may be provided separately)
14. SPECIAL DISTRICTS/BOARDS
A. Emergency Services District
None
B. Solid Waste Disposal District
1. Approval of Minutes - meeting of 1/6/98
2. Approval of Minutes -meeting of 1/13/98
3. Recycling & Education Grant
Litter Control Grant
Waste Tire Grant
(memorandum dated January 19, 1998) 73-81
C. Environmental Control Board
None
15. ADJOURNMENT
Anyone who may wish to appeal any decision which may be made at this meeting will need
to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made which includes the testimony and
evidence upon which the appeal will be based.
Anyone who needs a special accommodation for this meeting may contact the county's
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) coordinator at 567-8000 x408 at least 48 hours in advance
of meetins.
Meeting may be broadcast live on TCI Cable Channel 13 - rebroadcast various times
throughout the week
Falcon Cable Channel 35 - rebroadcast Friday evening
0
•
•
INDEX TO MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING
OF BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
JANUARY 27, 1998
1. CALL TO ORDER .............................................. .1-
2. INVOCATION ................................................. -1-
3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ...................................... .1-
4. ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA ................................... 1-
6. APPROVAL OF MINUTES ........................................ 2-
7. CONSENT AGENDA ........................................... .2-
7.A. Reports ................................................. .2-
7.B. Proclamation of Interfaith Memorial Service Honoring Four Army
Chaplains - First Baptist Church - Sunday, February 1, 1998 .......... 2-
7.C. Proclamation Honoring Robert "Bob" Brackett For His Service To This
Community And Designating The Weekend of January 29 - 31, 1998 As
The Grand Opening Of The Courthouse Executive Center ........... .3-
7.C. Economic Development Council - Appointment of Raymond G. Conigho -
Representative of Sebastian Chamber of Commerce ............... .5-
7.E. Equipment Declared Surplus for Sale or Disposal ................. .6-
7.F. Turner Builders of Vero Beach, Inc. - Request for Final Plat Approval for
Somerset Subdivision - Quasi -Judicial ........................... 8-
7.G. Frank Hooper - Request for Final Plat Approval for Private Road Right -of -
Way -45' Avenue ........................................ .10 -
JANUARY 27, 1998
-1- BOOK 104 FAGS OB
n3
BOOK 104 FAG1i99
7.H. Payments to Vendors of Court Related Costs .................... .12-
7.I. Release and Substitution of Edmonds-Moolenaar Conservation Easement -
Lot 1, Block C, Lindsey Lanes Subdivision ..................... .13-
7.J. Veterans Clinic in Melbourne, Florida - Retroactive Approval for
Commissioner Macht to Attend Groundbreaking on January 6, 1998
...................................................... .14-
9.A. PUBLIC BEARING - HGI AND RALPH EVANS, TRUSTEE - REQUEST TO
AMEND COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TO REDESIGNATE APPROXIMATELY
26.4 ACRES FROM M-1 TO C/I (South of SR -60 and West of I-95 - Property 2)
AND TO REDESIGNATE APPROXIMATELY 26.4 ACRES FROM C/I TO C-1
(Between I-95 and Horizon Outlet Center - Property 1)
......... ................................................... .14-
11.B.1. 9-1-1 COMMUNICATIONS CENTER - RENEWAL OF MGE UPS
SYSTEMS ANNUAL MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT .......... .27-
1 LB.2. BIOMEDICAL TECHNICAL SERVICES AGREEMENT - PHYSIO -
CONTROL............................................. .28-
1 l.G.1. WABASSO CAUSEWAY PARK BEAUTIFICATION PROJECT -
RESOLUTION FOR FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION GRANT .............................. .29-
1 l.G.2. KINGS HIGHWAY IMPROVEMENTS - KIMLEY-HORN ASSOCIATES
11.H. NORTH COUNTY R.O. PLANT (HOBART PARK) - WHARTON-SMITH, INC.
- RETAINAGE REDUCTION .................................... .33-
13.D. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL - APPOINTMENT OF BOB
TENBUS.................................................... .35 -
JANUARY 27, 1998
0 -2-
11
•
13.E. CHILDREN'S SERVICES NETWORK GUIDE - DISCUSSION ON
STANDARDIZED OUTCOMES GUIDED BY YEAR 2000 NATIONAL
OBJECTIVES ................................................ .36-
14.A. EMERGENCY SERVICES DISTRICT ............................. .42-
14.B. SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL DISTRICT ............................ .42-
14.C. ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL BOARD .......................... .42 -
JANUARY 27, 1998
-3- &00K -1011
January 27, 1998
REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS
The Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, met in Regular
Session at the County Commission Chambers, 1840 25' Street, Vero Beach, Florida, on
Tuesday, January 27, 1998, at 9:00 a.m. Present were John W. Tippin, Chairman; Kenneth
R. Macht, Vice Chairman; Fran B. Adams; Carolyn K. Eggert; and Caroline D. Ginn. Also
present were James E. Chandler, County Administrator; Charles P. Vitunac, County
Attorney; and Patricia "PJ" Jones, Deputy Clerk.
1. CALL TO ORDER
Chairman Tippin called the meeting to order.
2. EWOCATION
Commissioner Ginn led the Invocation.
3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Chairman Tippin led the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag.
4. ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA
Commissioner Eggert requested the addition of Item 13-D, Appointment of Bob
Tenbus, to the Economic Development Council.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Macht,
SECONDED by Commissioner Ginn, the Board
unanimously added the above item to the Agenda.
JANUARY 27, 1998
_1_ BOOK 104 FACE �WeL
600K 1011 PAGE J 2
6. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
The Chairman asked if there were any corrections or additions to the Minutes of the
Regular Meeting of January 13, 1998. There were none.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert,
SECONDED by Commissioner Adams, the Board
unanimously approved the Minutes of the Regular
Meeting of January 13, 1998, as written.
7. CONSENT AGENDA
7.A. REPORTS
Received and placed on file in the Office of the Clerk to the Board:
1. St. Johns River Water Management District documents satisfying the
requirements of Section 189.418, Florida Statutes, to file creation documents
and District map (as filed with the Florida Department of Community Affairs).
2. Indian River Farms Water Control District, Notice that the Board of
Supervisors meets on the 2' Thursday of each month, unless otherwise
advertised and posted.
3. Indian River Farms Water Control District, Minutes of Board of Supervisors'
Meetings for the Period of October, 1996 through September 1997.
7.B. PROCLAMATIONOFINTERFAITHMEMORIAL SERVICE
HONORING FOUR ARMY CHAPLAINS - FIRST BAPTIST
CHURCH- SUNDAY. FEBRUARY 1. 1998
The Board reviewed the following Proclamation:
JANUARY 27, 1998
0 -2- 0
PROCLAMATION
WHEREAS, on February 3, 1943, the USAT Dorchester was torpedoed by an enemy
submarine and tragically sunk. Of the 902 young men on board, only 230 survived Among the 672
men who lost their lives were four men of God: Lt. Alexander D. Goode, a Rabbi; Lt. John P.
Washington, a Roman Catholic Priest; Lt. George L. Fox, a Methodist Minister, and Lt. Clark V.
Poling, a Dutch Reformed Minister - all Army Chaplains; and
WHEREAS, the Four Chaplains gave their life jackets to save four soldiers and, in so doing,
gave up their only means of survival. The Four Chaplains offered prayers for the dying and
encouragement for the survivors. They were last seen on the deck of the ship with their arms linked
together and their heads bowed in prayer as they went to their watery graves in the North Atlantic
Ocean off the coast of Greenland; and
JANUARY 27, 1998
0 -2- 0
11
WHEREAS, the Four Chaplains posthumously received a Special Medal for Heroism, never
before given and never to be given again, for their courage, leadership and heroic conduct; and
WHEREAS, by passing life's ultimate test, the Four Chaplains became an enduring example
of extraordinary faith, courage and selflessness:
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT PROCLAIMED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS, INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA that an interfaith memorial service
honoring the Four Chaplains will be held Sunday, February 1, 1998 at 3:00 p.m. at the First Baptist
Church, 2206 16th Avenue, Vero Beach, Florida.
The Board fiuther encourages the citizens of this county to attend the memorial service to
honor the memory of the Four Chaplains and their supreme sacrifice.
Adopted this 27 day of January, 1998.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
ippin, C hiii
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert,
SECONDED by Commissioner Ginn, the Board
unanimously adopted the Proclamation.
7. C. PROCLAMATIONHONORING ROBERT "BOB" BRACKETT FOR HIS
SERVICE TO THIS COMMUNITYAND DESIGNATING THE WEEKEND OF
JANUARY 29 - 31, 1998 AS THE GRAND OPENING OF THE
COURTHOUSE EXECUTIVE CENTER
The Board reviewed the following Proclamation:
JANUARY 27, 1998
-3-
0
E00K -1-0 PAGE
ani
600K 104 F'AGE (W
PROCLAMATION
HONORING ROBERT L. BRACKETT
FOR HIS SERVICE TO THIS COMMUNITY
and
DESIGNATING THE WEEKEND OF
JANUARY 29 - 31,1998 AS THE
GRAND OPENING OF THE
COURTHOUSE EXECUTIVE CENTER
WHEREAS, Robert "Bob" Brackett has been a long-time leader of the Downtown Vero
Beach rejuvenation and beautification efforts, including the Model Block renovations, and park
bench placement program; and
WHEREAS, "Bob" Brackett is also the developer and owner of Pueblo Arcade, Theatre
Plaza, Seminole Courtyard and the new Seminole Building, several of which are currently listed in
the National Registry of Historic Buildings; and
WHEREAS, in 1996, it was the desire of "Bob" Brackett to purchase and restore the former
Indian River County Courthouse; and
WHEREAS, the former Courthouse has been renamed the Courthouse Executive Center and
it will house a number of businesses, organizations and services, and will be available for various
functions, parties and business seminars:
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT PROCLAIMED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA that the weekend of January 29 -
31, 1998 is dedicated to the Grand Opening of the Courthouse Executive Center.
The Board fiuther extends its appreciation for the efforts of "Bob" Brackett and his family
for their on-going contributions within this community.
Adopted this 27 day of January, 1998.
`e`
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert,
SECONDED by Commissioner Ginn, the Board
unanimously adopted the Proclamation.
JANUARY 27, 1998
-4-
7. C. ECONOMICDEVELOPMENT COUNCIL -APPOINTMENT OF RAYMOND G.
CONIGLIO - REPRESENTATIVE OF SEBASTIAN CHAMBER OF COMMERCE
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of January 20, 1998:
To: Board of County Commissioners
From: Carolyn K. Eggert C �'
Chairman, Economic Development Pouncil
Date: January 20, 1998
Re: Appointment to Economic Development Council
Please approve the appointment of Raymond G. Coniglio to the
Economic Development Council to fill the Sebastian River
Area Chamber of Commerce position.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert,
SECONDED by Commissioner Ginn, the Board
unanimously approved the appointment of Raymond
G. Conigho to the Economic Development Council
to fill the Sebastian River Area Chamber of
Commerce position.
JANUARY 27, 1998
-5- GvJK � PACE 2j5' r�,1 �.ry �
IN
600K I N FA E'W06 'I
7.E. EQUIPMENT DECLARED SURPLUS FOR SALE OR DISPOSAL
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of January 16, 1998:
DATE: January 16, 1998
TO: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
THRU: James E. Chandler, County Administrator
H T. "Sonny" Dean, General Services Direct
FROM: Fran Boynton -Powell, Purchasing Manager
SUBJECT: Declare Equipment Surplus for Sale or Disposal
BACKGROUND:
The following equipment (attached list) has been declared surplus to the needs of
the County.
ANALYSIS:
Staff recommends that authority be granted by the Board of County Commissioners
to declare these items surplus and authorize its sale and/or proper disposal.
FUNDING:
The monies received from this sale will be returned to the appropriate accounts.
RECON AENDATION:
This list of surplus items will be disposed of in accordance with the provisions of
Florida State Statutes.
JANUARY 27, 1998
40 -6-
81•
co
c
c -D7
r -n
r-0
C)
--,I
N
J
00
v
y
''d
0
aCn
b
D
12523
E
NO
O
z
G
S:
188
iii!n
O
8853
NO
88 FORD 1 TON TRUCK
0
51
a
189
O
Z
477
CD
�
dQ
0
CD
�
co
EtED
it
0
y
ry.. •
0
C
O
190
H
�
0
0
�
CD
►�
�
ham,..
W2
O.
►.s
G
N
�
p
NO
p
CD
C
v'
0
CL
UIQ
11527.1
NO
90 FORD F350 W/DUMPBED
YES.. HIGH REPAIR COST
JANUARY SURPLUS UST
1119/98
187
C
4 4
D
12523
E
NO
F
91 FORD F150 TRUCK
G
H 1
YES.. HIGH REPAIR COST
188
iii!n
314
8853
NO
88 FORD 1 TON TRUCK
YES.. HIGH REPAIR COST
189
477
11717
NO
90 CHEVY CORSICA
YES.. HIGH REPAIR COST
190
:• 4
11673
NO
91 CHEVY BLASER
YES.. HIGH REPAIR COST
191
7402
NO
184 FORD TRACTOR MOWER
YES.. HIGH REPAIR COST
192 PARKS
11527.1
NO
90 FORD F350 W/DUMPBED
YES.. HIGH REPAIR COST
193 PURL
451
10181
NO
88 DODGE ARIES
YES.. HIGH REPAIR COST
194 UTIL
319
8660
NO
86 FORD RANGER 4 X 4
YES.. HIGH REPAIR COST
195 UTIL
280
7069
NO
84 CHEW C 30 TRUCK
YES.. HIGH REPAIR COST
196 SWDD
491
15828
NO
95 CAT 826C COMPACTOR
087X01817
YES.SURPLUSSED F/PRIV OPER.
197 SWOD
47E_ k
15653
NO
1951NTL 4900 TRUCK W/MIXER
NO.SURPLUSSED F/PRIV OPER.
198 SWDD
453
15594
NO
194 CAT 826C COMPACTOR
087X01763
YES.SURPLUSSED F/PRIV OPER.
198 SWDD
15261
NO
12114 YD HENDRIX HS BUCKET
53675 YES.SURPLUSSED F/PRIV OPER.
200 SWDD
446
13927
NO
LS20H LINK BELT DRAGLINE
C31.120252
YES.SURPLUSSED F/PRIV OPER.
201 SWDD
13460
NO
GOULDS 10 H.P. ELEC PUMP
YES.SURPLUSSED F/PRIV OPER.
202 SWDD
SOF
12121
NO
90 D7H DOZER CAT.
79Z480
YES.SURPLUSSED F/PRIV OPER.
203 SWDD
061 >
11103
NO
90 FREIGHTLINER DUMP TRUCK LH410318
YES.BEING REP W/NEW VEHICLE
204 SWDD
62A
9949
'NO
88 CAT D7H DOZER
079201630
YES.SURPLUSSED F/PRIV OPER.
20b SWDD 1
356
9329
NO
1871 TON CHEV TRUCK
1 GBHR34KXHS183045 YES.MINOR DAMAGE
208 SWDD 1
398
9924
NO
88 GMC C35001 TON TRUCK
1 GDHR34KXJJ514662 YES.NEEDS REPAIRS
207 SWDD 1
190
3839
NO
81 FORD F-250
1 FTEF25ECOUA09394 YES.SURPLUSSED F/PRIV OPER.
208 SWDD
447
14034
NO
623E ELEVATED SCRAPER
08YF00246
YES.SURPLUSSED F/PRIV OPER.
209 SWOD
12251
NO
90 2908T FORD TRASH PUMP
P185
YES.SURPLUSSED F/PRIV OPER.
210 PARK
182
15105
NO
MOWER/TRAC. SCAG 52" CUT
10440078 YES.FUNS SLOW, ENO. NEEDS WORK
211 PARK
192
156001
NO
TRAC GRASSHOPPER 52" CUT
452191 IYES HIGH REPAIR COST
a
r- � -
SOUK U 4 PAGE 2 7
7.F. TURNER BUILDERS OF VERO BEACH, INC- -REQUEST FOR FINAL PLAT
APPROVAL FOR SOMERSET SUBDIVISION- QUASI-JUDICIAL
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of January 19, 1998:
TO: James E. Chandler
County Administrator
DYKS—IPN HEAD CONCURRENCE:
l�
Roberteating, A1C
Community Development Director
A -19 -
THROUGH: Stan Boling, AICP
Planning Director
FROM: John W. McCoy, AICP i'A
Senior Planner, Current Development
DATE: January 19,1998
SUBJECT: Turner Builders of Vero Beach, Inc.'s Request for Final Plat Approval for Somerset
Subdivision
It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal consideration by the Board of County
Commissioners at its regular meeting of January 27, 1998.
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS:
Somerset Subdivision is a 10 lot subdivision of a 3.58 acre parcel of land located on the north side
of 30th Street at 11th Terrace. The subject property is zoned RS -3, Residential Single Family (up
to 3 units per acre) and has a land use designation of L-1, Low Density 1 (up to 3 units per acre).
The density of the subdivision is 2.79 units per acre.
On December 19, 1996, the Planning and Zoning Commission granted preliminary plat approval for
Somerset Subdivision. The developer, Turner Builders of Vero Beach, Inc., subsequently obtained
a land development permit and has completed construction of the required subdivision
improvements. The developer is now requesting final plat approval and has submitted the following:
1. A final plat in conformance with the approved preliminary plat.
2. A certificate of completion for all required improvements.
All required subdivision improvements have been constructed by the developer, and the developer
has obtained a certificate of completion from public works certifying that all required improvements
are complete and acceptable. All proposed subdivision improvements are privately dedicated, with
the exception of the utility system, which is separately warranted through the Department of Utility
Services. Therefore, no warranty and maintenance agreement for publicly dedicated improvements
is required. All requirements of final plat approval are satisfied.
Based on the above analysis, staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners grant final
plat approval for Somerset Subdivision.
JANUARY 27, 1998
-8-
f
•
•
N
MED
co
— _� BUCKIbIGI
rPI
18 1 II 0'T_9.
17
E ST. 12 T 7
17 4 13 6 11
14 5 •14 b 5
> O
13 8 x 15 4
6
12 7=16 3n��:
__ __�
11 8 2•17 2ix J
��•� ., s ar-o1 :c a •1 Z-qc,�u.ivaylale�nn
ROYAL COURT —
TFOQT 8 C 28TH �. �+ ; 918!71 31211 T9.817 '4133'zTl
85II�: 8�5;E2w
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert,
SECONDED by Commissioner Ginn, the Board
unanimously granted final plat approval for Somerset
Subdivision, as recommended by staff.
JANUARY 27, 1998
BOOK U 4 FAGE
7. G. FRANKHOOPER - REQUEST FOR FINAL PLAT APPROVAL FOR PRIVATE
ROAD RIGHT =0F -WAY- 45THAyENUE
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of January 21, 1998:
TO: James E. Chandler
County Administrator
DATE: January 21, 1998
D S N HEAD CONCURRENCE:
Robert M. Keating, 'A'15 77
Community Development
THROUGH: Stan Boling, AICP
Platming Director
FROM: Eric Blad 15,
Staff Planner, Curren Development
SUBJECT: Frank Hooper's Request for Final Plat Approval for a Private Road Right -of -Way
(45th Avenue Private Cul -de -Sac)
It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal consideration by the Board of County
Commissioners at its regular meeting of January 27, 1998.
DESCRIPTION AND CONDMONS:
At its regular meeting of January 8, 1998, the Planning and Zoning Commission approved the
proposed preliminary plat for a private road right-of-way for a segment of 45th Avenue. Carter
Associates, Inc., on behalf of Frank Hooper, is now requesting final plat approval for a private road
right-of-way to be known as 45th Avenue. The subject roadway will be a private cul-de-sac segment
of45th Avenue approximately 588' in length, located perpendicular to and on the south side of 8th
Street, 775' west of 43rd Avenue. The requested private road plat will create right-of-way frontage
for 5 large lots proposed by the applicant under a special affidavit of exemption request.
The affidavit of exemption request submitted by the applicant proposes the creation of five 5+ acre
parcels from a single 29f acre parcel (see attachment #4). Affidavits of exemption, which are
approved at a staff level, allow the creation of parcels without platting lots and constructing formal
subdivision improvements (eg. paved roads) provided each proposed parcel contains at least 200,000
square feet and satisfies minimum road frontage and access standards. All 5 proposed parcels are
larger than 200,000 square feet and will be accessed from the proposed 45th Avenue roadway. Prior
to staff approval of the applicant's affidavit of exemption request, the applicant must plat a private
road right-of-way, such as the one now requested, to create legal road frontage for each proposed
lot.
The Board of County Commissioners is now to consider granting final plat approval for the private
ANALYSIS•
The County's land development regulations allow for the platting of unimproved private road right-of-
way if such right-of-way does not serve a formal subdivision. Such is the case with this request.
Under these provisions, platted private right-of-way roadways are exempt from road and drainage
improvements, but must satisfy county standards in regard to access, alignment, dimensional
requirements and environmental issues. The proposed final plat satisfies applicable regulations for
creation of a private road right-of-way plat, and can be approved independent of the affidavit of
exemption request now being processed by staff.
Since the submitted final plat is in conformance with the approved preliminary plat and no
improvements or dedications are required, the final plat request satisfies all final plat prerequisites.
Based upon analysis performed, staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners grant
final plat approval for the proposed 45th Avenue private road right-of-way.
JANUARY 27, 1998
0 -10- 0
•
MN
J i
J�
Q6
O
Z N
W
J
n
RS -3
\ \ I
--- TR'7 r 21 6 7 TR.B
23 20 9 6
WE T
24 2 19 10 = 5
EA1 10W.'
25 19 11 •
z9 = 17 1z 3
i 27 16 13 2 1
Is I• � �i
i
4TH 3T is -
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert,
SECONDED by Commissioner Ginn, the Board
unanimously granted final plat approval for the 45h
Avenue private road right-of-way, as recommended
by staff.
JANUARY 27, 1998
BOOK PdGE
7.H. PAYMENTS TO VENDORS OF COURT RELATED COSTS
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of January 16, 1998:
TO: Board of County Commissioners
FROM: Terrence P. O'Brien, Assistant County Attomeyolvo
DATE: January 16, 1998
SUBJECT: Payments to Vendors of Court Related Costs
The Office of the County Attorney has processed and approved payment to the
following vendors for the week of January 19. Listed below are the vendors
names and the amount of each court related costs (vendors frequently used are
for transcription costs).
Pegasus Travel
326.50
Nicole Manz, Esq.
233.68
Great Western Bank
8.70
Shirley E. Corbin
255.50
Gene Weaver & Associates
150.00
Linda Copeland
129.50
William Bressett
60.00
Sheila I. Flinn
213.50
Barbara G. Schopp
38.50
C. Jonathan Ahr, Ph.D.
200.00
Ted Heath
287.90
Pegasus Travel
261.00
Michael H. Bloom, Esq.
2,388.75
Shirley E. Corbin
203.00
Avis
33.79
Fairwinds Travel & Tours, Inc.
467.89
Edward .I AharP III
11a QO
Linda Copeland
108.50
Linda Copeland
56.00
Linda Copeland
70.00
Barbara G. Schopp
94.50
J R Reporting Associates, Inc.
25.00
James T. Long, Esq.
6,900.00
Richard L. Lamb, Esq.
(� `�
3.905.00
Total APS" �VE7 FOR
E �.0 �cE IPJIi ;, CCNScP�JT AGENDA
16,633.6
COUNTY ATTORNEY
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert,
SECONDED by Commissioner Ginn, the Board
unanimously approved payment to the vendors in the
amounts listed in staffs Memorandum, as
recommended by staff.
JANUARY 27, 1998
ZL RELEASE AND SUBSTITUTION OF EDMONDS-MOOLENA"
CONSERVATIONEASEMENT - LOT 1, BLOCK C. LINDSEYLANES
SUBDIVISION
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of January 20, 1998:
TO: The Board of County Commissioners
FROM: W William G. Collins II - Deputy County Attorney
DATE: January 20, 1998
SUBJECT: Release and Substitution of Edmonds/Moolenaar Conservation
Easement - Lindsey Lanes Subdivision
BACKGROUND:
On July 26, 1994 the Board of County Commissioners approved the concept of
creating a 3-1/2 acre native upland "land bank' to be utilized in future situations
where circumstances within the Lindsey Lanes Subdivision required the release
of platted conservation easements. The original developer, Stolle Development
Corporation, placed approximately 3-1/2 acres of contiguous property which they
owned south of 13th Street, S.W. and west of 27th Avenue under a conservation
easement. The conservation easements within Lindsey Lanes Phase I
Subdivision were at times precluding the development of accessory uses such
as swimming pools on certain lots. Since the approval of the "land bank" by the
County Commission and recordation of the Conservation Easement at O.R.
Book 1030, Page 428, Public Records of Indian River County on August 11,
1994, the Board has approved releases on 21 lots.
REQUEST:
Brett Matthew Edmonds and April Ann Moolenaar, the owners of Lot 1, Block C,
cannot install a patio and/or pool without a release of the conservation
easement. The proposal before the Board would release the conservation
easement from their lot. The unutilized square footage in the land bank area
stands at approximately 116,658 square feet at this time. If granted the
remaining acreage in the land bank covered by a conservation easement would
exceed amounts released by 114,858 square feet or 2.6 acres t.
RECOMMENDATION:
Authorize the Chairman to execute the attached Release and Substitution of
Conservation Easement for Lot 1, Block C.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert,
SECONDED by Commissioner Ginn, the Board
unanimously approved the Release and Substitution
of Conservation Easement for Lot 1, Block C,
Lindsey Lanes Subdivision, Phase I and authorized
the Chairman to execute same, as recommended by
staff.
RELEASE WILL BE RECORDED IN THE
OFFICIAL RECORDS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
JANUARY 27, 1998
-13- BOOK tD� FACE "31
BOOK 104 pni 214
7.J. VETERANS CLLvICINMELBOURNE, FLORIDA -RETROACTIVE
APPROVAL FOR COMMISSIONER MACHT TO ATTEND GROUNDBREAKING
ON JANUARY 6,1998
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert,
SECONDED by Commissioner Ginn, the Board
unanimously approved, retroactively, travel for
Commissioner Macht to attend the Groundbreaking
for the Veterans Clinic in Melbourne, Florida on
January 6, 1998.
9.A. PUBLIC HEARING - HGI AND RALPH EVANS, TRUSTEE -
RUEST TO AMEND COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TO
REDESIGNATE APPROXIMATELY 26.4 ACRES FROM M-1
TO CA (South of SR -60 and West of I-95 - Property 2) AND TO
REDESIGNATE APPROXIMATELY 26.4 ACRES FROM CA
P.O. Box 9268 Vero Beach, Flodda 32969 562-2345
.,
Preto Journal
COUNTY OF INDIAN RR/ER: STATE OF FLORIDA
Before the undersigned authori personally aPPeared Darryl K
Pricks who on oath says that he is President of the Press -Journal, a
d�Y newsPaP� published
at Vero Beach in Lydian River County,
Florida: that
0#7
billed
was published in saidnewspaper in the Issue(s) Of
2.1
Sworn to and subscribed
before metra -is
D$ -
Y
4
�D�
.:------- President
••
�....�,IIMIEAI8
• �. 9i i
I
4..
* j �tsgrrrlsa:w C
8 a+lwerof.
Notary Put�ISe. State of Flodda
ExP Jan 2001
: :; OIWt l0 rti110it : Q r
• : e ;
My Com .01.
Comm No. CC 811092 13
:i' pQ.•
PereoaallyKnwm«ProducedlD
�•_'' �B[/C ri►1fc .r •�•
Type of ID Proauaod ---
JANUARY 27, 1998
0 -14-
•
JANUARY 27, 1998
•
NOTICE OF COMPREHENSIVE
PLAN LAND USE
DESIGNATION AMENDMENTS
r w
� N
1
' wnawnnr:i ••::
..._ i
L------
- •:::::!
C/I M.0
The Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Flor-
Ida, will consider a proposal to amend its Comprehensive Plan to
change the use of land within the unincorporated portions of Indian
River County. A public hearing on the proposals will be held on
Tuesday, January 27, 1998 at 9:05 a.m. in the County Commission
Chambers of the .County Administration Building, located at 1840
25th Street, Vero Beach, Florida. At this public hearing the Board of
County Commissioners will consider authorizing transmittal of this
amendment to fhe State Department of Community Affairs for Its re-
view. The proposed amendment Is Included In a proposed ordinance
entitled:
AN ORDINANCE OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA,
AMENDING THE FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT OF THE COM-
PREHENSIVE PLAN BY CHANGING THE LAND USE DESIG-
NATION FOR:
1. +/-28.4 ACRES LOCATED BETWEEN 1-95 AND THE HORI-
ZON OUTLET CENTER, FROM C/I TO C-1; AND
2. +/-28.4 ACRES, LOCATED APPROXIMATELY ONE HALF
MILE SOUTH OF SR 60 AND APPROXIMATELY ONE EIGHTH
MILE WEST OF 1-95, FROM M-1 TO C/I; ,
AND PROVIDING CODIFICATION, SEVERABILITY, AND EF-
FECTIVE DATE.
Interested parties may appear and be heard at the public hearing
regarding the approval of these proposed Comprehensive Plan
Amendment
The plan amendment application may be Inspected by the public at
the Community Development Department located on the second floor
of the County Administration Building located at 1840 25th Street,
Vero Beach, Florida, between the hours of 8:30 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. on
weekdays. For more information. contact John Wachtel at 56748000,
extension 247.
The proposed ordinance may be inspected by the public between
8:30 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. at the office of the Clerk to the Board of
County Commissioners, 1840 25th Street, Vero Beach, Florida.
NO FINAL ACTION ADOPTING THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE WILL
BE TAKEN AT THIS MEETING.
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 is based.
Anyone who needs a special accommodation for this meeting must
contact the county's Americans with Disabilities (ADA) Coordinator
at 587-8000, extension 223, at least 48 hours in advance of the
meeting.
Indian River County
Board of County Commissioners
By: -s- John W. Tippin, Chairman
:ae�s
-15- BOOK PA0E4�1 V
600K _104 PAGE "216
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of January 19, 1998:
TO: James E. Chandler
County Administrator
D TMENT HEAD CONCURRENCE
J /
Robert M. Keating, AfCP /
Community Development hecto('
,7
THROUGH: Sasan Rohan4 AICP 15 .df,
Chief, Long -Range Planning
FROM: John Wachtev'
Senior Planner, Long -Range Planning
DATE: January 19,1998
RE: HGI AND RALPH EVANS, TRUSTEE, REQUEST TO AMEND THE
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TO REDESIGNATE APPROXIMATELY 26.4
ACRES FROM M-1 TO C/I; AND TO AMEND THE COMPREHENSIVE
PLAN TO REDESIGNATE APPROXIMATELY 26.4 ACRES FROM C/I TO
C-1
PLAN AMENDMENT NUMBER LUDA 97-11-0023
It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal consideration by the Board of County
Commissioners at its regular meeting of January 27, 1998.
This is a request to redesignate approximately 126.4 acres from M-1, Medium -Density Residential -1
(up to 8 units/acre) to C/I, Commercial/ Industrial, while simultaneously redesignating a contiguous
±26.4 acre tract from CA, Commercial/Industrial, to C-1, Publicly Owned or Controlled
Conservation (zero density). In contrast to node expansion, this request will not increase the amount
of C/I designated land in the county. Rather, this request will reconfigure the SR 60/1-95 C/I node.
The property to be redesignated from C/I to C-1 is located between I-95 and the existing Horizon
Outlet Center. That property will be referred to as Subject Property I. Although not to be formally
considered at this time, the request involves rezoning Subject Property 1 from the CG, General
Commercial, District, to Con -1, Publicly Owned or Controlled Conservation District (zero density).
While Subject Property 1 is not publicly owned, public control of the site will be secured through
a conservation easement to the St. Johns River Water Management District.
The oronerty to be redesignated from M -l. Medium -Density Residential -t fin tn R,rnitc/acre) to CIT.
Commercial/Industrial, is located approximately one half mile south of SR 60 and approximately
one eighth of a mile west of I-95. This property will be referred to as Subject Property 2. Although
not to be formally considered at this time, the request involves rezoning Subject Property 2 from
RM -6. Multiple -Family Residential District (up to 6 units/acre) to the CG, General Commercial,
District.
The purpose of this request is to reconfigure the shape of the existing commercial area boundaries
to accommodate an expansion of the outlet center. The request is needed to secure the necessary
land use designation and zoning district to develop Subject Property 2 with commercial uses. In
addition to the existing 333,000 square foot outlet center, HGI proposes to construct a commercial
complex containing 305,000 square feet of retail, 15,000 square feet of restaurant, 12 movie screens,
280 hotel rooms, a 9 hole golf course and other improvements. A portion of that expansion is
proposed to occur on Subject Property 2. The entire project (existing and expansion) is being
reviewed as a Development of Regional Impact (DRI). The proposed DRI will be reviewed by the
Planning and Zoning Commission and the Board of County Commissioners before a final action is
taken on the plan amendment/rezoning request. The boundaries of the DRI area, depicted on
attachment 5, extend east to I-95 and south more than one quarter of a mile from Subject Property
2.
JANUARY 27, 1998
0 -16- 9
On January 8, 1998, the Planning and Zoning Commission voted 6 to 0 to recommend that the
Board of County Commissioners transmit the proposed land use amendment to the State Department
of Community Affairs (DCA) for their review.
Although the number of plan amendments that a local government may consider is not limited, the
frequency with which local governments can amend their comprehensive plan is regulated by state
law. According to Florida Statutes, plan amendments are limited to twice per calendar year. For that
reason, the county accepts general plan amendment applications only during the "window" months
of January and July. All requests submitted during each window month are processed
simultaneously. That method ensures that plan amendments will be adopted no more than twice a
year.
State law, however, provides several exceptions to the twice per year limitation. One of those
exceptions is for plan amendments, such as the subject plan amendment request, that are associated
with DRIB. For that reason, the subject request is exempt from the twice per year adoption limit, and
the county may accept the application at any time.
The procedures for reviewing Comprehensive Plan amendments associated with DRIs are the same
as those applied to non -DRI amendments. First, the Planning and Zoning Commission, as the Local
Planning Agency, conducts a public hearing to review the request. The Commission has the option
to recommend approval or denial of the Comprehensive Plan amendment request to the Board of
County Commissioners. Also, the Planning and Zoning Commission may recommend approval of
or deny the rezoning portion of the request. If the rezoning request is denied, only the land use
amendment request is forwarded to the Board, unless the denial to rezone is appealed.
Following Planning and Zoning Commission action, the Board of County Commissioners conducts
two public hearings. The first of those hearings is for a preliminary decision on the land use
amendment request. At that hearing, the Board determines whether or not the land use amendment
warrants transmittal to the State Department of Community Affairs (DCA) for further consideration.
A Board of County Commissioners decision not to transmit the land use amendment to DCA
constitutes denial of both the land use amendment and rezoning requests.
IT the land use amendment is transmittea. DCA conducts a review which includes soliciting
comments from the Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council (TCRPC), several state agencies, and
neighboring local governments. After its review. DCA compiles its comments, if it has any, in an
Objections, Recommendations, and Comments (ORC) Report, and transmits that report to the
county. After addressing any issues that were raised in the ORC Report, the second and final Board
of County Commissioner, public hearing is conducted. The Board takes final action to approve or
deny the land use amendment and rezoning requests at that time.
The DRI review is conducted by the TCRPC in conjunction with local and state agencies. The focus
of this review is on the environmental, social, economic, and physical impact of the proposed
development on the local and regional area.
Following the TCRPC review and recommendation, the Planning and Zoning Commission will
review the application and make a recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners. In this
case, the Planning and Zoning Commission will probably review the DRI application in March,
1998. After Planning and Zoning Commission review, the Board of County Commissioners will
Consider the DRI proposal and corresponding draft Development Order (DO). The DO constitutes
an agreement between the county and the developer, and identifies the necessary improvements and
conditions which will govern the overall development. These improvements and conditions can
include factors such as type of buildings, general retail mix, buffers, parking, and off-site
improvements.
In this case, the Board will consider approving the proposed DO in a separate hearing to be held
immediately following the final adoption public hearing for the Comprehensive Plan amendment.
If the DO is approved, then the development will undergo the standard site plan review and approval
process.
JANUARY 27, 1998
-17- 600K 104 PAGE 42-17
Ir I
60UK 104 PAGE 218
- Subject Property 1
Subject Property 1 and adjacent properties to the north and west are zoned CG. Subject Property 1
consists of a 112.7 acre borrow pit, t7 acres of freshwater wetland, and t6.7 acres of undeveloped
pine flatwoods. The Horizon Outlet Mall borders the northern portion of Subject Property 1's
western boundary. Land along the southern portion of that boundary primarily consists of
undeveloped pine flatwoods. Subject Property 2, bordering Subject Property 1 on the south, is zoned
RM -6 and primarily consists of undeveloped scrubby flatwoods. I-95 borders Subject Property 1
on the east.
- Subject Property 2
Subject Property 2 and properties to the east and south are zoned RM -6 and consist primarily of
undeveloped scrubby flatwoods. North of Subject Property 2, land is zoned CG and primarily
consists of undeveloped pine flatwoods. A-1, Agricultural District (up to lunit/5 acres), zoned citrus
groves are located west of Subject Property 2. Forested freshwater wetlands are located between
those groves and the irregular western boundary in the southern portion of Subject Property 2. Those
forested wetlands are zoned RM -6.
-Subject Property 1
3uoject rropem i ana tangs to the north. east, ana west are aestgnatea G1. CommercraLlndustrial.
This designation permits various commercial and industrial zoning districts. Land to the south of
Subject Property 1 is designated M-1, Medium -Density Residential -1, on the county's future land
use map. The M-1 designation permits residential uses with densities up to 8 units/acre.
- Subject Property 2
Subject Property 2 and properties to the south, east, and west are designated M-1. Medium -Density
Residential -1, on the county's future land use map. Land to the north of Subject Property 2 is
designated CA, Commercial/Industrial, on the county's future land use map.
Environment
- Subject Property 1
The northern f7 acres of Subject Property 1 contain a freshwater wetland. The site also contains
f6.7 acres of pine flatwoods. Several listed plants and animals have been observed on site. The site
is not within a flood hazard area.
- Subject Property 2
Subject Property 2 primarily consists of scrubby flatwoods. Several listed plants and animals have
been observed on site. Portions of the site are within Flood Zone A, with a presently undetermined
minimum base flood elevation requirement. Tlus indicates that the property is within the 100 year
floodplain.
Utilities and Servicec
Water lines extend to within a quarter mile of both subject sites from the South County Reverse
Osmosis Plant, while wastewater lines extend to within a quarter mile of the sites from the West
Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant.
C. _ � � r • �_ � R. Y - q
SR 60 provides access to both sites. West of I-95, SR 60 is classified as a principal arterial roadway
on the future roadway thoroughfare plan map. This segment of SR 60 is a two-lane paved road with
approximately 200 feet of existing public road right-of-way. This segment of SR 60 is currently
programmed for expansion to four lanes by 1999.
JANUARY 27, 1998
-18-
F-1
LJ
ANS
In this section, an analysis of the reasonableness of the application will be presented. Following a
discussion of plan amendment review standards, this section will include the following:
• an analysis of the proposed amendment's impact on public facilities;
• an analysis of the proposed amendment's compatibility with the surrounding areas;
• an analysis of the proposed amendment's consistency with the comprehensive plan;and
• an analysis of the proposed amendment's potential impact on environmental quality.
Plan Amendment Review Standards
Unlike most land use designation amendment requests, this request does not involve an increase in
land use intensity. As proposed, the request involves a minor reconfiguration, rather than an
expansion, of the commercial/industrial node.
ror tnis reason. the suoiect request can oe cnaractenzea aurerentiv trom most pian amendments.
Typically, plan amendments involve increases in allowable density or intensity of development. As
such, the typical amendment would result in impacts to public facilities and changes to land use
patterns. Consequently, both the county comprehensive plan and state policy dictate that a high
standard of review is required for typical plan amendments. This standard of review requires
justification for the proposed change based upon adequate data and analysis.
The subject amendment, however, differs significantly from a typical plan amendment request.
Instead of proposing density or intensity increases, the subject amendment involves only a locational
shift in future land uses with an overall decrease in land use intensity.
Staffs position is that these different types of plan amendments warrant different standards of
review. Since the typical type of amendment can be justified only by challenging the Projections,
need assessments, and standards used to prepare the original plan, a high standard of review is
justified For amendments involving just shifts in land uses and no intensity/density increase, less
justification is necessary. This recognizes that no single land use plan map is correct and, that many
variations may conform to accepted land use principles and meet established plan policies.
In fact, the county is in the process of updating the comprehensive plan to specifically allow future
land use map amendments that do not increase the county's overall land use density or intensity.
That change was recommended in the county's adopted Evaluation and Appraisal Report (FAR),
which was found sufficient by DCA. EAR based amendments, including that recommendation, have
been transmitted to DCA for review. Based on DCA's review of the EAR, no objections to that
change are anticipated.
Both sites comprising this request are located within the County Urban Service Area, an area deemed
suited for urban scale development. The comprehensive plan establishes standards for:
Transportation, Potable Water, Wastewater, Solid Waste, Drainage, and Recreation (Future Land
Use Policy 3.1). The adequate provision of these services is necessary to ensure the continued
quality of life enjoyed by the community. To ensure that the minimum acceptable standards for
these services and facilities are maintained, the comprehensive plan requires that new development
be reviewed For land use designation amendment requests. this review is undertaken as part of the
conditional concurrency determination application process.
As per section 910.07(2) of the Concurrency Management Chapter of the County's Land
Development Regulations, projects which do not increase land use density or intensity are exempt
from concurrency requirements. For the subject request, the size of the C/I node will not change,
although the node's shape will be reconfigured. Additionally, 46.4 acres of M-1 designated land
with a development potential of 211 units (26.4 acres X 8 units/am = 211 units), will be eliminated,
while the same amount of C-1 designated land, with no development potential, will be added. That
"swap" will result in an overall decrease in land use intensity of 211 units. Therefore, this land use
amendment request is exempt from concurrency review because the requested land use designation
changes would not increase the potential land use intensity that the sites could accommodate.
It is important to note that approval of this request will not affect service levels for any public
facility. 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.
r�
L
JANUARY 27, 1998
-19- BOOK 104, PAGE:,
L
Ir
-I
600K IN PAGE 220
Granting the proposed request would result in development on the subject properties that is
compatible with surrounding areas. Typically, land use impacts are most significant where
reswenuai ueveiopment aouts commercial, inausmat aeveiopment. i nose Impacts can incivae noise.
lights, and aesthetic concerns. For the proposed amendment, such impacts could occur along the
south, east, and west boundaries of Subject Property 2. In such situations, county land development
regulations somewhat mitigate potential impacts through site design and by requiring
commercial/industrial development to provide vegetative buffers.
In this case, the legally binding DRI Development Order provides assurance that land to the south
and east, and the land along the south ±843 feet of the west boundary of Subject Property 2 will be
developed with conservation, recreation and/or open space uses. The remaining land west of Subject
Property 2 consists of a citrus grove. Although currently zoned A-1, that land is designated for
residential development. Therefore, granting the proposed amendment would result in ±485 feet
where commercial and residential land development would be most likely to impact each other. That
is a substantial decrease from the existing ±1,300 feet.
Several factors, however, work to mitigate the potential impacts of commercial development on land
to the west of Subject Property 2. In addition to required buffers and the provisions of the SR 60
Corridor Plan, the DRI Development Order requires that a parking area, rather than buildings, be
placed in that portion of Subject Property 2. Another mitigating factor is physical separation. In this
case, additional separation is provided by 60 feet of Indian River Farms Water Control District right-
of-way. That right-of-way is used for a drainage ditch Finally, at nearly 40 acres, the property west
of Subject Property 2 is large enough to provide additional buffers if desired.
For these reasons, staff feels that the proposed land use amendment would not increase potential
incompatibilities with surrounding areas.
_! •1t 4[!407},
Land use amendment and rezoning requests are reviewed for consistency with all policies of the
comprehensive plan. As per section 800.07(1) of the land development regulations, the
"comprehensive plan may only be amended in such a way as to preserve the internal consistency of
the plan pursuant to Section 163.3177(2)F.S." Amendments must also show consistency with the
overall designation of land uses as depicted on the Future Land Use Map, which includes
agricultural, residential, recreational, conservation, and commercial and industrial land uses and their
densities.
The goals, objectives and policies are the most important parts of the comprehensive plan. Policies
are statements in the plan which identify actions which the county will take in order to direct the
community's development. As courses of action committed to by the county, policies provide the
basis for all county land development related decisions—including plan amendment and rezoning
decisions. While all comprehensive plan objectives and policies are important, some have more
applicability than others in reviewing plan amendment and rezoning requests. Of particular
applicability for this request are the following policies.
- Future Land Use Element Policy 13.3
In evaluating a land use amendment request, the most important consideration is Future Land Use
Element Policy 13.3. This policy requires that one of three criteria be met in order to approve a land
use amendment request. These criteria are:
• a mistake in the approved plan;
• an oversight in the approved plan; or
49 a substantial change in circumstances affecting the subject property.
Future Land Use Element Policy 13.3 is especially important when evaluating land use amendment
requests to increase density or intensity. Compared to such requests, amendments that do not
increase density or intensity warrant a lower level of scrutinv.
In fact, the county's Evaluation and Appraisal Report (EAR) of the comprehensive plan recommends
adding a fourth criteria to Future Land Use Element Policy 13.3. That criteria would specifically
allow future land use map amendments that do not increase the county's overall land use density or
intensity. The EAR has been adopted by the Board of County Commissioners and found sufficient
JANUARY 27, 1998
-20-
0 0
by DCA. EAR based amendments, including the revised Future Land Use Element Policy 13.3,
have been transmitted to DCA for review. Based on DCA's review of the EAR, no objections to the
revised Future Land Use Element Policy 13.3 are anticipated In this case, the subject request is for
a minor node reconfiguration and a decrease in land use intensity.
With respect to Policy 13.3, staff feels that the proposed land use amendment meets the policy's third
criterion. For typical amendment requests, substantial evidence justifying a change in circumstances
would need to be documented Because the subject amendment involves only a re -orientation of
future land uses, as well as a decrease in land use intensity, a physical change in circumstances need
not be documented In this case, the change in circumstances relates to overall land use efficiency.
The proposed amendment would allow commercial development, consistent with market demand,
while simultaneously increasing publicly controlled conservation areas and environmentally
important wetland habitat. That environmentally important wetland habitat (Subject Propertyl) is
currently designated C/I. Because that habitat is more appropriately designated C-1, and does not
require a C/I land use designation, and because there is a demand for the C/I designation on Subject
Property 2, the proposed node reconfiguration would increase overall land use efficiency. By
facilitating the creation and public control of the wetlands without a large expenditure of public
resources. the proposed amendment is the most efficient manner in which to protect and preserve
that land
Staffs position is that the opportunity to increase publicly controlled conservation areas and to
increase environmentally important wetland habitat constitutes a change in circumstances affecting
the subject properties. Therefore, the proposed amendment meets the third criterion of Future Land
Use Element Policy 13.3 and is consistent with Future Land Use Element Policy 13.3.
- Future Land Use Element Policy 1.4
Future Land Use Element Policy 1.4 states that the conservation land use designations are applied
to those areas which are vital or essential to the normal functions of ecosystems and have been
identified in the Conservation Element as meriting preservation. The wetlands that currently exist
and that will be created on Subject Property 1 meet that criteria. Because the proposed amendment
redesignates Subject Property 1 to Conservation, the amendment is consistent with Future Land Use
Element Policy 1.4.
- Future Land Use Element Policy 1.15
Future Land Use Element Policy 1.15 states that the commercial land use designation should be
within the urban service area and is intended for retail and wholesale trade, offices, business and
personal services, and similar uses.
Near the existing portion of the Horizon Outlet Center, adjacent to commercially designated and
zoned land, within the urban service area, with access to SR 60, and with urban services available,
Subject Property 2 is appropriate for commercial uses. The proposed amendment would allow
commercial development on Subject Property 2. Therefore, the proposed amendment is consistent
with Future Land Use Element Policy 1.15.
- Future Land Use Element Policy 1.20
Future Land Use Element Policv 1.20 states that nodes shall have a desienated size based on the
intended use and service area population, existing iand use pattern and other demand characteristics.
The amount of CA designated land is based on service area population, the existing land use pattern.
and other demand characteristics. The proposed amendment will not alter the amount of C/I
designated land. Therefore, the proposed amendment is consistent with Future Land Use Element
Policy 1.20.
JANUARY 27, 1998
0
-21- BOOK 10"! FAGE 4��
boa 104 PAGE X4'1
- Future Land Use Element Policy 1.21
Future Land Use Element Policy 1.21 states that node boundaries should provide for efficient land
uses and maximum use of transportation facilities while eliminating strip development. By adding
depth to the existing node, the proposed amendment works to limit strip commercial development
along SR 60. For these reasons, the proposed amendment is consistent with Future Land Use
Element Policy 1.21.
- Future Land Use Element Policy 1.23
Future Land Use Element Policy 1.23 states that 70% of the land area of a node should be developed
with non-residential and non-agricultural uses before that node is considered for expansion. The
intent of this policy is to regulate increases in the amount of C/I designated land. Since the proposed
amendment does not increase in the amount of C/I designated land in the subject node, Future Land
Use Element Policy 1.23's 70% developed standard does not apply to this amendment.
- Economic Development Element Policy 6.2
Economic Development Element Policy 6.2 states that the county shall evaluate the configuration
of nodes to ensure they can properly provide for growth. Since the proposed amendment
reconfigures the subject node to better provide for growth, the proposed amendment implements
Economic Development Element Policy 6.2.
- Conservation Element Objective 5
Conservation Element Objective 5 states that there will be no net loss of the natural functions
provided by wetlands or deepwater habitats in Indian River County. By redesignating Subject
Property 1 to C-1, the proposed amendment works to implement this objective by facilitating the
preservation of existing wetlands and the creation of new wetlands.
- Conservation Element Objective 7
Conservation Element Objective 7 stresses the need to work with state, regional and federal agencies
to protect listed species and important habitat. The redesignation of Subject Property 1 to C-
I combined with other provisions of the DO (native upland plant community preservation, listed
species surveys, wetland creation, etc.) work to protect both species and habitat. For that reason, the
proposed amendment implements Conservation Element Objective 7.
As part of the staff analysis, all policies in the comprehensive plan were considered. Based upon
this analysis, staff determined that the proposed land use designation amendment is consistent with
the comprehensive plan.
The development of Subject Property 2 will cause a loss of environmentally important wetlands.
To mitigate that loss, the applicant has agreed to enlarge and conserve a nearby wetland (Subject
Property 1). Thus. the negative environmental impacts of development on Subiect Pronertv 2 are
balanced by enhancement and conservation of Subject Property 1. For that reason. the proposed
amendment would have no significant negative environmental impact.
The proposed amendment is consistent with the comprehensive plan, compatible with all
surrounding land uses, and will cause no adverse impacts on the environment or the provision of
public services. The proposed change increases land use efficiency and facilitates economic
development while mitigating environmental impacts through habitat enhancement and conservation.
For these reasons, staff supports the request.
Based on the analysis, staff and the Planning and Zoning Commission recommend that the Board
of County Commissioners transmit this request to DCA.
JANUARY 27, 1998
• -22- •
s
S 0 KqAR
«SwN _ u III
ti ,1
vv R RS 6T o CG
1 xl
CH
1 � I
SR.60
It to
7O TRII ; I I
r TR 9 � 1
v r 1
} COMbI PARK I I
g I I
� I
II
HORIZON OUTLET MALL...,..<'
F.' 814 17815 >`.': %':':';i%; -L - of TREE
•o • CG
I
•,:• STR! l ARK C/•I�
•r' o/. SUBJECT`:;::<:;.
• .y PROPERTY`<::: + IL 9
#1.'
♦ •�•of ' • ' , Y I V 0
TR 3 — — — 11 TF
—c —
�` ``ate. � • � � ST
SUBJECT �o
PROPERTY I
A-1 #21
J
I1 1 I I
_Z —TR6 --I TR 7
8 fl I
I I RM -6 ;II
N • 1
!s I RMH-8 II
m I
I d>rSt1
S rl rl
' N -
Fi I
II I
7TR I I — — �' — — — — — — — —� — — — — -- ! L —
F Rio y - �.0 1.: r
� I ,
4. 311
_ .••° � I � I I �.- .-��,•_ .III
ZONING
ATl'ACtMM 4
JANUARY 27, 1998
-23- BOOK 104 PAGE21"j
Fr- 'I
BOOK 104 PAGE 224
Community Development Director Robert Keating reviewed the Comprehensive Plan
amendment process, advising that this is the first public hearing before the Board of County
Commissioners on this land use amendment request. If the Board approves the transmittal
of this application to the Department of Community Affairs (DCA) in Tallahassee for their
60 -day review, a second and final public hearing will be scheduled to consider any
comments made by the DCA and whether to adopt an ordinance amending the Comp Plan
by redesignating the land use. If the Board denies the transmittal of an application to the
DCA, the application process will come to an end.
Director Keating continued that this application is different because it is exempt from
the twice -a -year amendment limitation because it is associated with a Development of
Regional Impact (DRI) application. It is being submitted at this time so that the amendment
can be considered along with the DRI at a public hearing set for May 26, 1998.
Director Keating then displayed the Land Use drawing on the ELMO and advised that
Subject Property #1, which is north of the dark line is commercial -industrial and Subject
Property #2 to the south is zoned M-1, which is residential, limited to 8 units per acre. The
application is to change Property # 1 to a Conservation zoning which has zero density and to
change Property #2 to C/I. This change does not create any more commercial land and is a
significant reduction in overall intensity. The Planning & Zoning Commission voted 6-0 to
recommend approval. The Regional Planning Council has now finished its review of the
DRI and the County has set the public hearing date for the DRI application. Staff
recommends approval.
Commissioner Eggert questioned whether Property #2 was involved in the problem
of access to and from I-95, and Director Keating responded those properties were further to
the south.
Commissioner Ginn commented that this change converts residentially zoned property
to commercially zoned property.
Commissioner Adams questioned how much total acreage is zoned commercial on the
west side of I-95, and Director Keating advised it is a little more than a section, 640 acres.
The Chairman opened the public hearing and asked if anyone wished to be heard
regarding this matter. There being none, the Chairman closed the public hearing.
JANUARY 27, 1998
-24-
i •
•
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert,
SECONDED by Commissioner Adams, the Board,
by a 4-1 vote (Commissioner Ginn opposed)
approved Resolution 98-015 approving the
transmittal of a proposed Amendment to the Indian
River County Comprehensive Plan to the State of
Florida, Department of Community Affairs, for its
review.
RESOLUTION NO. 98-15
A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMNIISSIONERS OF INDIAN
RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, APPROVING THE TRANSMITTAL, OF A PROPOSED
AMENDMENT TO THE INDIAN RIVER COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TO THE
STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS FOR ITS REVIEW.
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners adopted the Indian River County
Comprehensive Plan on February 13, 1990, and
WHEREAS, the county received a comprehensive plan amendment application that is
directly related to a proposed Development of Regional Impact, and
WHEREAS, pursuant to section 163.3187 F.S., comprehensive plan amendment applications
that are directly related to proposed Developments of Regional Impact are exempt from the twice
per year amendment submittal window requirements, and
WHEREAS, the Local Planning Agency held a public hearing on this comprehensive plan
amendment request on January 8, 1998 after due public notice, and
WHEREAS, the Local Planning Agency voted 6 to 0 to recommend that the Board of County
Commissioners transmit the comprehensive plan amendment listed below, and
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County held a Transmittal
Public Hearing on January 27, 1998, after advertising pursuant to F.S. 163.3184(15)(b)(1), and
WHEREAS, The Board of County Commissioners announced at the transmittal public
hearing its intention to hold and advertise a final public hearing at the adoption stage of the plan
amendment process.
0
JANUARY 27, 1998
-25- SOUK 104 FAGS 2-'0"-5
L
,.q� �y v L� d
WK A U r�Iui�,�u
RESOLUTION NO. 98- 15
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA THAT:
1. The above recitals are ratified in their entirety.
2. The following proposed amendment is approved for transmittal to the State of
Florida Department of Community Affairs:
Request to amend the Future Land Use Map of the Comprehensive Plan from M-1,
Medium -Density Residential-1(up to 8 units/am) to C/I, Commercial/Industrial for
±26.4 acres located approximately one half mile south of SR 60 and approximately
one eighth mile west of I-95; and to amend the Future Land Use Map of the
Comprehensive Plan from C/I, Commercial/Industrial to C-1, Publicly Owned or
Controlled Conservation-1(zero density) for ±26.4 acres located between I-95 and
the Horizon Outlet Center.
The forgoing Resolution was offered by Commissioner Eggert and seconded by
Commissioner Adams and upon being put to a vote the vote was as follows:
Chairman John W. Tippin 40
Vice -Chairman Kenneth R. Macht _Aye
Commissioner Fran B. Adams Aye
Commissioner Caroline D. Ginn Nay
Commissioner Carolyn K. Eggert Ave
The Chairman thereupon declared the resolution duly passed and adopted at a public hearing
held this 271 day of January 1998.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
A
JANUARY 27, 1998
-26-
, Ac!c.
11
C�
11.B.1. 9-1-1 COMMUNICATIONS CENTER - RENEWAL OF
MGE UPS SYSTEMS ANNUAL MAINTENANCE
AGREEMENT
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of January 9, 1998:
TO: Board of County Commissioners
FROM: Doug Wright, Director `
Deparanent of Emergency Services
THROUGH: Jim Chandler, County Administrator
DATE: January 9, 1998
SUBJECT: Renewal of 9-1-1 Communications Center Annual UPS Maintenance Agreement
with MGE UPS Systems
It is respectfully requested that the information contained herein be given formal consideration
by the Board of County Commissioners at the next scheduled meeting.
The maintenance agreement for the UPS system at the 9-1-1 Communications Center has been
in effect with the referenced company since 1990 and is renewed on an annual basis. The
agreement is necessary to provide annual maintenance of the batteries and other components of
the UPS system to preclude a failure of the 9-1-1 equipment at the Communications Center. The
current maintenance agreement expires on February 26, 1998.
MGE UPS Systems is the sole manufacturer of the UPS equipment used at the 9-1-1
Communications Center and since the technology is proprietary, maintenance must be performed
by MGE Field Engineers.
The agreement will cost $7,846 an increase of $346 over the prior year and will provide the
same level of service as last year.
RECOIVIlVUMATION:
Staff recommends the Board authorize renewal of the UPS maintenance agreement with MGE
UPS Systems in the amount of $7,846, to be paid from funds allocated for this purpose in the
current fiscal year 9-1-1 surcharge (133) budget.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert,
SECONDED by Commissioner Macht, the Board
unanimously approved renewal of the UPS
maintenance agreement with MGE UPS Systems in
the amount of $7,846, to be paid from funds
allocated for this purpose in the current fiscal year 9-
1-1 surcharge (133) budget, as recommended by
staff.
AGREEMENT IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE
OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD
JANUARY 27, 1998
-27- boa 104 PAGE 4
600K 104 mn'228
11.B.2. BIOMEDICAL TECHNICAL SERVICES AGREEMENT -
PHYSIO -CONTROL
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of January 12, 1998:
TO: Honorable Board of County Commissioners
THROUGH: Jim Chandler, County �Ad�m� Administrator
FROM: Doug Wright, Director �""
Department of Emergency Services
DATE: January 12, 1998
SUBJECT: Approval of Biomedical Technical Services
Agreement with Physio -Control
It is respectfully requested that the information contained herein be given formal consideration
by the Board of County Commissioners at the next scheduled meeting.
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
In March of 1997, the Board of County Commissioners authorized a Biomedical Equipment
Services Agreement with Physio -Control to repair and maintain the Lifepak equipment on board
the emergency transport advanced life support ambulances. The contract will expire on
February 28, 1998, and Staff requests the Board to authorize renewal of the agreement.
The county has held previous service contracts with Physio -Control for maintenance and repairs
since inception of the Advanced Life Support program. The contract cost for one year of service
is $10,524. and will cover the maintenance and repair of five Lifepak 10's and seven Lifepak
11's, including the battery support systems with replacement batteries and internal pacemakers.
Funds have been budgeted for FY 97-98 to fund the technical services agreement with Physio -
Control.
ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS
Physio -Control is the manufacturer of the Lifepak series of cardiac monitors and defibrillators.
The sales and service force from Physio -Control are direct manufacturer representatives.
Physio -Control Technical Services is the only company -authorized repair function in the State
of Florida and is the single or sole source for parts, repairs and/or maintenance on this
equipment.
This critical patient care equipment is very technical in nature and the Department of Emergency
Services, Division of Emergency Medical Services; must ensure that the equipment is properly
maintained and serviced by factory trained personnel to reduce liability risk. Any malfunction
of the Lifepak equipment during life saving operations would jeopardize the assets of the County
if litigation should occur. Major repairs to only one of the Lifepak units could exceed the cost
of the proposed agreement.
RECONE%IENDATION
Staff recommends approval of the Biomedical Technical Services Agreement with Physio -Control
in the amount of $10,524. Staff also requests the Board authorize the Chairman to execute the
agreement on the basis of a single/sole source vender.
JANUARY 27, 1998
0
-28- .
C�
•
MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Eggert,
SECONDED by Commissioner Ginn, that the Board
approve the Biomedical Technical Services
Agreement with Physio -Control in the amount of
$10,524 and authorize the Chairman to execute the
agreement on the basis of a single -sole source
vendor, as recommended by staff.
Commissioner Adams expressed her concern that the maintenance agreement only
covers Monday through Friday from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. and wondered what happens
after-hours and on the weekends.
Director Wright advised that backups are available and this contract costs much less
than the top maintenance contract; however, his Department has done fine with it for several
years.
Commissioner Adams then questioned whether the batteries are fairly expensive, and
Director Wright stated they are $110 each, but are supplied free with the contract.
The Chairman CALLED THE QUESTION and the
Motion passed unanimously.
AGREEMENT IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE
OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD
11.G.1. WABASSO CAUSEWAY PARK BEAUTIFICATION
PROJECT - RESOLUTION FOR FLORIDA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION GRANT
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of January 21, 1998:
JANUARY 27, 1998
-29- 6UOK .04 PAGE �,,"',
�,,
600K FAGE
TO: James Chandler
County Administrator
THROUGH: James W. Davis, P.E.
Public Works Director
Terry B. Thompson, P.E.
Capital Projects Manager
FROM: G. Sean McGuire, P.E.
Project Engineer
SUBJECT: Wabasso Causeway Park Beautification Project
Resolution for Florida Department of Transportation Grant
DATE: January 21, 1998
This project is being designed by Brad Smith Associates, who are
preparing an application for the Florida Department of
Transportation's Highway Beautification Grant. The application
requires a resolution from the governing authority.
The preliminary construction cost estimate is $275,892.00, of which
the Florida Department of Transportation may grant up to 50% in
matching funds. Even though this estimate is above the initial
cost envisioned for the project, it is advantageous to proceed
with the entire scope through design, and consider cutting back for
construction.
Staff recommends that the Board adopt the resolution and authorize
the Chairman to execute the resolution.
Funding will be from account #315-210-572-068.09.
Commissioner Ginn felt this is a very pricey project and wondered whether all this
is necessary.
Public Works Director Jim Davis advised he had met with the consultant, Brad Smith,
who has tried to design the project with native vegetation. He and Mr. Smith agree that an
application should be made for a fairly aggressive plan that could be scaled back later.
Commissioner Adams noted there is quite a bit of vehicular traffic at that park and a
lot of erosion. She felt the project will enhance the park and make it safer.
Director Davis emphasized that most of this project is landscaping.
Chairman Tippin agreed that it is a rather extensive project and realized that "native"
is the current buzz word. However, native or not, the landscaping will have to be maintained
forever so he felt the project needs serious review when the time comes.
Commissioner Macht wanted to know what will happen to the Australian pines.
Brad Smith, the consultant, stated he felt they should be left in place to enhance the
stabilization of the shoreline.
Commissioner Macht commented that these trees also fall over and wanted serious
consideration given to getting them out and replacing them with something that holds the soil
better.
JANUARY 27, 1998
0 -30-
•
Mr. Smith advised that shoreline stabilization will be addressed at a later time.
Commissioner Macht stated that he was glad to see the use of native plants.
Mr. Smith added that the original numbers are preliminary and they have added a 10%
contingency for unforeseen issues. He wondered whether that would affect the motion, and
Commissioners Ginn and Eggert agreed that the project should be scaled back.
Commissioner Adams questioned where the matching funds would come from, and
Director Davis advised that does not have to be designated at this time but it would come
either from park revenue, one -cent sales tax, or possibly DOT until such time as the bridge
work is completed.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert,
SECONDED by Commissioner Adams, the Board
unanimously approved Resolution 98-016 for
Highway Beautification Funding from the Florida
Department of Transportation.
RESOLUTION 9816
A RESOLUTION OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
FOR HIGHWAY BEAUTIFICATION FUNDING FROM THE
FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County is interested in
carrying out the following described project for the enjoyment of the citizenry of Indian River County,
and the State of Florida:
Project Title: Wabasso Causeway Beautification (SR 510 )
Total Estimated Cost: $275,892.00
Brief Description of Project: Landscape enhancements along the entire frontage of
Wabasso Causeway Park, consisting of vehicle access
control measures, entry features, groupings of palms,
Bahia sod, native wild flowers and irrigation for
establishment of the plantings.
WHEREAS, it is desirable that certain roadside areas within Florida Department of
Transportation right-of-ways must be maintained and should be attractively landscaped,
WHEREAS, Florida Department of Transportation financial assistance is required for the project
mentioned above,
NOW THEREFORE, be it resolved by the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River
County that the project described above be authorized,
AND, be it further resolved that said Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County
make application to the Florida Department of Transportation in the amount of 50% of the actual cost
of the project.
JANUARY 27, 1998
-31- 600K o4 PAGE ,
L
b00K ° ma
This is to certify that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of a resolution duly and legally
adopted bythe Commissioner Eggert and seconded by Commissioner Adams
Board of County Commissioners at a legal meeting held on this 27 day of
Jan�_ry 1998.
ATTEST:
Jeffery K Barton
/ Clerk of Court
BOARD OF COUNTY CONMSSIONERS
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
BY ,
J W. Tippet, C
11.G.2. KINGS HIGHWAY IMPROVEMENTS - KIMLEY-HORN
ASSOCIATES - AMENDMENT NO.7
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of January 20, 1998:
TO: James Chandler
County Administrator
THROUGH: James W. Davis, F.E.
Public Works Directo
FROM: Terry B. Thompson, P.Ee-K
Capital Projects Manager
SUBJECT: Amendment No. 7
Kings Highway Improvements
DATE: January 20, 1998
Construction of Kings Highway between 12=' Street and 26=` Street is
scheduled to commence in late February or early March. The
attached Amendment No. 7 provides for limited construction
observation assistance and shop drawing review from the Engineer,
Kimley-Horn Associates, Inc. during the year and a half (1;i)
'construction period.
Structural Observation Assistance includes the review of specific
shop drawings and visits at specific times during bridge
construction on a lump sum basis.
The Amendment also contains an hourly not -to -exceed structural
component for assisting the County when requested in the review of
shop drawings and field observation services that are beyond those
listed in the Amendment.
Roadway Observation Assistance includes attending weekly progress
meetings and performing a site visit with County staff on the same
day. The lump sum fee for Roadway Observation Assistance includes
project certification by the Engineer to the St. Johns River Water
Management District.
JANUARY 27, 1998
0
-32-
The compensation due the Engineer for Amendment No. 7 is as
fcilows:
Structural Observation Assistance $34,586.00
Roadway Observation Assistance $40,245.00
Hourly (Not -to -Exceed) Structural
On Call Assistance $ 51510.00
Subtotal $80,341.00
Expenses 7% $ 5.624.00
Total $85,965.00
Staff recommends approval of Amendment No. 7 in the amount of
$85,965.00. Funding is from Account 101-158-541-067.30.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert,
SECONDED by Commissioner Adams, the Board
unanimously approved Amendment No. 7 to the
Professional Engineering/Land Surveying Services
Agreement with Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.
in the amount of $85,965, as recommended by staff.
AMENDMENT IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE
OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD
11.H. NORTH COUNTY R.O. PLANT (HOBART PARK) -
WHARTON-SMITH, INC. - RETAINAGE REDUCTION
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of January 15, 1998 and a letter of January 8,
1998 from Camp Dresser & McKee, Inc.:
TO: JAMES E. CHANDLER
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
THRU: JAMES W. DAVIS, P.E. _
INTERIM DIRECTOR OF UTILITY SERVICES '.:�
FROM: WILLIAM F. IN, P.E.
CAPITAL P S ENGINEER JANUARY 15, 1998
SUBJECT: NORTH CO R.O. PLANT (HOBART PARR)
RETAINAGE REDUCTION
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY PROJECT NO. UW -94 -03 -WC
On October 1, 1996, the Hoard of County Commissioners approved a
contract with Wharton -Smith, Inc., for the above -referenced project.
(See attached agenda item and minutes.) The contractor in November
1997 requested a retainage reduction from in to 5w. While the
contract documents do not specifically allow for this, the Utilities
Department will allow this with concurrence from the engineer. As a
result of time delays on the part of the contractor, we have held the
request until this time.
JANUARY 27, 1998
—33— BOOK PAGE ;,c
Fr
600K 104 PAGE 234 1
The contractor is approximately 70 days behind schedule on this
project; however, the reduced retainage in the amount of $330,507.05
would be sufficient to cover any liquidated damage situation that
could arise. For additional details, please reference the attached
letter dated January 8, 1998 from Camp Dresser and McKee Inc.
The staff of the Department of Utility Services recommends approval of
a retainage reduction on this project to $330,507.05.
CDM Camp Dresser & McKee Inc.
1701 State Road A -1-A, Suite 204
Vero Beach, Florida 32963
Tel: 561 231.4301 Fax: 561231-4332
January 8, 1998
Mr. William F McCain, P.E.
Capital Projects Engineer
Indian River County
1840 25th St.
Vero Beach, Florida 32960
JAN 0 9 1998
IBY:
Subject: Indian River County
Hobart Park RO Plant
CDM Project No. 6706-13876-050
Proposed Reduction of Retainage
Dear Mr. McCain:
The Contractor for the above referenced project, Wharton -Smith, Inc. (WS) has requested
a reduction of partial payment application retainage. The Contract states, on in paragraph
5.1.2 of Section 00500, the Agreement, that the Contractor will receive ninety (90)
percent of the amount completed (10 percent withheld for retainage). WS has requested
that retainage be capped at ninety (90) percent on fifty (50) percent of the total
construction Contract cost. The amount of retainage would be $330,507.05 until the end
of the project, unless further reduction in retainage is approved at a later date.
The only reservation that CDM would have about this request is that WS's latest project
schedule -report indicates that the project is 77 dates late. Potential liquidated damages
could be as much as $77,000 if there are no further delays, and possibly less, if there are
any time extensions are granted by the County.
CDM believes that the proposed reduced retainage is more than sufficient to protect the
County's interests, and therefore recommend the County's approval.
Pay request No. 14 was submitted by WS with the reduced retainage included. They have
been informed that the pay request cannot be processed as submitted, since the proposed
retainage reduction needs to be approved by the County Commission. WS declined to
resubmit the pay request without the retainage reduction, preferring to wait for the results
of the Board action. Therefore, CDM will "hold" pay request until the issue is resolved,
without concern for the time restrictions in the Contract for processing partial pay
requests.
If you have any questions or comments, please contact me.
Very truly yours,
CMP ADRESSER & McKEE
La�__
JANUARY 27, 1998
0 -34-
Director Davis advised the project is nearing completion and we are holding a 10%
retainage. The contractor is requesting a retainage reduction to 5% which would mean the
County would still retain about $330,000, sufficient to complete the project.
MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Eggert,
SECONDED by Commissioner Macht, that the
Board approve a retainage reduction on this project
with Wharton -Smith, Inc. to $330,507.05, as
recommended by staff.
Commissioner Adams questioned how close to finished the project was, and
Director Davis advised that the contractor is about 70 days behind schedule.
Capital Projects Engineer Bill McCain stated that the project is 85% to 90% complete
and the County is holding $1,000,000, plus the retainage of over $600,000.
Commissioner Adams felt certain that the contractor would be more inclined to finish
the project if the County is still holding large amounts of retainage.
THE CHAHMIAN CALLED THE QUESTION and
the Motion passed by a 3-2 vote (Commissioners
Adams and Ginn opposed).
13A ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL -
APPOINTMENT OF BOB TENBUS
Commissioner Eggert noted that a vacancy had been advertised on the Economic
Development Council and just prior to the meeting she had received a call from Bob Tenbus
submitting his application. She believed Mr. Tenbus would be a plus to this committee.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Adams,
SECONDED by Commissioner Ginn, the Board
unanimously approved the appointment of Bob
Tenbus to the Economic Development Council.
JANUARY 27, 1998
-35- b03 pn"14P
BOOK —10 Irf,L23
13.E. CHILDREN'S SERVICES NETWORK GUIDE -
DISCUSSION ON STANDARDIZED OUTCOMES
GUIDED BY YEAR 2000 NATIONAL OBJECTIVES
The Board reviewed several articles:
Backup for item 13E
County Commission Meeting
Tuesday, January 27, 1998
The definition of Standardized Outcomes as found In the Children's Services Network Guide,
is, "A goal or benchmark used to evaluate the effectiveness of a program. These outcomes
should be guided by the Year 2000 National Objectives." (Chapter 1, Definition "Y")
Year 2000 National Objectives were established by the U.S. Department of Health and
Human Services/Public Health Service. The PHS Office of Disease Prevention and Health
Promotion (ODPHP), a program office within the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Health,
oversaw development of the objectives. The Year 2000 objectives were built upon the 1990
objectives effort which contained 15 priority areas. Year 2000 objectives were expanded
to cover 22 priority areas.
Of concern Is the fact that a small group of bureaucrats in Washington D.C. have determined
what should be the Standardized Outcomes for Indian River County.
For example, under priority area "Family Planning," objectives 5.5 and 5.6 are in conflict
with local School District policy.
5.5 - Several years ago Healthy Start was denied access to school classrooms to do a
survey similar in content.
5.6 - School District policy (copy attached) Is abstinence. Current studies by respected
researchers, published in peer review journals, undergirds and supports their policy.
The Board of County Commissioners should fully support the local School District policy of
abstinence as the only constructive rationale for healthy behavioral choices for Indian River
County youths based on a plethora of evidence published in the most respected medical
journals.
Family Healthy People
Planning 5.1: Reduce pregnancies among girls aged 17 and younger to no more
than 50 per 1.000. '
Contributor. S. Jean Emans. MD 5.4, 18.3, 19.9: Reduce the proportion of adolescents who have
engaged in sexual intercourse to no more than 15% by age 15 and no
more than 40% by age 17.
5.5: Increase to at least 40% the proportion of ever sexually active
adolescents aged 17 and younger who have abstained from sexual activity
•,for the previous 3 months.
5.6: Increase to at least 90% the proportion of sexually active, unmarried
people aged 19 and younger who use contraception. especially combined -
method contraception that both effectively prevents pregnancy and
provides barrier protection against disease.
5.8: Increase to at least 85% the proportion of people aged 10 to 18 who
have discussed human sexuaiitylincludin— g value surrounding sexuality,
with their parents and/or have received information through another
parentally endorsed source, such as youth, school. or religious programs.
5.10, .14.12: Increase to at least 60% the proportion of primary care
providers who provide age-appropriate preconception care and counseling.
Source: American Medical Association. (1990). Healthy Youth 2000. Chicago. IL: American
Medical Association.
JANUARY 27, 1998
-36-
•
Public Health Service Information
Midcourse Revisions
Objective 5.1: This objective has been revised to focus on females aged 15
to 17 because the consequences and implications of pregnancy are most
severe for adolescents. The number of pregnancies in adolescents under
age 15 is small, making it difficult to measure trends. Adolescents over
age 17 are considered legally to be adults. The consequences of unin-
tended pregnancy among females aged 15 to 17 and the implications for
their children's lives are long-lasting.
Objective 5.4: Special population targets were added to this objective.
African-American males aged 15 and 17 and African-American females
aged 17 were established as special population targets to reduce the
proportion of adolescents who have engaged in sexual intercourse.
Objective 5.6: Age groups have been modified to measure the proportion
of sexually active, unmarried people aged 15 to 24 measured in two
subgroups: 15 to 19 and 20 to 24, rather than just adolescents aged 19 or
younger.
within the Family Planning priority area, a number of targets are identi-
fied and adolescents are an important focus. The adolescent target features
the reduction of the incidence of adolescent pregnancy, an increase in the
OVERVIEW
INEIMN RIVER COUNTY
HUMAN SEXUALITY EDUCATION CURRICULUM
PIIILOSOP W
In June, 1990, Florida joined those states that require sex education in public
schools. The legislature passed HH 1739 requiring comprehensive health
education that includes instruction in human sexuality and pregnancy
prevention, advocating abstinence as "the expected standard for all school age
children" and providing exemption from instruction upon parental request.
In the late 1980's a committee was formed in Indian River County representing
the school district and members of the community at large, to develop a
philosophy regarding the instruction of Human Sexuality Education, (HSE) in
Indian River County Schools. This philosophy mirrors that recommended by
the State of Florida and the Department of Education: abstinence from sexual
activity outside of marriage is the expected standard for all children and the only
certain way to avoid pregnancy, sexual transmission of AIDS and other sexually
transmitted diseases.
In Indian River County the instruction of HSE takes into account the whole
person with the focus being the healthy social, emotional and physical
development of each child and the inherent sense of his/her worth as an
individual. This instruction, beginning in the primary grades, is intended to
reduce destructive behaviors in children, including: early sexual involvement.
substance abuse, suicide, activities which result in sexually transmitted
diseases, including AIDS and teen pregnancy.
The focus on learning to make healthy choices in life and realizing one's worth
go hand in hand with enabling children to avoid involvement in the high risk
behaviors mentioned above.
SUMAN SEXUALITY EDUCATION
TffitOUGIR CONWREIMNSIIVE IMALTH EDUCATION
GRADES H - 8
Undergirding all HSE education in Indian River County is the belief that
parents are the primary educators of their children and that instruction shall
provide developmentally appropriate information at all levels.
JANUARY 27, 1998
•
-37- boa 1-04 PAGE 2'37
Fr I
60JK M4 PAGE228
In the elementary grades. HSE instruction is focused on the exploration of the
roles and interactions of individuals within the family cycle, the responsibilities
and privileges experienced by each member. the role gender plays in one's life,
what it means to be a friend, and an individual's place in society as a whole.
In grade four, the issue of AIDS is addressed in the curriculum as an extension
of the discussion regarding the immune system. The instructional focus is on
eliminating many of the myths regarding both how AIDS is transmitted and the
perceived risk of being around someone with AIDS, with the goal of reducing
fear in children regarding the likelihood of them contracting the virus.
The fifth grade health curriculum "Preparing for Adolescence. A Problem
Solving, Self-esteem Approach" written by Michelle Willis. health teacher in
Indian River County, addresses the changes that occur during adolescence.
These changes that occur are described in terms of their physical. as well as
social and emotional characteristics.
GRADES 6 - 8
The middle grades are ones in which students undergo dramatic changes in all
areas of their lives. In health education the area of HSE attempts to help
students have a clearer understanding of the changes they are experiencing
physically, socially and emotionally. The function of the reproductive cycle is
explained, along with the issue of why individuals mature at different rates.
and the role of peer pressure in one's social development.
POSTPONING SERVAL I NVOLVEI1iZNT
In addition to the curriculum in use in grades 6 - 8, the school district. in
1992, implemented a program entitled "Postponing Sexual Involvement"
through the Teen Parent Program as a pregnancy prevention effort. This model
program is one of the few programs, nationwide, that research shows has an
impact on reducing teen pregnancy. The program targets students in sixth and
seventh grades using specially trained high school students to deliver a
message of abstinence and provide the younger students with the tools to help
them resist sexual involvement. The program is conducted weekly for four
consecutive weeks.
GRADES 9 - 12
While parents are regarded as the primary sexuality educators of their
children, and are responsible for the attitudes and values their children have
about sexuality issues, school based human sexuality education can play a
significant role in the student's ongoing sexual development by increasing his
or her knowledge and understanding of sexuality to promote positive, healthy
choices and outcomes.
Life Management skills, a course required for graduation, is usually taught in
the ninth grade. This comprehensive life skills course further addresses issues
of the reproductive cycle, sexually transmitted diseases, date rape, and making
responsible choices. As in previous courses, the nature of feelings in human
relationships is explored in an effort to encourage students' understanding
regarding the complexity of relationships.
In grades 10 - 12 Human Sexuality Education is addressed through a variety of
elective courses, many of which are offered through Health or Home Economics
classes. In these courses, as in the previous ones, the underlying philosophy is
abstinence based with attention given to the responsibilities and consequences
in sexual relationships, and the ways to avoid pregnancy and SIDS.
Throughout the HSE curriculum parents are sent letters explaining the
program and inviting them to meet with the teachers to preview the materials
that will be used, or to discuss questions or concerns they may have. If
parents do not want their child to participate in the program, the child is
excused and given an alternate assignment. For parents whose children
participate in the classes. communication between parent and child regarding
the course content is encouraged.
JANUARY 27, 1998
-38-
8A. Prese-loumab Saturday, Aprg 15, 1995
a M�� �-+ O��N • iM�
s The
Foto tats46Audit
Bureau
uta 16oMwAr t at IMstreet
Mag to Post OtRee OW 1288. Vero BOWN Florida 32861. Phew 662-2315
SEBASTIAN OFFICE
717 Cocudge Sweet, Same. PWM 3295L Phew 689.8618
Editorials
,IF. Sdmmm
J1SdMeuem11B98.1169; �"'""
JASdaasmJr. 11", aPahlllrr
DrrylKHft_ ==PAtahKWMdMrrI
18" Ratamn ear.
Tom.,
Tan (iwGor
tAWiaEM1dklo��NT"�", AdwYiryYrrgr
Badmn8 mon 0nWAdAd0W4Y9L
818912YP10l RATER
Far Comaniard Moms 0011M 689.7100
Noma mmy, Year s�uee
Mena DeirarY, 8 Yatlls ��
Mai-7pnpaa Yea s' Baa
Mal—Wad 8 Bun. Yar as
cmed2r-7 Paps, Yasr IU.e• Ddn►_.I
Cantlt—Wed. a Sm, Year AL Do 0_1115M
VETEBANS' MEMOBIAL: Vet-
erans soon can look to the north
and south to find memorials hon-
.: oring them in Indian River
County.
Fellamere is planning a 6 -foot -
high veterans' memorial in Lions
Park at North Broadway and
County Road 612.
The Fellsmere Lions Club has raised more than
Georgia for the Nang County s � honorMade of
Georgia gray grana
Fellsmare area veterans who served their country.
The monument will have four military emblems
chiseled on it.
"This is not a graveyard stone, but one with life in
it." said Fellamere Liana Club President Neil Wo -
cell.
That's fitting, for such a memorial should show
hove veterans have helped keep freedom alive.
The club hopes to draw a large crowd for the Me-
morial Day dedication 10 a.m. May 29.
BAT HOUSES, Some pe ale
may think it's a batty idea. b, St.
Lucie County extension r -nt
Sen Gloeli wants area resi is
to build bat houses.
pers." he said. A single bat can eat its own weight in
insects each night.
Residents should encourage bats to live in their
neighborhoods as a natural alternative to pest con-
trot Bat houses, like birdhouses. can be built in all
shapes and sizes.
The difference is that bat houses are upside down
boxes with an entrance at the bottom.
The bats fly into the boa and perch on the top. It's
better if the cardboard or wood is coarse so the bats
can cling to it.
There's no need to be afraid of a bat• Most bats
don't have rabies and Florida has no bloodsucking
bats. Gloeli said.
Go to bat and try building your own bat house.
PREACHING ABSTINENCE:
The Indian River County School.
Board took the right approach
:.:;. last month to solving the birth-
~ control issue in the district's
health plan.
The plan calls for abstinence to
be preached to students. Absti-
nence is the only 100 percent guarantee to prevent
AIDS and pregnancies.
Parents should have the primary responsibility
..uucaa c r cJ ..
ceived a bad rap. The r .oe l It's the School District's task to teach health. The
creatures ire iipawrc L iaC6aNua:Ja WWa1iC aW .ccu-ns caJ .� aa.ro �::.:.���•
JANUARY 27, 1998
-39-
•
50JA 1 04PAGE 4.�
Cr
141
L
i�
{i f �i 4s. .
BOOK 104 ME
More Deadly Than AIDS
Women's groups have complained. with some
cause, that the federal government shortchanges
research into breast cancer, osteoporosis and other
• female diseases. Strangely, however, little has been
said of the human papilloma virus. a sexually trans-
mitted disease that kills more U.S. women each
year than AIDS.
In 1891. the last year for which the Centers for Dis-
ease Control has compiled data. AIDS contracted
through sexual intercourse killed about 1,300 U.S.
women. By comparison. invasive cervical cancer
killed about 4,400 women. The cause of 85 percent of
these tumors is 1WV, which, unlike AIDS. is passed
on only through the sexual acL In 1882, the CDC
spent $478 million on preventing AIDS vs. $70 mil -
Ron for all other sexually transmitted diseases. in-
cluding HPV.
Of course. one big difference separates the vi-
ruses: AIDS Is universally fatal, while many women
live with HPV, essentially, genital warts. for dec-
ades with no discomfort. Yet doctors fret because
they are seeing more HPV, especially in younger
women. The Journal of the American Medical Asso-
ciation
ssnciation said amazingly that, of 467 University of
California -Berkeley coeds who underwent routine
gynecological exams. 46 percent carried the HPV
. virus.
To make matters worse, adolescent girls are
i doubly vulnerable because their immature cervical
tissue predisposes them to infection. Tissue weak-
:
ened by HPV also may be less resistant to the AIDS
The response of many government officials to sex-
ually transmitted diseases, such as HPV, is to pre-
ach the consistent use of condoms. But there is
ample reason to doubt the "safe sex" message. A
study by the Alan Guttmacher Institute found that
36 percent of women in their early 20s became preg-
nant atter relying on male condom use.
"If a condom can't even protect a woman from
pregnancy,"
tl
umnist Sarah Overstreet
"what kindgiving her against
death?"
At a time when the member of sexually active'
teenagers is up 63 percent from 20 years earlier,
condoms had better be almost failsafe, unless the
trend of promiscuity can be reversed. Otherwise, so-
ciety can prepare for escalating anxiety, wrecked
lives and early deaths
But here is the kicker: Against HPV, the sexually
transmitteddisease that kills the most women6 con-
doms are largely ineffective:^ • • : ,
"Condom use is of little or -no •value in protecting
patients from papilloma infection;' said two past
presidents of the American Society for Cervical Pa-
thology.
Women's health advocates should get that word
out, and the world's latex evangelists should deliver
a new sermon: on sexual abstinence.
�i2�10/6��NR&d7N&-
GF 14( 7 1 /en"J eSl7Z/ d a� �' ulNO Lll�!
J,tJ�= cac��c�L '-ft ,�1MSA16) CORR16-0
11nMOUR �V�� ZEZAL6 O fi � A!
61ALS /eEots,gMffS 71j4S-M
School -Bused Clinics:
No Reduction in Teen Pregnancies
School-based clinics do not reduce the teen pregnan-
cy rale, according to a solid body of research. In lie
laBi/fBli�'1991SIilsU8'blrtti[iiiilti rl iiii�nn �erspeciivei<,
published- by -Planned Pare hillood'e ieiaearch affilin1b,
the -Alan Uulimacher.Inailule, a study -of-six•SDG's
round Wal they have'ho effect on ihd ptegunfiWtift.
In one instance involving a SHC in Dallase pregnancies
were actually higher- at• the tlinit:'•schooi ihsn-st a
comparison school with no ciinici 'Similar conclusions
were reached in a 089 booklet by the Center for
Population Options, also an advocate of SUC's.
JANUARY 27, 1998
0
-40- •
0 0
Commissioner Ginn expressed her concerns that the Standards were developed in
Washington and they did not describe local community values and norms and were in
conflict with local school policy. She believed the Standards should be changed to delineate
local values and norms and reflect the uniqueness of our County.
Commissioner Macht questioned Assistant County Attorney Terry O'Brien as to the
required procedure for reviewing the Children's Services Network Guide, and Attorney
O'Brien advised that the Guide is to be reviewed annually.
Commissioner Ginn understood that it could be changed at any time, and
Commissioner Macht felt it should be revised through the Children's Services Network
Advisory Committee.
Commissioner Ginn expressed her willingness to appear before the Committee and
make her presentation.
Commissioner Eggert felt that nothing in the procedures says we can't have
abstinence as our number one choice but that if teens are sexually active, something should
be done for them. She did not see a conflict in saying the number one priority is abstinence.
After further discussion, CONSENSUS was reached that Commissioner Ginn would
make a presentation to the Children's Services Network Advisory Committee.
Chairman Tippin recognized Keith Miller from the audience.
Keith Miller of 169 River Avenue, Sebastian, asked whether he could make a
presentation to the Board regarding roads, traffic and accidents.
County Attorney Vitunac stated there would need to be a further motion if a public
discussion matter were to be added to the Agenda.
Commissioner Adams suggested that Mr. Millermeet first with Public Works Director
Jim Davis and herself.
Chairman Tippin encouraged Mr. Miller to take up the matter with Public Works and
noted that, if a public hearing became necessary, the Board would be glad to add the item
to a future Agenda.
CONSENSUS was reached that Mr. Miller would meet with Public Works Director
Jim Davis, and Chris Mora, P.E., County Traffic Engineer.
Commissioner Adams also expressed her willingness to meet with Mr. Miller.
JANUARY 27, 1998
-41- 600K 104 PnE 24
600K FAGS t.,; 42
14.A. EMERGENCY SERVICES DISTRICT
None.
14.B. SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL DISTRICT
The Chairman announced that immediately upon adjournment, the Board would
reconvene as the Board of Commissioners of the Solid Waste Disposal District. Those
Minutes are being prepared separately.
14.C. ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL BOARD
None.
There being no further business, on Motion duly made, seconded and carried, the
Board adjourned at 9:38 a.m.
ATTEST:
P-ld
so fl 1. eve1 :.1
Minutes Approved: 7� MS
JANUARY 27, 1998
0
-42- .