HomeMy WebLinkAbout3/10/19984
MINUTES ATTACHED
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
A G E N D A
TUESDAY, MARCH 10, 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
i7
9:00 a.m. 1. CALL TO ORDER BACKUP
2. INVOCATION None
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - Comm. Kenneth R. Macht
ADDITIONS to the AGENDA/EMERGENCY ITEMS
1. Add bean % Tax Collector Karl Zi nmmnunn's comments regarding his relocation plana.
PROCLAMATION and PRESENTATIONS
Presentation of Check to Indian River County -
Re: County Sweep Challenge
(no back-up provided)
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Regular Meeting of February 17, 1998
CONSENT AGENDA
A. Received & Placed on File in Office of Clerk
to the Board: 1) Ind. Riv. Co. Hosp. Dist.
Financial Statements, Sept. 30, 1997 and 1996;
2) Ind Riv. Farms Water Control Dist., Facilities
Report Update; 3) Delta Farms Water Control
District, Facilities Report Update; 4) Fellsmere
Water Control District, Facilities Report Update;
5) Seb. Riv. Water Cont. Dist., Facilities Report
Update; 6) Vero Lakes Water Control District,
Facilities Report Update.
PAGES
B. Approval of Warrants
(memorandum dated February 26, 1998) 1-10
C. Out of County Travel for Commissioners to
Attend Conference in Orlando on 4/3/98w 11
[100K 11-011,111.
1 G 1''o- Ru e
k
7. CONSENT AGENDA (cont'd BACKUP
PAGES
D. William H. Hensick & Sons, Inc.'s Request
for Major Site Plan Extension for a Multi -
Tenant Contractor Trades Building
(memorandum dated March 4, 1998) 12-16
E. Payments to Vendors of Court Related Costs
(memorandum dated March 3, 1998) 17
F. Deed in Escrow Carini Property Code Enforce-
ment Action
(memorandum dated February 25, 1998) 18-20
G. Budgeted Item
(memorandum dated February 25, 1998) 21
H. Budget Adjustment, Broward County Inmate
Revenue
(memorandum dated March 3, 1998) 22-23
8. CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS and
GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES
None
9:05 A.M. 9. PUBLIC ITEMS
A. PUBLIC HEARINGS
1. Thomas S. Hammond's Request to Amend
the Comprehensive Plan to Redesignate
+/- 18.7 Acres from M-2 to C/I; and to
Rezone those +/- 18.7 Acres from RS -6
to CG
(memorandum dated February 25, 1998) 24-64
2, Consideration of EAR (Evaluation and
Appraisal Report) Based Indian River
County Comprehensive Plan Amendments
(memorandum dated March 3, 1998) 65-321
B. PUBLIC DISCUSSION ITEMS
None
C. PUBLIC NOTICE ITEMS
None
10. COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S MATTERS
None
11. DEPARTMENTAL MATTERS
A. Community Development
Review and Consideration of Revised Indian
River County Local Housing Assistance Plan
(memorandum dated March 3, 1998) 322-330
B. Emergency Services
Approval of FY -97/98 State and Local Assistance
(SLA) Agreement and Purchase of Capital Equip.
(memorandum dated March 3, 1998) 331-340
BACKUP*
11. DEPARTMENTAL MATTERS (cont'd.):
PAGES
C. General Services
None
D. Leisure Services
None
E. Office of Management and Budget
None
F. Personnel
None
G. Public Works
1. Indian River County Stormwater Manage-
ment Improvements - RFP 8048
(memorandum dated March 3, 1998) 341-363
2. 66th Ave. Paving and Drainage Improve-
ments between SR60 and 12th St. - RFP
#8049 - Request for Engineering Services
(memorandum dated March 4, 1998) 364-374
3. Indian River County Firing Range -
Engineering Services Contract
(memorandum dated March 4,1998) 375-387
4. Revision to Cooperator Agreement Between
Indian River County and Fla. Game & Fresh
Water Fish Commission (FGFWFC) dated
January 11, 1994 Regarding Blue Cypress
Lake Park
(memorandum dated March 2, 1998) 388-390
H. Utilities
1. Sebastian Water Expansion - Phase I
Resolution IV - Final Assessment
(memorandum dated March 3, 1998) 391-411
2. So. Wimbrow Drive Water Main Conflict
with Sebastian Drainage Improvements
(memorandum dated March 2, 1998) 412-419
3. Disposal of Breezy Village Water Plant
Site (Breezy Village Home Sub Unit 1
Tracts A & C, PBI:9-34)
(memorandum dated February 24, 1998) 420-435
4. No. Beach Reverse Osmosis Plant, Finaliza-
tion Permitting, Issues for Facility Closeout
(memorandum dated February 27, 1998) 436-460
12. COUNTY ATTORNEY
Proposed Settlement of Title Insurance Claim Related to
Oslo Plaza Associates Traffic Impact Fee Credits and Murphy
Deed Road Reservations
(memorandum dated March 4, 1998) 461-469
G®UK PAC -L544,
13. COMMISSIONERS ITEMS BACKUP
A. Chairman John W. Tippin
PAGES
B. Vice Chairman Kenneth R. Macht
Report on NACO Conference
C. Commissioner Fran B. Adams
City of Sebastian Request to Become Permanent
Voting Member of Treasure Coast Regional Planning
Council from Indian River County
(letter dated February 18, 1998) 470
D. Commissioner Carolyn K. Eggert
E. Commissioner Caroline D. Ginn
14. SPECIAL DISTRICTS/BOARDS
A. Emergency Services District
None
B. Solid Waste Disposal District
None
C. Environmental Control Board
None
15. ADJOURNMENT
Anyone who may wish to appeal any decision which may be made at this meeting will need
to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made which includes the testimony and
evidence upon which the appeal will be based.
Anyone who needs a special accommodation for this meeting may contact the county's
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) coordinator at 567-8000 x408 at least 48 hours in advance
of meeting.
Meeting may be broadcast live on TCI Cable Channel 13 - rebroadcast various times
throughout the week
Falcon Cable Channel 35 - rebroadcast Friday evening.
INDEX TO MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING
OF BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
MARCH 10, 1998
1. CALL TO ORDER ............................................... 1-
2. INVOCATION ................................................. .1-
3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ....................................... 1-
4. ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA .................................. .1-
5. PROCLAMATIONS AND PRESENTATIONS ........................ .2 -
County Sweep Challenge - Presentation of Check to Indian River County
........................................................ 2-
6. APPROVAL OF MINUTES ....................................... .2-
7. CONSENT AGENDA ............................................ 2-
7.A. Reports .................................................. 3-
7.13. List of Warrants ........................................... .3-
7.C. Ethics Conference - Florida Institute of Government - Orlando, Florida -
April 3, 1998 - Travel for Commissioners ....................... .9-
7.D. William H. Hensick & Sons, Inc. - Request for Major Site Plan Extension
to May 27, 1999 - Multi -Tenant Contractor Trades Building ........ -10-
7.E. Payments to Vendors of Court Related Costs .................... .11-
7.F. Carini Property - Code Enforcement Action - Deed in Escrow ...... .12-
7.G. County Attorney's Office - FAX and Dedicated Phone Line - Budgeted
Item.................................................. .13 -
MARCH 10, 1998
E'OUK IN, F'AG'L 5 6
E OUK 1 0 !�i F'�,Gc 547
7.H. Sheriff - Budget Adjustment - Broward County Inmate Revenue - February,
1998 .................................................. .14-
8. COMMENTS BY TAX COLLECTOR KARL ZIM ERMANN REGARDING
HIS RELOCATION PLANS ..................................... .16-
9.A.1. PUBLIC HEARING - THOMAS S. HAMMOND - REQUEST TO AMEND
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TO REDESIGNATE t 18.7 ACRES FROM M-2 TO
C/I; AND TO REZONE THOSE f 18.7 ACRES FROM RS -6 TO CG
............................................................ .17-
9.A.2. PUBLIC HEARING - CONSIDERATION OF EVALUATION AND
APPRAISAL (EAR) REPORT -BASED INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENTS - THE HARBORTOWN CENTER
MALL - DEVELOPMENT OF REGIONAL IMPACT .................. .36-
I I.A. REVISED INDIAN RIVER COUNTY LOCAL HOUSING ASSISTANCE PLAN
- REVIEW AND CONSIDERATION .............................. .56-
11.B. FY 1997-98 STATE AND LOCAL ASSISTANCE (SLA) AGREEMENT AND
PURCHASE OF CAPITAL EQUIPMENT - FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF
COMMUNITY AFFAIRS (DCA), DIVISION OF EMERGENCY
MANAGEMENT GRANT ....................................... -62-
1 l.G.1. STORMWATER MANAGEMENT IMPROVEMENTS - RFP 8048 . -64-
1 l.G.2. 661H AVENUE PAVING AND DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS
BETWEEN SR -60 AND 121H STREET - RFP 8049 .............. .65-
1 l.G.3. INDIAN RIVER COUNTY FIRING RANGE - ENGINEERING
SERVICES CONTRACT - C. VARGAS & ASSOCIATES, LTD ..... .66 -
MARCH 10, 1998
l l.G.4. BLUE CYPRESS LAKE PARK - REVISION TO COOPERATOR
AGREEMENT OF JANUARY 11, 1994 - FLORIDA GAME & FRESH
WATER FISH COMMISSION (FGFWFC) ..................... .67-
1 l.H.1. SEBASTIAN WATER EXPANSION - PHASE I - RESOLUTION IV
CERTIFYING "AS -BUILT" COSTS - FINAL ASSESSMENT ...... .68-
1 l.H.2. SOUTH WIlVIBROW DRIVE WATER MAIN CONFLICT - SEBASTIAN
DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS - DRIVEWAYS, INC ............ .72-
1 l.H.3. BREEZY VILLAGE WATER PLANT SITE - DISPOSAL OF BREEZY
VILLAGE HOME SUBDIVISION UNIT 1 TRACTS A AND C .... -73-
11.H.4. NORTH BEACH REVERSE OSMOSIS PLANT - FINALIZATION
PERMITTING - ISSUES FOR FACILITY CLOSEOUT - DEPARTMENT
OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION (DEP) - CAMP DRESSER &
MCKEE............................................... .75-
12. OSLO PLAZA ASSOCIATES - TRAFFIC IMPACT FEE CREDITS AND
MURPHY DEED ROAD RESERVATIONS - SETTLEMENT OF ATTORNEYS'
TITLE INSURANCE FUND TITLE INSURANCE CLAIM ............. .78-
13.B. VICE CHAIRMAN MACHT - REPORT ON NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF
COUNTIES' LEGISLATIVE MEETING - WASHINGTON, D.C. ........ .80-
B.C. COMMISSIONER ADAMS - TREASURE COAST REGIONAL PLANNING
COUNCIL - CITY OF SEBASTIAN REQUEST TO BECOME A PERMANENT
VOTING MEMBER ........................................... .82 -
MARCH 10, 1998
rr�� F'AC� Std 548
-3- E00� .:..l.i�.�
LJ
March 10, 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, March 10, 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 " PT' Jones, Deputy Clerk.
1. CALL TO ORDER
Chairman Tippin called the meeting to order.
2. INVOCATION
Commissioner Ginn delivered the Invocation.
3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Vice Chairman Macht led the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag.
4. ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA
Chairman Tippin requested the addition of Item 8, comments by Tax Collector Karl
Zimmermann regarding his relocation plans.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert,
SECONDED by Commissioner Ginn, the Board
unanimously added the above items to the Agenda.
MARCH 10, 1998
—1— BOOK 104 PAcr-_ 54
BOOK 1UF�"' 3 7
5. PROCLAMATIONS AND PRESENTATIONS
COUNTYSWEEP CHALLENGE - PRESENTATION OF CHECK TO INDIANRIVER
COUNTY
Pat Harris, Executive President of Keep Indian River Beautiful, thanked the
Commissioners for their hard work during County Sweep and invited everyone to come by
the new reusable resource repository building at the old Vero Beach Public Works building.
Dennis Greene, President of Keep Indian River Beautiful, accepted the check from
Ms. Harris and commented that Keep Indian River Beautiful has come a long way, primarily
because of the community's involvement.
Peter Jurgel of Harris Sanitation also thanked the Board for their support and invited
everyone to the new recycling center. He noted that Treasure Coast Refuse and Harris
Sanitation will be contributing $600 to a favorite charity for the next challenge. He
requested that everyone please participate.
Richard Conte of Treasure Coast Refuse also thanked the Board for their support and
efforts.
6. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
The Chairman asked if there were any corrections or additions to the Minutes of the
Regular Meeting of February 17, 1998. There were none.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert,
SECONDED by Commissioner Ginn, the Board
unanimously approved the Minutes of the Regular
Meeting of February 17, 1998, as written.
7. CONSENT AGENDA
MARCH 10, 1998
•
7.A. REPORTS
Received and placed on file in the Office of the Clerk to the Board:
1. Indian River County Hospital District Financial Statements, September 30,
1997 and 1996
2. Indian River Farms Water Control District, Facilities Report Update
3. Delta Farms Water Control District, Facilities Report Update
4. Fellsmere Water Control District, Facilities Report Update
5. Sebastian River Water Control District, Facilities Report Update
6. Vero Lakes Water Control District, Facilities Report Update
7.B. LIST OF WARRANTS
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of February 26, 1998:
TO: HONORABLE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
DATE: FEBRUARY 26, 1998
SUBJECT: APPROVAL OF WARRANTS
FROM: EDWIN M. FRY, JR., FINANCE DIRECTOR
In compliance with Chapter 136.06, Florida Statutes, all warrants issued
by the Board of County Commissioners are to be recorded in the Board minutes.
Approval is requested for the attached list of warrants, issued by the Clerk
to the Board, for the time period of February 20 to February 26.1998.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert,
SECONDED by Commissioner Ginn, the Board
unanimously approved the list of Warrants as issued
by the Clerk to the Board for the period from
February 20, 1998 through February 26, 1998, as
recommended by staff.
MARCH 10, 1998
-3- 6 0 0 K Pf"CE
L
MARCH 10, 1998
0
BOOKFACE'
CHECK
NAME
CHECK
CHECK
NUMBER
DATE
AMOUNT
0019191
BLACK, TERESA
2/23/98
100.00
0019192
RAUTH, GENE
2/23/98
82.93
0019193
HEARD, BENNIE
2/23/98
200.00
0019194
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY BOARD OF
2/24/98
1,142.00
0019195
TEAMSTERS LOCAL UNION NO 769
2/25/98
3,689.76
0237383
UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA, THE
2/12/98
.00
0237854
ANDERSON, FRED
2/20/98
123.00
0237855
ATKINSON, RICHARD F
2/20/98
309.00
0237856
BECHT, TONYA AND CITY OF VERO
2/20/98
70.00
0237857
BROXTON, LYDIA
2/20/98
206.00
0237858
BOLDEN, MICHELLE AND
2/20/98
21.00
0237859
BEUTTELL, PETER M
2/20/98
272.00
0237860
SILKEN GROUP
2/20/98
671.00
0237861
BEANS, ROBERT
2/20/98
267.00
0237862
BELL PROPERTY MANAGEMENT
2/20/98
.00
0237862
BELL PROPERTY MANAGEMENT
2/20/98
.00
0237863
BOUYSSOU, STEPHANE H
2/20/98
319.00
0237864
BLAHNIK, CHRIS OR MILDRED
2/20/98
199.00
0237865
BROOKHAVEN, TOWN OF
2/20/98
558.61
0237866
BREVARD COUNTY HOUSING AUTHRTY
2/20/98
1,218.83
0237867
BROWN, HUBERT OR LOLA
2/20/98
355.00
0237868
BROOKS, HAROLD L JR
2/20/98
349.00
0237869
BEAUREGARD, KELLY AND CITY OF
2/20/98
59.00
0237870
BAYLESS, DENNIS
2/20/98
303.00
0237871
CARTWRIGHT, WILLIAM AND/
2/20/98
168.00
0237872
CORR, RHODA L
2/20/98
308.00
0237873
COLLINS, THOMAS H
2/20/98
603.00
0237874
COSCO, KEN
2/20/98
347.00
0237875
CARLTON, ALLAN R
2/20/98
256.00
0237876
C P E ASSOCIATES
2/20/98
1,461.00
0237877
CAPAK, GERALD T
2/20/98
335.00
0237878
CUMMINGS, JERRY
2/20/98
309.00
0237879
CALMES, JOHN W
2/20/98
392.00
0237880
CARLUCCI, LEONARD A
2/20/98
361.00
0237881
DAN PREUSS REALTY, INC
2/20/98
333.00
0237882
DOOLITTLE AND ASSOCIATES
2/20/98
1,641.00
0237883
D'HAESELEER, GAYLE OR RONALD
2/20/98
219.00
0237884
DEAN, JAMES
2/20/98
247.00
0237885
DENNISON, WANDA
2/20/98
831.00
0237886
DOVE, E WILSON
2/20/98
299.00
0237887
DOYLE, DON
2/20/98
307.00
0237888
EDGEWOOD PLACE (305-113)
2/20/98
215.00
0237889
FOGERTY, GEORGE A
2/20/98
323.00
0237890
FRESH, DANIEL J
2/20/98
195.00
0237891
FT PIERCE, CITY OF
2/20/98
1,891.44
0237892
FOGARTY INTERPRISES, INC
2/20/98
380.00
0237893
GILLESPIE, JOHN AND/OR GWEN
2/20/98
418.00
0237894
GASKILL, ROBERT
2/20/98
343.00
0237895
GRIMM, FLOYD OR HELEN
2/20/98
151.00
0237896
GIFFORD GROVES, LTD
2/20/98
9,136.00
0237897
GEORGE, MARY KIM
2/20/98
575.00
0237898
GATCHELL, JOSEPHINE AND CITY
2/20/98
78.00
0237899
GRACE'S LANDING LTD
2/20/98
502.00
0237900
HICKMAN, CARLA & F P & L
2/20/98
43.00
0237901
HILL, C J
2/20/98
927.00
0237902
HAWKINS, WANDA
2/20/98
327.00
0237903
RERAN, SHAUNA
2/20/98
309.00
0237904
HUNT, MARY
2/20/98
35.00
0237905
INDIAN RIVER INVESTMENT
2/20/98
556.00
0237906
IMBRIANI, VINCENT
2/20/98
396.00
0237907
JAMES A DOOLITTLE & ASSOCIATES
2/20/98
9,169.00
0237908
JENSEN, PETER C
2/20/98
528.00
0237909
JONES, MARCUS
2/20/98
181.00
0237910
JONES, DOROTHY
2/20/98
10.00
0237911
JENNINGS, LESSIE
2/20/98
413.00
0237912
JULIN, PAUL
2/20/98
220.00
0237913
JONES, WILLIAM C
2/20/98
337.00
0237914
JONES, ALPHONSO
2/20/98
222.00
0237915
KAHLE, ESTHER
2/20/98
258.00
0237916
KOLB, GREGORY L
2/20/98
433.00
0237917
LAWRENCE, TERRY A
2/20/98
200.00
0237918
T-LEREN , E D
2/20/98
582.00
0237919
LOFTON, BERTHA
2/20/98
272.00
0237920
LANGLEY, PHILIP G
2/20/98
791.00
0237921
LABELLA, ARTHUR
2/20/98
300.00
0237922
LANDERS, VIVIEN BONELLI
2/20/98
58.00
0237923
L & S MANAGEMENT
2/20/98
325.00
0237924
MIXELL, LLONALD AND/OR
2/20/98
570.00
0237925
M 0 D INVESTMENTS
2/20/98
1,246.00
0237926
MONTGOMERY, WILLIAM
2/20/98
213.00
0237927
MANN, ROBERT OR WANDA ARMA
2/20/98
268.00
0237928
MID FLORIDA RENTALS
2/20/98
420.00
0237929
MALGERIA, PRISCILLA
2/20/98
419.00
MARCH 10, 1998
0
•
CHECK NAME
NUMBER
CHECK
CHECK
DATE
AMOUNT
0237930 MORRILL, TINA AND CITY OF
2/20/98
34.00
0237931 MILLER, ALVIN L
2/20/98
375.00
0237932 MCINTOSH, SYLVESTER S JR
2/20/98
498.00
0237933 MULLINS, B FRANK
2/20/98
325.00
0237934 MCLEOD, WILLETTE & FP&L
2/20/98
27.00
0237935 NELSON, DONALD J & VALENTINE R
2/20/98
500.00
0237936 O'CONNOR, DANIEL T & DEIDRA E
2/20/98
408.00
0237937 PARKER, RALPH & CITY OF VERO
2/20/98
77.00
0237938 PIUMELLI, DOMENICA
2/20/98
914.00
0237939 PALMER TRAILER PARK
2/20/98
415.00
0237940 PALM BEACH COUNTY HOUSING
2/20/98
459.61
0237941 POLLY, EMMA
2/20/98
348.00
0237942 PIERSON, JOHN H DBA
2/20/98
324.00
0237943 POSADO, LORI
2/20/98
322.00
0237944 PINKNEY, RACHEL J
2/20/98
166.00
0237945 PALUMBO, LOUIS
2/20/98
285.00
0237946 QUINCY, EUGENE
2/20/98
480.00
0237947 REAGAN, WILLIE C
2/20/98
828.00
0237948 RENNICK, RONALD
2/20/98
271.00
0237949 RAUDENBUSH, ERNEST
2/20/98
121.00
0237950 REALTY CONNECTIONS OF VERO,INC
2/20/98
1,042.00
0237951 REARDANZ, MARVIN
2/20/98
439.00
0237952 RICHARDS, WILLIAM A
2/20/98
651.00
0237953 RODRIGUEZ, BLANCA
2/20/98
504.00
0237954 SCHORNER, JAMES A
2/20/98
115.00
0237955 ST FRANCIS MANOR
2/20/98
2,981.00
0237956 SCROGGS, BETTY DAVIS
2/20/98
327.00
0237957 S B M RENTALS, INC
2/20/98
111.00
0237958 SACCO, JACQUELINE AND/OR
2/20/98
458.00
0237959 SORIANO, RAFAEL
2/20/98
257.00
0237960 SABONJOHN, FLORENCE
2/20/98
327.00
0237961 SANFORD HOUSING AUTHORITY
2/20/98
506.61
0237962 SMOAK, JEANETTE AND CITY
2/20/98
34.00
0237963 SANDY PINES
2/20/98
2,493.00
0237964 SHELTON, ROBERT L
2/20/98
484.00
0237965 STARCK, MICHAEL R
2/20/98
175.00
0237966 SQUIRES, STEPHANIE A
2/20/98
317.00
0237967 SPIRES, TISA AND CITY OF VERO
2/20/98
26.00
0237968 S L R PROPERTIES, INC
2/20/98
255.00
0237969 SARTAIN, CHARLES S & TELECIA
2/20/98
375.00
0237970 SANDERS, NATALIE
2/20/98
123.00
0237971 TROPICAL SHORELAND, INC OR
2/20/98
243.00
0237972 TROW, RENNETS
2/20/98
551.00
0237973 ULISKY, WILLIAM B OR MpjUXNE
2/20/98
431.00
0237974 VERO MOBILE HOME PARK
2/20/98
420.00
0237975 VOLF VILCEK, JULIANNA
2/20/98
293.00
0237976 VERO FIRST CORPORATION
2/20/98
1,498.00
0237977 BLAKE, SALLIE (WYNN)
2/20/98
285.00
0237978 WILLIAMS, TOBIAS M
2/20/98
483.00
0237979 WOOD, BOB
2/20/98
439.00
0237980 WILLIAMS, DEBRA WASHINGTON
2/20/98
125.00
0237981 WEBB, DONNA
2/20/98
162.00
0237982 YORK, LILLY B
2/20/98
202.00
0237983 YORK, DAVID
2/20/98
464.00
0237984 ZANCA, LEONARD
2/20/98
781.00
0237985 ZORC, RICHARD J
2/20/98
232.00
0237986 A A FIRE EQUIPMENT, INC
2/26/98
330.50
0237987 ACTION TRANSMISSION AND
2/26/98
11019.55
0237988 AIRBORNE EXPRESS
2/26/98
27.75
0237989 ALPHA ACE HARDWARE
2/26/98
111.71
0237990 AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION
2/26/98
0237991 APPLE INDUSTRIAL SUPPLY CO
2/26/98
423.00
0237992 A B S PUMPS, INC
424.68
0237993 ACTION DIESEL INJECTION
.2/26/98
2/24/98
14,696.00
0237994 APCO INTERNATIONAL
2/26/98
525.00
0237995 A T & T
2/26/98
399.00
0237996 A T & T LANGUAGE LINE SERVICES
2/26/98
32.54
0237997 ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES
2/26/98
110.50
0237998 A T & T
2/26/98
591.05
0237999 AMERICAN SOUTHERN PRINTING INC
2/26/98
60.69
15,842.93
0238000 ALLSTATE PAYMENT PROCESSING
2/26/98
1,116.97
0238001 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
2/26/98
3,388.15
0238002 BLACKHAWK QUARRY COMPANY
2/26/98
1, 260.77
0238003 BROOKS, RONALD R
2/26/98
64.90
0238004 BELLSOUTH MOBILITY
2/26/98
75.36
0238005 BARTON, JEFFREY K- CLERK
2/26/98
184,755.35
0238006 BARTON, JEFFREY K -CLERIC
2/26/98
3,969.23
0238007 BRAD SMITH ASSOCIATES, INC
2/26/98
2,598.75
0238008 BRODART CO
2/26/98
543.19
0238009 JANICE C BRODA, INC
2/26/98
87.50
0238010 BLATUS, JAMES
2/26/98
704.02
0238011 BELL PROPERTY MANAGEMENT
2/26/98
1,620.00
MARCH 10, 1998
•
-5- b09K F a di d
MARCH 10, 1998
0
b0ox
CHECK NAME
CHECK
CHECK
NUMBER
DATE
AMOUNT
0238012 BOYNTON PUMP & IRRIGATION
2/26/98
150.68
0238013 B F I MEDICAL WASTE SYSTEMS
2/26/98
68.10
0238014 BAKER & TAYLOR ENTERTAINMENT
2/26/98
100.75
0238015 BELLSOUTH
2/26/98
7,406.90
0238016 BAUER, JANICE
2/26/98
9.74
0238017 SELL-OUTS TELECOMMUNICATIONS,
2/26/98
418.94
0238018 BELLSOUTH PUBLIC COMMUNICATION
2/26/98
29.88
0238019 BOISE CASCADE OFFICE PRODUCTS
2/26/98
99.00
0238020 BAKER & TAYLOR INC
2/26/98
1,709.80
0238021 BRUCE, KELLY
2/26/98
33.48
0238022 BUSINESS REFERENCE SERVICES
2/26/98
1,356.25
0238023 BROWN & CALDWELL
2/26/98
15,721.55
0238024 CAMERON & BARKLEY COMPANY
2/26/98
123.00
0238025 CARTER ASSOCIATES, INC
2/26/98
2,797.93
0238026 CHANDLER EQUIPMENT CO, INC
2/26/98
223.81
0238027 CITRUS MOTEL
2/26/98
181.31
0238028 CLEMENTS PEST CONTROL
2/26/98
19.00
0238029 COMMUNICATIONS INT'L INC
2/26/98
736.95
0238030 CONSOLIDATED ELECTRIC SUPPLY
2/26/98
199.95
0238031 CREATIVE LANDSCAPING
2/26/98
3,140.75
0238032 CSEMSEARCH
2/26/98
549.73
0238033 COX GIFFORD FUNERAL HOME
2/26/98
300.00
0238034 COASTAL REFINING & MARKETING
2/26/98
5,886.47
0238035 CONTROL CENTER, INC
2/26/98
360.68
0238036 CASANO, F V ELECTRICAL
2/26/98
95.10
0238037 CUES, INC
2/26/98
1,519.22
0238038 CORPORATION OF THE PRESIDENT
2/26/98
110.50
0238039 CENTER FOR EMOTIONAL AND
2/26/98
85.50
0238040 COLUMBIA HOUSE
2/26/98
23.74
0238041 CUMMINS, CHERYL
2/26/98
12.00
0238042 CLOW WATER SYSTEMS COMPANY
2/26/98
92,716.52
0238043 COASTAL ENGINEERING
2/26/98
4,500.00
0238044 CENTRAL FLORIDA PRIMA
2/26/98
25.00
0238045 DEEP SIB DIVE SHOP, INC
2/26/98
84.76
0238046 DICKERSON FLORIDA, INC
2/26/98
137,488.69
0238047 DATA SUPPLIES, INC
2/26/98
474.50
0238048 DURA STONE COMPANY
2/26/98
14.00
0238049 FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF
2/26/98
3,000.00
0238050 DAVIDSON TITLES, INC
2/26/98
79.54
0238051 FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF
2/26/98
35.00
0238052 FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF
2/26/98
500.00
0238053 DARBY PRINTING CO
2/26/98
25.00
0238054 FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPRT
2/26/98
25.00
0238055 FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF
2/26/98
250.00
0238056 DOWNTOWN PRODUCE INC
2/26/98
238.73
0238057 DILLARD, CASSIE
2/26/98
33.48
0238058 DOOLITTLE REALTY INSTITUTE
2/26/98
45.00
0238059 ENVIROMETRICS, INC
2/26/98
570.00
0238060 EBSCO SUBSCRIPTION SERVICES
2/26/98
30.00
0238061 EDLUND & DRITENBAS
2/26/98
3,617.37
0238062 ERICSSON, INC
2/26/98
3,738.49
0238063 ECOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC
2/26/98
26,519.74
0238064 ED MORSE CHEVROLET INC
2/26/98
16,720.00
0238065 EG & G IC SENSORS
2/26/98
460.25
0238066 EMERGENCY MEDICAL CONSULTANTS
2/26/98
900.00
0238067 FEDERAL EXPRESS CORP
2/26/98
40.50
0238068 FISHER SCIENTIFIC COMPANY
2/26/98
67.15
0238069 FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF
2/26/98
300.00
0238070 FLORIDA STATE HORTICULTURE
2/26/98
35.00
0238071 FLORIDA BAR
2/26/98
29.96
0238072 F P & L
2/26/98
5,161.35
0238073 FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF
2/26/98
35.00
0238074 FLOWERS BAKING COMPANY OF
2/26/98
132.89
0238075 FLORIDA TIRE RECYCLING, INC
2/26/98
648.60
0238076 FALCON CABLE TV
2/26/98
23.90
0238077 FLORIDA MEDICAID COUNTY
2/26/98
31,050.16
0238078 FELLSMERE, CITY OF
2/26/98
52.47
0238079 FALZONE, MATTHEW
2/26/98
30.90
0238080 FENNIMORE, CHARLES
2/26/98
39.00
0238081 FALZONE, CHRISTOPHER
2/26/98
25.75
0238082 FLORIDA DESIGN CONTRACTORS
2/26/98
52,623.00
0238083 FRANKLIN ASSOCIATES,LTD
2/26/98
90.00
0238084 GAYLORD BROTHERS, INC
2/26/98
83.40
0238085 GRAYBAR ELECTRIC CO INC
2/26/98
5,364.03
0238086 GALLS, INC
2/26/98
107.97
0238087 GREYHOUND LINES, INC.
2/26/98
253.00
0238088 GALE RESEARCH, INC
2/26/98
276.68
0238089 GREENE, ROBERT E
2/26/98
1,736.98
0238090 GROVE, KEITH T DDS, MS VMD
2/26/98
15.00
0238091 GANGER, CHARISE
2/26/98
16.74
0238092 GRILL REFILL, INC
2/26/98
86.00
0238093 GIFFORD YOUTH ACTIVITIES CENTE
2/26/98
7,953.82
MARCH 10, 1998
0
•
CHECK NAME
NUMBER
CHECK
CHECK
DATE
AMOUNT
0238094 HARRISON UNIFORMS
2/26/98
0238095 HEARTHSTONE BOOKSHOP57.77
2/26/9S
0238096 HACH COMPANY
2/26/98
34.55
0238097 HARRIS SANITATION, INC
2/26/98
542.45
0238098 HATFIELD, ERIC
2/26/98
47,236.29
0238099 HASENAUER, KRIS
2/26/98
131.18
0238100 HIGHTOWER, ANTONIO
2/26/98
117.00
0238101HARRIS, TABITHA D
2/26/98
100.00
9.98
0238102 INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
2/26/98
0238103 INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
54,638.75
0238104 INSTRUMENTATION SERVICES, INC
2/26/98
25.00
0238105 INDIAN RIVER COUNTYILI
2/26/98
890.00
0238106 INDIAN RIVER FARMS WATER
2/26/98
698.17
0238107 INGRAM
2/26/98
11,918.52
0238108 IBM CORP -DW
2/26/98
792.14
0238109 INDIAN RIVER ALL -FAB, INC
333.50
0238110 INTERNATIONAL GOLF MANAGEMENT
2/26/98198.65
0238111 IRON OFFICE SOLUTIONS
2/26/98
70,041.67
0238112 INTEL GROUP, THE
2/26/98
120.00
0238113 ISG-MCALLISTER PUBLISHING
2/26/98
2.000.00
0238114 HOMELAND IRRIGATION CENTER
2/26/98
75.00
0238115 JONES CHEMICALS, INC
2/26/98
36.16
0238116 KIMLEY-HORN & ASSOCIATES, INC
2/26/98
2,434.51
0238117 KING, JOHN W
2/26/98
1,300.69
0238118 KIRKUS ASSOCIATES L P
2/26/98
60.00
0238119 KELLY TRACTOR CO
355.00
0238120 K S M ENGINEERING & TESTING
2/26/98
449.25
0238121 KIRBY AUTO SUPPLY
2/26/98
1,250.00
0238122 KT MOWER & EQUIPMENT
1,072.86
02381232/26/98
KEYSTONE VALVES & CONTROLS,INC
2/26/98
149.78
0238124 LONG, JAMES T ESQUIRE500.00
2/26/98
0238125 LAB SAFETY SUPPLY, INC
14,100.00
0238126 LOWE,S HOME2/26/98
CENTERS, INC
2/26/98
107.99
0238127 LEGAL DIRECTORIES PUBL CO
2/26/98
294.92
0238128 LIGHT SOURCE BUSINESS SYSTEMS164.36
2/26/98
0238129 LUCENT TECHNOLOGIES
2/26/98
56.50
0238130 LOWE'S HOME CENTERS, INC
2/26/98
932.95
0238131 MAXWELL & SON, INC
2/26/98
61.84
0238132 MCCOLLUM, NATHAN
8.15
0238133 INDIAN RIVER COMMUNITY COLLEGE
2/26/98
334.43
0238134 MICKLER'S FLORIDIANA, INC
2/26/98
14,174.17
0238135 MID COAST TIRE SERVICE, INC
2/26/98
38.91
0238136 MIRES GARAGE
2/26/98
78.45
0238137 MAS TELLER & MOLER, INC
2/26/98
1,401.30
0238138 MCDADE WATERWORKS, INC
2/26/98
2/26/98
0238139 MIDWEST TAPE EXCHANGE
2/26/98
200.00
0238140 MR BOB PORTABLE TOILET
2/26/98
328.90
0238141 MAIN STREET HARDWARE, INC
373.44
0238142 MONEY MAILER OF NORTH TREASURE
2/26/9861.47
0238143 NATIONAL AUTOMOBILE DEALERS,
2/26/98
384.00
0238144 NOLTE, DAVID C
2/26/98
52.00
0238145 NICOSIA, ROGER J DO
2/26/98
167,666.92
0238146 NATIONAL AMBULANCE BUILDERS
2/26/98
1,500.00
0238147 NEW HORIZONS OF THE TREASURE
2/269
156.99
0238148 NATIONAL REGISTER PUBLISHING
2/26/98
31,762.08
0238149 NOCUTS, INC
2/26/98
234.33
0238150 NORTH, ANNABEL R ES
2/26/98
78.80
0238151 OFFICE PRODUCTS & SERVICE
2/26/98
30.16
0238152 OSCEOLA MEDICAL SUPPLY
2/26/98
1,316.11
89.63
0238153 OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS
2/26/98
31.66
0238154 OFFICE DEPOT, INC
2/26/98
917.92
0238155 OFFICE MAX
2/26/98
806.89
0238156 OOSTIERINKRT, STEVEN W
2/26/98
11.00
0238157 PETTY CASH
2/26/98
94.66
0238158 PHILLIPS, LINDA R
2/26/98
332.50
0238159 PIPPIN TRACTOR & EQUIPMENT,INC
2/26/98
0238160 PUBLIC DEFENDER
2/26/98
1,631.00
0238161 PHYSIO CONTROL
2/26/98
4,452.71
0238162 PAVCO CONSTRUCTION, INC
2/26/98
1,503.31
0238163 PORT PETROLEUM, INC
2/26/98
665.00
0238164 PROGRESSIVE DATA MGMT, INC
2/26/98
1,447.47
0238165 PRESS JOURNAL
2/26/98
132.00
0238166 PAGE, LIVINGSTON
2/26/98
77.00
0238167 ELLIS K PHELPS & COMPANY
2/26/98
39.00
0238168 PANGBURN, TERRI
2/26/98
245.70
0238169 P & E INC
2/26/98
48.00
11,160.00
0238170 PRAXAIR DISTRIBUTION SOUTHEAST
2/26/98
0238171 PACKARD ROOFING
2/26/98
786.45
0238172 QUALITY BOOKS, INC
2/26/98
150.00
0238173 RIFKIN, SHELDON H PHD.00
83.99
1,50000. 0
0238174 ROURKE PUBLISHING GROUP, INC
2/26/98 98
0238175 RICHMOND HYDRAULICS INC
2/26/98
279.660
196.38
MARCH 10, 1998
•
F'S
699K (� lJ �3t FACE6,';S
CHECK
NAME
CHECK
CHECK
NUMBER
DATE
AMOUNT
0238176
ROTH PUBLISHING, INC
2/26/98
776.00
0238177
RECORDED BOOKS
2/26/98
471.90
0238178
RELIANCE PETROLEUM CO, INC
2/26/98
158.25
0238179
FRED RENAUD INC
2/26/98
750.00
0238180
ROY CLARK
2/26/98
750.00
0238181
RENTAL 1
2/26/98
316.98
0238182
SAFETY KLEEN CORP
2/26/98
251.55
0238183
SCROPP, BARBARA G
2/26/98
178.50
0238184
SCOTT'S SPORTING GOODS
2/26/98
155.40
0238185
SEBASTIAN, CITY OF
2/26/98
150.00
0238186
SEITNER SALES
2/26/98
13.25
0238187
SEWELL HARDWARE CO, INC
2/26/98
178.06
0238188
SEXUAL ASSAULT ASSISTANCE
2/26/98
4,420.75
0238189
SOUTHERN EAGLE DISTRIBUTING,
2/26/98
269.80
0238190
SOUTHERN ELECTRIC SUPPLY
2/26/98
174.04
0238191
SAFESPACE, INC
2/26/98
1,250.00
0238192
STURGIS LUMBER & PLYWOOD CO
2/26/98
27.79
0238193
SUN COAST WELDING SUPPLIES INC
2/26/98
116.91
0238194
SERVICE REFRIGERATION CO, INC
2/26/98
543.50
0238195
SIMON & SCHUSTER
2/26/98
544.09
0238196
SHERWOOD, FRANCES G
2/26/98
89.33
0238197
SOUTHERN JANITOR SUPPLY
2/26/98
231.53
0238198
SOUTHERN SEWER EQUIPMENT SALES
2/26/98
723.93
0238199
SOFTWARE CITY
2/26/98
656.00
0238200
SOUTH HILLS DATACOM
2/26/98
293.83
0238201
SOFTHAUS COMPUTER CENTER, INC
2/26/98
1,357.00
0238202
SOLINET
2/26/98
527.08
0238203
SWANA
2/26/98
400.00
0238204
SYSCO FOOD SERVICES OF
2/26/98
952.28
0238205
SIMS, MATTHEW
2/26/98
152.54
0238206
SOUTHEAST LIBRARY BINDERY,INC
2/26/98
434.40
0238207
SUNSHINE PEST MANAGEMENT
2/26/98
195.00
0238208
STAGE & SCREEN
2/26/98
32.27
0238209
SMITH, JACQUELINE D
2/26/98
82.40
0238210
SMITH, JUDITH WALKER
2/26/98
60.00
0238211
TEN -8 FIRE EQUIPMENT, INC
2/26/98
14,578.91
0238212
TREASURE COAST REFUSE CORP
2/26/98
31,451.02
0238213
TEXACO CREDIT CARD CENTER
2/26/98
1,708.26
0238214
TERRA
2/26/98
200.00
0238215
TREASURE COAST CONTRACTING,INC
2/26/98
65,898.90
0238216
TECHNOLOGY PARTNERS
2/26/98
327.50
0238217
TREASURE COAST TOWING
2/26/98
120.50
0238218
TOSHIBA
2/26/98
14.95
0238219
UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA, THE
2/26/98
6.00
0238220
US FILTER DISTRIBUTION GROUP
2/26/98
7,980.69
0238221
USA BLUEBOOK
2/26/98
792.89
0238222
VELDE FORD, INC
2/26/98
1,090.36
0238223
VERO BEACH BOOK CENTER
2/26/98
15.95
0238224
VERO BEACH, CITY OF
2/26/98
1,536.76
0238225
VERO BEACH, CITY OF
2/26/98
9,175.00
0238226
VERO CHEMICAL DISTRIBUTORS,INC
2/26/98
351.75
0238227
VERO LAWNMOWER CENTER, INC
2/26/98
63.63
0238228
VERO BEACH, CITY OF
2/26/98
1,621.54
0238229
VORTECH PHARMACEUTICALS
2/26/98
215.70
0238230
VERO BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT
2/26/98
25.00
0238231
VERO BEARING & BOLT
2/26/98
292.07
0238232
VERO TYPEWRITER COMPANY
2/26/98
65.50
0238233
VOLUNTEER ACTION COMMITTEE
2/26/98
50.00
0238234
VANSTAR
2/26/98
698.15
0238235
WEST PUBLISHING PAYMENT CTR
2/26/98
79.00
0238236
WOODY'S PAPER & PRINT
2/26/98
346.79
0238237
WW GRAINGER, INC
2/26/98
1,839.77
0238238
WQOL FM
2/26/98
500.00
0238239
WILLHOFF, PATSY
2/26/98
130.00
0238240
WM THIES & SONS, INC
2/26/98
161.40
0238241
WILSON GOLF DIVISION
2/26/98
269.77
0238242
WILLHOFF, JAMES
2/26/98
54.00
0238243
WHEELER, GARY SHERIFF
2/26/98
6,990.43
0238244
WHARTON-SMITH, INC
2/26/98
70,940.00
0238245
WALKER, KEITH
2/26/98
39.00
0238246
WPAW RADIO
2/26/98
200.00
0238247
WOLFE, MEGAN
2/26/98
30.90
0238248
WALGREENS PHARMACY
2/26/98
154.14
0238249
WRAP N' SHIP
2/26/98
23.30
0238250
WBBE-FM
2/26/98
400.00
0238251
WOSN-FM RADIO STATION
2/26/98
246.00
0238252
WINDLE, BEN
2/26/98
79.83
0238253
WAITE, GERRY PD1
2/26/98
5.00
0238254
WILLIAMS, DARNELL
2/26/98
61.80
MARCH 10, 1998
0
•
�J
1,552,148.52
7. C. ETHICS CONFERENCE- FLORIDA INSTITUTE OF GOVERNMENT -
ORLANDO. FLORIDA -APRIL 3. 1998 - TRAVEL FOR COMMISSIONERS
The Board reviewed the following information:
ACom►
I
C."Oko
WHY YOU
SHOULD ATTEND
U To broaden your knowledge of
government ethics
U To understand the Sunshine Law
and Public Records Law
To learn about the financial reporting
requirements
To interact and exchange information
with your peers
WHO SHOULD ATTEND
U Commissioners participating in the
Commissioners Voluntary
CerWicatlon Program
I U Commissioners with a special interest
in ethics
FEE
The fee for the workshop is $75. This
includes morning coffee and danish, lunch,
afternoon sodas, and materials.
MARCH 10, 1998
AGENDA
8:30 a.m. - 4:30 p.m.
(Registration begins at 8:00 a.m.)
U Standards of Conduct
U Florida's Government in the
Sunshine Law
U Financial Reporting
Rules and Regulations
,�'f
C
C
REGISTRATION FORM
Advance Registration is Required.
ETHICS
April 3, 1998
(Please print or type. You my du "o tfds farm for
edB6onaf re�ShatransJ
Name
Soc. Sec.#
County
Address
City Zip code
Day phone •
Fax #
U Payment Enclosed ($75.00)
U Bill P.O. g
Please make check payable to:
University of Central Florida
Mail to: Florida Institute of Government
36 W. Pine Street, Suite 204
Orlando, FL 32801-2612
(407) 317-7745 or SC 344-7745
A cont uftn kHterand drecbm to workshop aNe w1 be
wN upon mcs" ofr@#sft on form.
-9-boor, 10 � F�� ;c 'o
CHECK
CHECK
CHECK
NAME
DATE
AMOUNT
NUMBER
0238255
WHITE, MICHELLE
2/26/98
36.05
0238256
WASTE MANAGEMENT
2/26/98
85,120.75
0238257
WOLFE, ERIN
2/26/98
30.90
0238258
XEROX CORPORATION
2/26/98
4,452.00
0238259
YAVORSKY'S TRUCK SERVICE,INC
2/26/98
709.26
0238260
ZYSKOWSKI, ARTHUR
2/26/98
400.00
0238261
ZIMMERMANN, KARL
2/26/98
101.70
0238262
MASSEY, HOWARD
2/26/98
123.45
1,552,148.52
7. C. ETHICS CONFERENCE- FLORIDA INSTITUTE OF GOVERNMENT -
ORLANDO. FLORIDA -APRIL 3. 1998 - TRAVEL FOR COMMISSIONERS
The Board reviewed the following information:
ACom►
I
C."Oko
WHY YOU
SHOULD ATTEND
U To broaden your knowledge of
government ethics
U To understand the Sunshine Law
and Public Records Law
To learn about the financial reporting
requirements
To interact and exchange information
with your peers
WHO SHOULD ATTEND
U Commissioners participating in the
Commissioners Voluntary
CerWicatlon Program
I U Commissioners with a special interest
in ethics
FEE
The fee for the workshop is $75. This
includes morning coffee and danish, lunch,
afternoon sodas, and materials.
MARCH 10, 1998
AGENDA
8:30 a.m. - 4:30 p.m.
(Registration begins at 8:00 a.m.)
U Standards of Conduct
U Florida's Government in the
Sunshine Law
U Financial Reporting
Rules and Regulations
,�'f
C
C
REGISTRATION FORM
Advance Registration is Required.
ETHICS
April 3, 1998
(Please print or type. You my du "o tfds farm for
edB6onaf re�ShatransJ
Name
Soc. Sec.#
County
Address
City Zip code
Day phone •
Fax #
U Payment Enclosed ($75.00)
U Bill P.O. g
Please make check payable to:
University of Central Florida
Mail to: Florida Institute of Government
36 W. Pine Street, Suite 204
Orlando, FL 32801-2612
(407) 317-7745 or SC 344-7745
A cont uftn kHterand drecbm to workshop aNe w1 be
wN upon mcs" ofr@#sft on form.
-9-boor, 10 � F�� ;c 'o
r
•
BOOK ir11 w�
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert,
SECONDED by Commissioner Ginn, the Board
unanimously approved travel expenses for
Commissioners to attend the Florida Institute of
Government Ethics Conference in Orlando, Florida,
April 3, 1998.
7.D. WILLIAMH. HENSICK & SONS, INC - REQUEST FOR MAJOR SITE PLAN
EXTENSION TO MAY 27,1999 - MULTI -TENANT CONTRACTOR TRADES
BUILDING
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of March 4,,1998:
TO: James E. Chandler
County Administrator
D ON HEAD CONCURRENCE:
Obert M K AI
Community Developm r
THROUGH: Stan Boling, AICP
Planning Director
FROM: Eric Blad }
Staff Planner, Current Development
DATE: March 4, 1998
SUBJECT: William H. Henmek & Sons, Inc.'s Request for Major Site Plan Extension for a Multi -
Tenant Contractor Trades Building
It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal consideration by the Board of County
Commissioners at its regular meeting of March 10, 1998.
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
On March 27, 1997, the Planning and Zoning Commission granted major site plan approval to
construct a 10,000 square foot multitenant contractors trades building on Lots 1 and 2 of the
Westside Commercial Park Subdivision. The subject site is located at the northwest corner of 35'"
Court S.W. and Oslo Road The project applicant has filed a request to extend the site plan approval
expiration date. Pursuant to site plan regulations, the request may now be considered by the Board
of County Commissioners.
ANALYSIS•
Although the LDRs have been amended since the time of project review and approval, the members
of the Technical Review Committee (TRC) concur that subsequent amendments as applied to the
subject project are not significant enough to require any revisions or redesign of the project. All TRC
staff members have recently approved the applicant's request for site plan extension.
MARCH 10, 1998
-10-
•
As allowed under provisions of the LDRs, W. Hensick is requesting a full one year extension of the
site plan approval expiration date. pursuant to Chapter 914 of the I DRs, the Board of County
Commissioners may deny the request, approve the request, or approve the request with additional
conditions.
RECOIVMENDATION•
Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners approve Mr. Hensick's request for a one
year extension of the site plan approval. The new site plan approval expiration date will be May 27,
1999.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert,
SECONDED by Commissioner Ginn, the Board
unanimously approved the one-year extension of
William H. Hensick & Sons, Inc.'s site plan with a
new expiration date of May 27, 1999, as
recommended by staff.
7.E. PAYMENTS TO VENDORS OF COURT RELATED COSTS
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of March 3,,1998:
TO: Board of County Commissioners '
FROM: Terrence P. O'Brien, Assistant County Attorney 1
DATE: March 3, 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 February 23. Listed below are the vendors names and the amount of each court
related costs.
Shirley E. Corbin
Transcriptions
49.00
Floyd Evans
Court Interpreter
75.00
Gerald A. Newman
Witness Reimbursement
162.06
Treasure Coast Court
Transcriptions
124.00
Reporting, Inc.
James Bonet, R.N.
Transcriptions
80.00
Berthold E. Schwarz, M.D.
Clinical Evaluation
200.00
Lynda McGinnis, L.P.N.
Clinical Evaluation
80.00
Berthold E. Schwarz, M.D.
Clinical Evaluation
200.00
Floyd Evans
Court Interpreter
25.00
Edward A. Abare, III
Travel
82.85
Sheldon H. Rifkin, Ph.D.
Clinical Evaluation
500.00
Sheldon H. Rifldn, Ph.D.
Clinical Evaluation
500.00
Sheldon H. Rifkin, Ph.D.
Clinical Evaluation
500.00
Shirley E. Corbin
Transcriptions
206.50
Linda Copeland
Transcriptions
108.50
Linda Copeland
Transcriptions
301.00
Medical Record Services, Inc.
Records Search
17.00
Celeste Hartsfield
Transcriptions
164.50
MARCH 109 1998
6
-11- boar, 104 FA6" 559
Shirley E. Corbin
Transcriptions
Patricia B. Held
Transcriptions
Shelia I. Flinn
Transcriptions
Linda Copeland
Transcriptions
Medical Records Services, Inc.
Records Research
Sheldon H. Rifkin, Ph.D.
Clinical Evaluation
Linda Copeland
Transcriptions
Total
No action required or taken.
500K 1-01. Paul 56
101.50
38.50
49.00
35.00
14.78
500.00
58.00
$4170.19
7.F. CARINI PROPERTY- CODE ENFORCEMENT ACTION- DEED INESCROW
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of February 25, 1998:
TO: Board of County Commissioners �`
FROM: Terrence P. O'Brien, Assistant County Attorney
DATE: February 25, 1998
SUBJECT: Deed in Escrow Carini Property Code Enforcement Action
Code Enforcement action was begun a number of years ago against the property
of Mr. and Mrs. Eugene Carini. The violation was that the building (warehouse
in nature) encroached into the setback.
After several years and many appearances before the Code Enforcement Board
and a fine that was paid, the violation still existed. Mr. Carini agreed to deed the
property to the County if the violation was not cured within a certain specified
time. The past being prologue, the violation was not cured. CEB ordered the
deed which was in escrow to be turned over to the County (copy of order
attached).
This matter is being brought to your attention for consideration. At the outset it
should be noted that a deed passes title to a grantee only if the grantee accepts the
deed. The Board of County Commission at this time has not accepted the deed
and in the opinion of staff it should not accept the deed.
First, the deed to the county in escrow was to secure an obligation imposed by the
CEB. Therefore, it does not pass automatically to the Grantee but requires a civil
action in nature of a mortgage foreclosure. This standing alone would not be a
real determent; however, in addition, there is an outstanding final judgment lien
of approximately $108,000.00, tax certificates in the range of $3500 to $4000, a lien
by Indian River County Memorial Hospital in the principal amount of $3,825.00
and 1996 real estate tax in the amount of $982. To add to this, there is no legal
access to the property and the only practical cure to the code violation is to tear
down the building. This property has little, if any, market value. It is not only
MARCH 10, 1998
•
an albatross it is a flock of albatrosses and staff recommends that the County
refuse to accept the deed
If the County rejects the deed, it will.in all likelihood become County property
under operation of Section 197.502(8), F.S. in approximately seven years. The
land will be taken free and clear of all liens; however, legal access will not exist
and the building will still encroach into the set back. At that time, the adjacent
land owner, who has expressed an interest in the land, could take it free and clear
from the County.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert,
SECONDED by Commissioner Ginn, the Board
unanimously agreed not to accept the deed being
held in escrow, as recommended by staff.
7.G. COUNTYATTORNEVS OFFICE - FAX AND DEDICATED PHONE LINE -
BUDGETED ITEM
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of February 25, 1998:
TO: Board of County Commissioners
FROM: Charles P. Vitunac, County Attorney
DATE: February 25, 1998
RE: Budgeted Item
In our 1997-98 office budget we were approved for $600 to purchase a facsimile
machine and have selected one that will cost $299. We would now ask for
Board approval to install a dedicated phone line to connect it to. We request
permission to transfer funds from the money left in the capital account to a
phone account in order to pay for the phone service for the remainder of the
year.
Recommended Action: Staff recommends that the Board approve acquiring the
dedicated phone line and making the necessary transfer of the budgeted funds.
MARCH 10, 1998
•
-13- 60JK 1-01- FAu- 5'a1.
Irl
Bax I � FALL W 04;
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert,
SECONDED by Commissioner Ginn, the Board
unanimously approved the County Attorney's
request to acquire the dedicated phone line and make
the necessary transfer of the budgeted funds.
7.H. SHERIFF - BUDGET AD.IUSTwNT - BROWARD COUNTYINMATE
REVENUE - FEBRUARY, 1998
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of March 3, 1998:
RECEMEC
MAR 0 4 1998
L 1 qtr GARY C. WHEELER • INDIAN RIVER COUNMARD OF C^jc•,
MEMBER FLORIDA SHERIFFS' ASSOCIATION COMMI.SS4DIN
MEMBER OF NATIONAL SHERIFFS' ASSOCIATION
40554181AVENUE VERO BEACH, FLORIDA 32960-1808 PHONE (561)569-6700
March 3, 1998
The Honorable John Tippin, Chairman
Board of County Commissioners
Indian River County
1840 25th Street
Vero Beach. FL 32960-3394
Re: Budget Adjustment, Broward County Inmate Revenue
Dear Mr. Tippin:
This letter is a request to amend our fiscal year 1997-98 Operating Budget by $105.050. These funds
represent the revenue generated from the housing of Broward County inmates for the month of February.
1998. The monies will replace Corrections funds used to house the Broward inmates, complete the
funding of our Aviation component for the current fiscal year budget and purchase Capital Outlay items
from the attached list.
The budget amendment will be distributed as follows:
Law Enforcement Salaries(Aviation) $ 24.345
Law Enforcement Expense(Aviation) 17,624
Law Enforcement Capital 34,431
Corrections 28,650
Total $ 105.050
I am requesting this item be placed on the "Consent Agenda" at your earliest convenience.
If you have any questions or any further information is required, please let me know.
Sincerely,
Gary C. Wheeler. Sheriff
The 173rd Internationally Accredited Law Enforcement Agency
Accredited by the Commission on Aanditdon for Law Enforcement Agencies, Incorporated
MARCH 10, 1998
03/03/98
03:28:47 PM
Indian River County ShwWs Office 97980003
Capital Outlay Request
Current Operations
gyp. Name Description No. Cost Total
No.
201 Sherffrs Services
Display Board & Carrying Case
1 700
700
Fax Machine
1 700
700
Scanner/Feeder
1 1,300
1,300
Total Sheriffs Services
2700
203 Crime PreventioNPIO
McGruff Suit
1 1,000
1,000
Tafel Crime Prevention
1.000
300 Administrative Services
Personal Computer
1 2,250
2,250
800 mhz Radios, Hand Held
1 2,920
2,920
Video Production System
1 12,000
12,000
Total Administrative Services
17,170
Department Internet Access
1 21,500
21,500
Total Computer Services
21.500
302 Asset MgL/Purehasing
Computer - Monitor
1 2,500
2,500
Total Asset MgtJPurchasing
2,500
401 Criminal Investigations
Body Transinitter/Receiver
1 6,435
6.435
Total Criminal Investigations
6.435
506 Fleet
Above Ground Lift
1 3.895
3,895
Full Size Suns
17 19,657
334,169
Cargo van
2 16.000
32,000
Utl9ty Vehicle. Ranch & Grove
3 25,566
76,698
Cage for Jail Transport
1 3.000
3.000
Winch for Ranch & Grove Units
4 970
3.880
Transport Van
1 23,403
23,403
Crew Cab Trudc, Inmate Work
2 22.000
44,000
Plclwp,Fleet & Pool
1 18.000
18,000
Video Cameras
17 2,000
34,000
Radar Units
17 1,776
30.192
800 mhz Radios
4 2.000
8,000
Total Fleet
611,237
509 Court services
Laser Jet Printer
1 1,500
11500
Total Court Services
1.500
606 C.O.P.E.
Office Furniture (desk,chairs,mats)
1 1,700 1,700
Personal Computer
1 3.000
3.000
Total C.O.P.E.
4,700
Total Law Enforcement
668,742
Corrections
Corrections
Total CmreeGons
0
Total Agency
668,742
MARCH 109 1998
503K IN F'-AGC,5O
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert,
SECONDED by Commissioner Ginn, the Board
unanimously approved the Sheriff's request to
amend the 1997-98 Operating Budget by $105,050
representing revenue generated from housing of
Broward County inmates for the month of February,
1998, and approved the distribution as
recommended.
8. COMMENTS BY TAX COLLECTOR KARL ZIMMERMANN
REGARDING HIS RELOCATION PLANS
Tax Collector Karl Zimmermann thanked the Board for the opportunity to address
them this morning. A few months ago, discussions began regarding the Tax Collector's
Office moving out of the County Administration Building. A number of areas were
considered, including the Vero Mall. Discussions regarding space at the Vero Mall never
came to fruition; however, space has been located at Luria's Mall. The space south of
Luria's now housing The Party Store is being considered. That space is now 5,000 square
feet, but the new owner of the shopping center will expand the space by 2,000 square feet,
for a total of 7,000 square feet. Rental amounts and lease terms have been agreed upon. The
lease would be a 10 -year lease with an optional 5 -year extension. The lease has not been
signed. The County's legal department has reviewed the lease and feels comfortable with
the terms except for some small changes to be made deleting clauses that don't apply. The
design of the interior is moving forward. He will be back before the Board with a finite
budget and completed plans for the Board's support and agreement. Rentals will be paid
from the 1¢ sales tax as opposed to coming from unused fees. Plans are being made for a
move in August or September of this year. The property owners are not requiring any lease
payments until occupancy. He anticipated returning before the Board with a completed
lease, plans and a budget within 6 to 8 weeks.
Chairman Tippin noted that the Board will be looking forward to the proposal.
Tax Collector Zimmermann also noted that the lease will be between the Tax
Collector's Office and the property owners.
MARCH 109 1998
9 go
9.A.1. PUBLIC HEARING - THOMAS S. HAMMOND -
REOUEST TO AMEND COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TO
REDESIGNATE f 18.7 ACRES FROM M-2 TO 01: AND
TO REZONE THOSE t 18.7 ACRES FROM RS -6 TO CG
PRLWJOURNAL
Published Daily
Vero Beach, Indian River County, Florida
COUNTY OF INDIAN RNEFI: STATE OF FLORIDA
Before theunderclgrned authority personally appeared Darryl K. Hicks who on
oath
=River he Prsernt of the Press,bumal. a dally newspaper p at Vero Beach
lo Indian River Comty, Wda: that the attached copy of fit, being
In the Court was pub-
lishad in NW newspaper in the Issues of
Affiant Urrther says that the said Press to urud Is a newspaper published at Vero Beach, in
said Indian Rim continuously published in s Indian Ri, Florida. kw Cmq, Florida, and #0 the said newspaper � heretofore
entered as
second class rrte0 matter at the post office In Vero Beach, in said tndien River County, Florida.
for a perlod of one year next preceding the first publication of the attached copy of
fit; and affiant further says that he has nether paid nor par, any person, firm
oroorpoation any discount, rebate, oarro *Wan or refund for the purpose of searing this
advertls remernt
for publication ins newspaper.
Sw and subscribed before me
s°JrX:f ANNE`'•
rr
MY t0µg15510N EiIPIRES % �
* JANUARY 01.2001 �-
Z . (f((611092
``4.�BLICr �P pUPO
rrrrro■ •rrrr
My C.ommission Exp. Jan. , 2001
Comm. No. CC 8112
Personalty Known r Produced ID ❑
Type of 10 Produced .�._
Anyone who may wish. to
appeal any decision which may be
made at this meetirng will need to
ensure that a verbatim record of
the proceedings 6 made, which
includes testimony and evidence
upon which the appeal is based..
Anyone who needs a special
accommodation for this meeting
most contact the county s Amri-
cons with Disabilities Act (ADA)
Coordinator at 567-8000 exten-
sion 223 at least 48 hours in
advance of the meting.
Indian Rive County
Board of
i County Commissioners
By: -s -John W. Tipptn,.
Chairman
Feb. 25, 1998 1276682r
MARCH 10, 1998
-17-
NOTICE - PUBLIC HEARING
The Board, of County Commis-
sio�s of Indian River County,
Florida, will consider the adoption
of a county ordinance rezoning
land from: RS -6, Stogie -Family Res-
idential District (up to 6 units/acro)
to the CG, General Commercial,
District.. The subject property Is
owned- by Thomas S. Hammond
The subject property is located
approximately 1/4 tmile east of 43rd
Avenue, on the south side of 41 st
Street, and contains approximately
18.7 axe. The subject property
Pros in the southwest '/4 section of
Section 27, Township 32S, Range
39E lying and being in Indian River
County; Flexida.
A. public hearing at which par-
ties in interet and citizens shall
have an opportunity to be heard,
will be held by the Board of
County Commissicam cif Indian
River County, Florida, in the
County Commission Chambers of
the County Administration Building,
located at 1840 25th Street, Vero
Beach, Florida on Tuesday, March
10, 1998, at 9:05 am. The pro-
posed ordinance to rezone the sub.
ject property is entitled:
AN ORDINANCE OF INDIAN
RIVER COUNTY; FLORIDA,
AMENDING THE ZONING
ORDINANCE AND THE ACCOM-,
PANYING ZONING MAP FROM
RS -6 TO CG, FOR PROPERTY
LOCATED APPROXIMATELY '/4
MILE JAST OF 43RD AVENUE,
ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF 41st
STREET, AND DESCRIBED HERE-
IN, AND PROVIDING FOR EFFEC-
TIVE DATE.
The proposed ordinance may be
Inspected by the public during reg-
ular business haus at the office of
the Clark to the Board of County
Commissioners, 1840 25th Street,
Vero Beach, Florida. For .mese
information, contact John Wachtel
at 567-8000, extension 247.
The Board of County Commis-
skmers.may adopt another zoning
district, other than the district
requested, provided It is within the
same general use category.
boor, 1-0 4 PACE 5`5
Ila
�
0
E
Y
NOTICE - PUBLIC HEARING
The Board, of County Commis-
sio�s of Indian River County,
Florida, will consider the adoption
of a county ordinance rezoning
land from: RS -6, Stogie -Family Res-
idential District (up to 6 units/acro)
to the CG, General Commercial,
District.. The subject property Is
owned- by Thomas S. Hammond
The subject property is located
approximately 1/4 tmile east of 43rd
Avenue, on the south side of 41 st
Street, and contains approximately
18.7 axe. The subject property
Pros in the southwest '/4 section of
Section 27, Township 32S, Range
39E lying and being in Indian River
County; Flexida.
A. public hearing at which par-
ties in interet and citizens shall
have an opportunity to be heard,
will be held by the Board of
County Commissicam cif Indian
River County, Florida, in the
County Commission Chambers of
the County Administration Building,
located at 1840 25th Street, Vero
Beach, Florida on Tuesday, March
10, 1998, at 9:05 am. The pro-
posed ordinance to rezone the sub.
ject property is entitled:
AN ORDINANCE OF INDIAN
RIVER COUNTY; FLORIDA,
AMENDING THE ZONING
ORDINANCE AND THE ACCOM-,
PANYING ZONING MAP FROM
RS -6 TO CG, FOR PROPERTY
LOCATED APPROXIMATELY '/4
MILE JAST OF 43RD AVENUE,
ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF 41st
STREET, AND DESCRIBED HERE-
IN, AND PROVIDING FOR EFFEC-
TIVE DATE.
The proposed ordinance may be
Inspected by the public during reg-
ular business haus at the office of
the Clark to the Board of County
Commissioners, 1840 25th Street,
Vero Beach, Florida. For .mese
information, contact John Wachtel
at 567-8000, extension 247.
The Board of County Commis-
skmers.may adopt another zoning
district, other than the district
requested, provided It is within the
same general use category.
boor, 1-0 4 PACE 5`5
FF -
BOOK 0 4 PACE 5S6
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of February 25, 1998:
TO: James E. Chandler
County Administrator
D TMENT HEAD CONCURRE
Robert M. Keating,
THROUGH: Sasan Robani, AICP '
Chie4 Long -Range Planning )
FROM: John Wachtel�t/
Senior Planner, Long -Range Planning
DATE: February 25, 1998
RE: Thomas S. Hammond's Request to Amend the Comprehensive Plan to
Redesignate f18.7 acres from M-2 to CII; and to Rezone those f18.7 acres from
RS -6 to CG
PLAN AMENDMENT NUMBER: LUDA 97-07-0166
It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal consideration by the Board of County
Commissioners at its regular meeting of March 10, 1998.
This request involves both a Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map Designation amendment
and a rezoning. Approximately 18.7 acres in size, the subject property is located approximately ''/e
mile east of 431 Avenue, on the south side of 4111 Street. The land use amendment part of the
request involves changing the land use designation from M-2, Medium -Density Residential -2 (up
to 10 units/acre), to C/I, Commercial/Industrial. The rezoning part of the request involves changing
the zoning from RS -6, Single -Family Residential District (up to 6 units/acre), to the CG, General
Commercial, District.
On October 9, 1997, the Planning and Zoning Commission voted 3 to 1 to recommend that the
Board of County Commissioners approve the proposed land use amendment and rezoning. Although
a majority of Planning and Zoning Commissioners present voted in favor of the request, Section
103.02.12 of the County Code states that any matter or application considered by a board or
commission with more than five members must receive four or more votes for passage. Since the
Planning and Zoning Commission has seven members and the subject application received only
three affirmative votes, the favorable recommendation technically failed.
Despite the failed motion, all comprehensive plan amendment requests are forwarded to the Board
of County Commissioners for consideration. In contrast to plan amendment requests, which are
always forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners regardless of the Planning and Zoning
Commission recommendation, rezoning requests are forwarded to the Board only when the request
receives a favorable recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission or when the
applicant files an appeal within 15 days. In this case, the applicant filed the rezoning appeal within
the necessary time period
On November 4, 1997, the Board of County Commissioners voted 5 to 0 to transmit the proposed
land use amendment request to The Florida Department of Community Affairs (DCA) for their
review. The Board of County commissioners is now to decide whether or not to adopt the requested
land use designation amendment and zoning district amendment.
MARCH 10, 1998
•
•
Consistent with state regulations, DCA reviewed the proposed amendment and prepared an
Objections, Recommendations and Comments (ORC) Report (dated January 29, 1998), which
planning staff received on February 2,1998. The DCA ORC Report did not contain any objections
or comments relating to the proposed amendment.
The main building currently on the site has been illegally converted from a barn to a packinghouse.
Use of the building as a bam, a legally established non -conforming use on this site, was
"grandfathered in" and would have been allowed to continue if it had not been converted. Use of the
building as a packinghouse, however, is not permitted within the Medium -Density Residential land
use designation and the residential zoning district. The purpose of this request is to secure the
necessary land use designation and zoning to establish the packinghouse as a legal and conforming
use.
Not wishing to discontinue the packinghouse use, the applicant is working with planning staff to
legalize the use. In so doing, staff and the applicant identified two methods to correct the problem.
The first method is to amend the comprehensive plan policy governing permitted uses within the
Medium -Density Residential land use designation to allow agricultural uses within those areas. The
other method is to change the land use designation of the site to C/I, a designation which permits
packinghouses.
In this case, the applicant originally chose both methods. He applied for a comprehensive plan text
amendment to allow agricultural uses within the Medium -Density Residential land use designation.
and he submitted the subject land use amendmentirezoning request. At the October 9,1997 Planning
and Zoning Commission meeting, however, a text amendment related concern was raised. That
concern was that the proposed change would greatly increase incompatibilities by allowing
agricultural businesses and packinghouses to operate in any M-1 or M-2 designated area of the
county. Based on that concern, the Planning and Zoning Commission voted 3 to 1 to deny the text
amendment request. Subsequently, the applicant withdrew the text amendment request.
Issues raised at the Planning and Zoning Commission public hearing also influenced planning stats s
recommendation. At that hearing, planning staff recommended approval of the text amendment and
denial of the land use designation amendment. Staff now recommends approval of the subject land
use designation amendment.
While staffs position has always been that the site is appropriate for commercial/industrial uses, the
preferred residential to C/I land use designation amendment method, however, is a "swap -out." That
method involves removing a separate 18.7 acre tract from the node while simultaneously adding the
subject property (18.7 acres) to the node. Unable to find C/I designated land that could be swapped
in a financially feasible manner, the applicant submitted the subject request. Although staff
considered that the preferred swap -out method was not the only acceptable method, staff
nevertheless recommended that the request be denied.
At the Planning and Zoning Commission public hearing, however, several issues were discussed.
These included the fact that the site is located within an airport noise impact zone; that the adjacent
land within the City of Vero Beach city limits could be developed industrially; and that residential
development on the site may not be feasible. In discussing this matter, the planning and Zoning
Commission expressed significant concern about those issues. Based on the Planning and Zoning
Commission's concern about those issues, staffs position is that a "swap -out" is not necessary to
approve the subject request.
Commercial/industrial nodes are intended to be contiguous areas. The Gifford Node in the area of
the subject property, however, consists of several non-contiguous tracts. That node, located along
41' Street, is depicted on attachments 5 and 6. The land use designation history of the area indicates
why the node is not contiguous.
Prior to the 1990 adoption of the current comprehensive plan, the county's comprehensive plan
included a Mixed land use designation. That land use designation was given to several areas of the
county where the existing land use patter consisted of a mix of residential, commercial, industrial,
and other uses. The Mixed land use designation allowed residential, commercial, and industrial
zoning districts.
In 1990, the Board of County Commissioners determined that the mix of land uses in those areas
resulted in many compatibility problems. To avoid further compatibility problems, the Mixed land
use designation was eliminated when the current plan was adopted. In the Gifford area, new land
use designations were assigned to areas previously designated Mixed, based on the existing zoning
MARCH 109 1998
-19- BOOK 1-04SCC
I
districts. Residentially zoned land was designated M-2, while commercially or industrially zoned
land was designated C/I. Because of the historically mixed zoning and land uses in that area of the
county, designation of a contiguous node was not feasible at that time. Since the subject property
was zoned for residential uses, it was given a residential land use designation.
In addition to citrus groves on most of the site, the RS -6 zoned subject property contains a
pacidnghouse and several accessory buildings. To the north, across 4111 Street, land is zoned RM -10,
Multiple -Family Residential District (up to 10 unitstacre) and consists of one or two single-family
houses on wooded lots. To the west, land is zoned RS -6 and contains approximately 10 acres of
citrus groves. West of that is the Indian River County Sheriffs Administration Complex and the
County Jail. Land to the south of the subject property is zoned IL and contains a wooded area and
the Gateway Center Industrial Subdivision. Land to the east of the site is within the City of Vero
Beach. That land, zoned ALI-A2, Airport Light Industrial -A2, consists of large wooded areas.
Portions of the ALI-A2 district east of the site, although not adjacent to the site, contain
environmentally important xeric scrub and prime aquifer recharge areas. For that reason, the City
is studying what, if any, uses should be allowed within that district.
The subject property, the 10 acre tract abutting the subject property on the west, and properties to
the north are designated M-2, Medium -Density Residential -2, on the county future land use map.
The M-2 designation permits residential densities up to 10 units/acre. Properties to the south of the
subject property are designated C/l, CommerciaVIndustrial, a designation which permits commercial
and industrial zoning districts. Land to the east, within the City of Vero Beach, is designated CV,
Conservation.
The subject property is currently used for agricultural purposes, being a citrus grove with a
packinghouse. No wetlands or native upland plant communities exist on site. The subject property
is not within a 100 year floodplain. To the east of the site, within the City of Vero Beach, is
undeveloped wooded property.
The site is within the Urban Service Area of the county. Wastewater service is available to the site
from the Central Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant. Centralized potable water service is
available to the site from the South County Reverse Osmosis Plant.
Abutting the site on the north is 41' Street. Classified as an urban minor arterial on the future
roadway thoroughfare plan map, 41' Street is a two lane road with approximately 40 feet of public
road right-of-way. This segment of 41st Street is programmed for the addition of a left turn lane
during Fiscal Year 1998-99 and for expansion to 80 feet of public road right-of-way by 2010.
In this section, an analysis of the reasonableness of the application will be presented. The analysis
will address:
• concurrency of public facilities;
• compatibility with the surrounding area;
• consistency with the comprehensive plan; and
• potential impact on environmental quality.
This site is located within the county Urban Service Area, an area deemed suited for urban scale
development. The Comprehensive Plan establishes standards for: Transportation, Potable Water,
Wastewater, Solid Waste, Drainage and Recreation (Future Land Use Policy 3.1). The adequate
provision of these services is necessary to ensure the continued quality of life enjoyed by the
community. The Comprehensive Plan and Land Development Regulations also require that new
development be reviewed to ensure that the minimum acceptable standards for these services and
facilities are maintained.
Policy 3.2 of the Future Land Use Element states that no development shall be approved unless it
is consistent with the concurrency management system component of the Capital Improvements
Element. For Comprehensive Plan amendment and rezoning requests, conditional concurrency
review is required
MARCH 10, 1998
•
0
Conditional concurrency review examines the available capacity of each facility with respect to a
proposed project. Since Comprehensive Plan amendment and rezoning requests are not projects,
county regulations call for the concurrency review to be based upon the most intense use of the
subject property based upon the requested zoning district or land use designation. For commercial
Comprehensive Plan amendment requests, the most intense use (according to the county's Land
Development Regulations) is retail commercial with 10,000 square feet of gross floor area per acre
of land proposed for redesignation. The site information used for the concurrency analysis is as
follows:
1. Size of Area to be
Redesignated and Rezoned: +18.7 acres
2. Existing Land Use Designation: M-2, Medium -Density Residential - 2 (up to
10 units/acre)
3. Proposed Land Use Designation: CA, Commercial/Industrial
4. Most Intense Use of Subject Property
under Current Land Use Designation: 187 Dwelling Units
Most Intense Use of Subject Property
under Proposed Land Use Designation:
- Transportation
187,000 sq. ft. of Retail Commercial
(Shopping Center in the 5th Edition ITE
Manual).
A review of the traffic impacts that would result from the development of the property indicates that
the existing level of service "D" or better on 41st Street and other impacted roads would not be
lowered. The site information used for determining traffic impacts is as follows:
1. Residential Use Identified in 5th Edition ITE Manual: Single -Family
2. For Single -Family Units in 5th Edition ITE Manual:
a. Average Weekday Trip Ends: 10.1/unit
b. P.M. Peak Hour Trip Ends: 1.01/unit
C. Inbound (P.M. Peak Hour): 65%
i. Eastbound (P.M. Peak Hour): 53%
ii. Westbound (P.M. Peak Hour): 47%
d. Outbound (P.M. Peak Hour): 35%
i. Eastbound (P.M. Peak Hour): 47%
ii. Westbound (P.M. Peak Hour): 53%
3. Peak Direction of 41st Street, from 43rd Avenue to Old Dixie Highway: Eastbound
4. Formula for Determining Number of Peak Hour/Peak Season/Peak Direction Trips
Generated: Number of Units X P.M. Peak Hour Rate X Inbound P.M. Percentage X
Inbound -Eastbound Percentage (187 X 1.01 X.65 X.53 = 65)
5. Formula for Determining Number of Average Weekday Trips Generated: Number of Units
X Average Weekday Rate (187 X 10.1=1,889)
1. Retail Commercial use Identified in 5th Edition ITE Manual: Shopping Center
2. For 187,000 sq.ft. Shopping Centers in 5th Edition ITE Manual:
a. Average Weekday Trip Ends: 56/1,000 square feet
b. P.M. Peak Hour Trip Ends: 5.23/1,000 square feet
C. Inbound (P.M. Peak Hour): 50%
i. Eastbound (P.M. Peak Hour): 53%
ii. Westbound (P.M. Peak Hour): 47%
d. Outbound (P.M. Peak Hour): 50%
i. Eastbound (P.M. Peak Hour): 47%
ii. Westbound (P.M. Peak Hour): 53%
MARCH 10, 1998
-21-
502K J-04 f'gi t 7
i
3. Peak Direction of 41st Street, from 43'a Avenue to Old Dixie Highway: Eastbound
4. Formula for Determining Number of Peak Hour/Peak Season/Peak Direction Trips
Generated: Total Square Footage X P.M. Peak Hour Rate X Inbound PAL Percentage
X Inbound -Southbound Percentage (187,000 X 5.2.3/1,000 X.5 X.53 = 259)
(trip distribution based on a Modified Gravity Model)
5. Formula for Determining Number of Average Weekday Trips Generated: Total Square
Footage X Average Weekday Rate (187,000 X 56/1,000 sq.ft. =10,472)
6. Traffic Capacity on this segment of 41st Street, at a Level of Service "D": 880 peak
hour/peak season/peak direction trips
7. Total Segment Demand (existing volume + vested volume) on this segment of 41 st Street:
206 peak hour/peak season/peak direction trips
The number of Average Weekday Trip Ends associated with the most intense use of the subject
property under the existing land use designation is 1,889. This was determined by multiplying the
187 units (most intense use) by ITE's single-family residential factor of 10.1 Average Daily Trip
Ends/unit.
The number of Average Weekday Trip Ends associated with the most intense use of the subject
property under the proposed land use designation is 10,472. This was determined by multiplying
the 187,000 square feet of shopping center use (most intense use) by ITE's shopping center fitted
curve factor of 56 Average Daily Trip Ends/1,000 square feet.
Since the county's transportation level of service is based on peak hour/peak season/peak direction
characteristics, the transportation concurrency analysis addresses project traffic occurring in the peak
hour and affecting the peak direction of impacted roadways. According to ITE, the proposed use
generates more volume in the p.m. peak hour than in the am. peak hour. Therefore, the p.m. peak
hour was used in the transportation concurrency analysis. The peak direction during the p.m. peak
hour on 419 Street is eastbound.
Given those conditions, the number of peak hour/peak season/peak direction trips that would be
generated by the most intense use of the subject property under the existing land use designation was
calculated to be 65. This was determined by multiplying the total number of units allowed (187)
under the existing land use designation by ITE's factor of 1.01 p.m. peak hour tripstunit, to determine
the total number of trips generated Of these trips, 65% (123) will be inbound and 35% (64) will be
outbound Of the inbound trips, 53% or 65 will be eastbound
To determine the number of peak hour/peak season/peak direction trips that would be generated by
the most intense use of the subject property under the proposed land use designation, the total square
footage of shopping center allowed under the proposed amendment (187,000) was multiplied by
ITE's factor of 5.23 p.m. peak hour trips/1,000 square feet to determine the total number of trips
generated (978). Of these trips, 50% (489) will be inbound and 50% (489) will be outbound Of the
inbound trips, 53% or 259 will be eastbound Therefore, the most intense use of the subject property
under the proposed land use designation would generate 194 (259 - 65 =194) more peak hour/peak
season/peak direction trips than the 65 that would be generated by the most intense use of the subject
property under the existing land use designation.
Using a modified gravity model and a hand assignment, the peak hour/peak season/peak direction
trips generated by the proposed use were then assigned to impacted roads on the network. Impacted
roads are defined in section 910.09(4)(b)3 of the county's LDRs as roadway segments which receive
five percent (5%) or more of the project traffic or fifty (50) or more of the project trips, whichever
is less.
Capacities for all roadway segments in Indian River County are calculated and updated annually,
utilizing the latest and best available peak season traffic characteristics and applying Appendix G
methodology as set forth in the Florida Department of Transportation Level of Service Manual.
Available capacity is the total capacity less existing and committed (vested) traffic volumes; this is
updated daily based upon vesting associated with project approvals.
The traffic capacity for the segment of 41st Street adjacent to this site is 880 trips (peak hour/peak
season/peak direction) at Level of Service (LOS) "D", while the Total Segment Demand (existing
traffic volume + vested traffic volume) on this segment of 41 st Street is 227 trips (peak hour/peak
season/peak direction). The additional 259 peak hour/peak season/peak direction trips created by
the most intense use of the subject property under the proposed amendment would increase the Total
Segment Demand peak hour/peak season/peak direction trips for this segment of 41' Street to
approximately 486.
MARCH 10, 1998
0 -22-
•
Based on the above analysis, staff determined that 419 Street and all other impacted roads can
accommodate the additional trips without decreasing their existing levels of service.
The table below identifies each of the impacted roadway segments associated with the proposed land
use designation. As indicated in this table, there is sufficient capacity in all of the segments to
accommodate the projected traffic associated with the request.
TRAFFIC CONCURRENCY DETERMINATION
Impacted Road Segments
(peak hour/peak season/peak direction)
Roadway Segment
Seament Roan F ^m To Capacity
1330N
U.S. 1
1330S
U.S. 1
1335N
U.S. 1
1335S
U.S. 1
1340N
U.S. 1
13405
U.S. 1
1345N
U.S. 1
1345S
U.S. 1
1350N
U.S. 1
1350S
U.S. 1
1355N
U.S. 1
13555
U.S. 1
136ON
U.S. 1
1360S
U.S. 1
1365N
U.S. 1
13655
U.S. 1
1370N
U.S. 1
13705
U.S. 1
1915E
S.R. 60
1915W
S.R. 60
1920E
S.R. 60
1920W
S.R. 60
1925E
S.R. 60
1925W
S.R. 60
S. VB City Limit
S. VB City Limit
17th Street
17th Street
S.R. 60
S.R. 60
Royal Palm Place
Royal Palm Place
Atlantic Blvd.
Atlantic Blvd.
N.VB City Limit
N.VB City Limit
Old Dixie Hwy
Old Dixie Hwy
41st Street
41st Street
45th Street
45th Street
I-95
I-95
82 Ave.
82 Ave.
66th Ave.
66th Ave.
17th Street
17th Street
S.R. 60
S.R. 60
Royal Palm
Royal Palm
Atlantic Blvd.
Atlantic Blvd.
N.VB City Limit
N.VB City Limit
Old Dixie Hwy
Old Dixie Hwy
41st Street
41st Street
45th Street
45th Street
49th Street
49th Street
82 Ave.
82 Ave.
66th Ave.
66th Ave.
58th Ave.
58th Ave.
2,270
2,270
2,270
2,270
2,300
2,300
2,300
2,300
2,300
2,300
2,300
2,300
2,300
2,300
2,650
2,650
2,650
-2,650
1,890
1,890
2,270
2,270
2,840
2,840
Roadway
Segment
Seament
Roam
From
^
Capacity
"Da
1930E
1930W
S.R.
S.R.
60
60
58th Ave.
58th
43rd Ave.
OS
2,840
2345N
Old
Dix. Hwy
Ave.
41st Street
43rd Ave.
2,840
2345S
Old
Dix. Hwy
1st Street
45th Street
880
235ON
Old
Dix. Hwy
45th Street
45th Street
880
2350S
Old
Dix. Hwy
45th Street
49th Street
880
2355N
Old
Dix. Hwy
49th Street
49th Street
65th
880
2355S
Old
Dix. Hwy
49th Street
Street
65th
880
236ON
Old
Dix. Hwy
65th Street
Street
69th
880
2360S
Old
Dix. Hwy
65th Street
Street
69th
880
2365N
Old
Dix. Hwy
69th Street
Street
880
2365S
Old
Dix. Hwy
69th Street
C.R. 510
880
2930N
43rd
Ave.
16th St.
C.R. 510
880
2930S
43rd
Ave.
16th St.
S.R. 60
880
2935N
43rd
Ave.
S.R. 60
S.R. 60
880
2935S
43rd
Ave.
S.R. 60
26th Street
880
2940N
43rd
Ave.
26th Street
26th Street
880
2940S
43rd
Ave.
26th Street
41st Street
880
303ON
58th
Ave.
S.R. 60
41st Street
880
30305
58th
Ave.
S.R. 60
41st Street
11890
3035N
58th
Ave.
41st Street
41st Street
11890
3035S
58th
Ave.
41st Street
45th Street
760
304ON
58th
Ave.
45th Street
45th. Street
760
3040S
58th
Ave.
45th Street
49th Street
760
4430E
41st
Street
58th Ave.
49th Street
760
4430W
41st
Street
58th Ave.
43rd Ave.
880
4440E
41st
Street
43rd Ave.
43rd Ave.
880
4440W
41st
Street
43rd Ave.
Old Dixie Hwy
880
4450E
41st
Street
Old Dixie H
Old Dixie Hwy
880
445OW
41st
Street
Old Dixie Hwy
In. River Blvd
880
4730E
26th
Street
58th Ave.
In. River Blvd
880
4730W
26th
Street
58th Ave.
43rd Ave.
880
43rd Ave.
880
MARCH 109 1998
-23-
•
fil3'�K ��y:G 71,
I
Roadway
Existing
Existing
Demand
Vested
Total
Segment
Available
Project
Positive
S am n
Volume
Volume
Demand
Sement
Cat)acity
Project
DemandD
Concurrency
to
133ON
133OS
1216
1312
249
1465
805
16
Y
1335N
1442
257
296
1569
1738
701
16
y
13355
1315
318
1633
532
637
31
Y
1 34ON
643
185
828
1472
31
47
y
134OS
1345N
680
849
211
891
1409
47
v
13455
1221
121
138
970
1359
1330
62
Y
135ON
1102
111
1213
94
18077
62
78
Y
135OS
1355N
1124
1102
138
1262
1090
78
v
y
13555
1124
69
86
1171
1210
1129
78
y
136ON
988
107
1095
1090
1205
78
25
Y
136OS
1365N
779
976
102881
493
1919
25
y
y
1365S
751
81
79
1057
1593
16
y
1370
831
102
830
933
1820
16
Y
1370S5
694
132
626
1717
1829
16
16
Y
1915E
925
672
1597
293
16
y
1915W
1039
582
1621
269
16
y
1920E
1009
849
1858
412
31
Y
192OW
1028
713
1741
399
31
Y
1925E
1170
1350
2520
320
19
y
1925W
1288
1290
2578
262
19
y
1930E
1116
1374
2490
350
16
Y
193OW
1209
1365
2574
266
16
y
2345N
175
28
203
677
72
y
23455
170
30
200
680
72
y
235ON
2350S
43
84
29
72
808
31
Y
y
2355N
69
31
14
115
765
31
y
2355S
67
14
83
81
797
16
Y
236ON
72
6
78
799
16
Y
23605
92
6
98
802
16
Y
2365N
79
10
89
782
16
y
2365S
57
10
67
791
16
Y
813
16
Y
Roadway
Existing
Existing
Demand
Vested
Total
Segment
Available
Segment
Project
Positive
Seament
Volume
Volume
Demand
Canacity
Demand
Concurrency
p tel-minarinn
293ON
498
171
669
211
34
293OS
673
168
841
39
34
y
2935N
380
109
489
391
62
y
29355
504
108
612
268
62
y
294ON
342
38
380
500
90
Y
294OS
280
42
322
558
90
Y
3O3ON
461
405
866
1024
25
y
Y
3O3OS
495
413
908
982
25
3O35N
420
132
552
208
19
Y
30355
322
133
455
305
19
y
3O4ON
379
114
493
267
19
y
3O4OS
331
117
448
312
19
Y
9430E
105
101
206
674
56
Y
443OW
134
100
234
646
56
Y
4440E
188
39
227
653
155
Y
444OW
170
39
209
671
155
Y
4450E
77
8
85
795
41
Y
445ON
70
8
78
802
41
Y
4730E
108
52
160
720
19
Y
473OW
140
46
186
694
Y
19
y
MARCH 10, 1998
-24-
- Water
A retail commercial use of 187,000 square feet on the subject property will have a water
consumption rate of 56 Equivalent Residential units (ERU), or 14,000 gallons/day. This is based
upon a level of service standard of 250 gallons/ERU/day. Water lines extend to the site from the
South County Reverse osmosis Plant which currently has a remaining capacity of approximately
1,900,000 gallons/day and therefore can accommodate the potable water demand associated with the
proposed amendment.
- Wastewater
The subject property is serviced by the Central Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant. Based upon
the most intense use allowed under the proposed amendment, development of the property will have
a wastewater generation rate of approximately 56 Equivalent Residential Units (ERU), or 14,000
gallonsiday. This is based upon the level of service standard of 250 gallons/ERU/day. The Central
Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant currently has a remaining capacity of approximately 370,000
gallons/day and can accommodate the additional wastewater generated by the proposed amendment.
- Solid Waste
Solid waste service includes pick-up by private operators and disposal at the county landfill. For a
187,000 square foot commercial development on the subject site, solid waste generation will be
approximately 956 waste generation units (WGU) annually. A WGU is a Waste Generation Unit
measurement equivalent to one ton (2,000 pounds) of solid waste. Using the accepted conversion
rate of one cubic yard for every 1,200 pounds of compacted solid waste generated, the 187,000
square feet of commercial development would be expected to generate 1,594 cubic yards of
waste/year.
A review of the solid waste capacity for the active segment of the county landfill indicates the
availability of more than 840,000 cubic yards. The active segment of the landfill has a 2 year
capacity, and the landfill has expansion capacity beyond 2010. Based on staff analysis, it was
determined that the county landfill can accommodate the additional solid waste generated by the
proposed amendment.
- Drainage
All developments are reviewed for compliance with county stormwater regulations which require
on-site retention, preservation of floodplain storage and minimum finished floor elevations. In
addition, development proposals must meet the discharge requirements of the county Stormwater
Management ordinance. The subject property is located within the M-1 Drainage Basin. Since the
site is located within the Indian River Farms Water Control District (IRFWCD), development on the
property will be prohibited from discharging any runoff in excess of two inches in a twenty-four
hour period, which is the approved IRFWCD discharge rate.
In this case, the minimum floor elevation level of service standards do not apply, since the property
does not lie within a floodplain. However, both the on-site retention and discharge standards apply.
With the most intense use of this site under the proposed amendment, the maximum area of
impervious surface would be approximately 692,386 square feet, or 15.9 acres. The maximum
runoff volume, based on that amount of impervious surface and the 25 year/24 hour design storm.
and given the IRFWCD two inch discharge requirement, would be approximately 591,617 cubic feet.
In order to maintain the county's adopted level of service, the applicant would be required to retain
approximately 456,160 cubic feet of runoff on-site.
Based upon staffs analysis, the drainage level of service standard would be met by limiting off-site
discharge to the IRFWCD's maximum discharge rate of two inches in twenty-four hours, and
requiring retention of the 456,160 cubic feet of runoff for the most intense use of the property. As
with all development, a more detailed review will be conducted during the development approval
process.
- Recreation
Recreation concurrency requirements apply only to residential development. Therefore, this
comprehensive plan amendment/rezoning request would not be required to satisfy recreation
concurrency requirements.
Based on the analysis conducted, staff has determined that all concurrency -mandated facilities.
including drainage, roads, solid waste, water, and wastewater, have adequate capacity to
accommodate the most intense use of the subject property under the proposed land use designation.
MARCH 10, 1998
-25-
Land use amendment requests are reviewed for consistency with all policies of the Comprehensive
Plan. As per section 800.07(1) of the County Code, the "Comprehensive Plan may only be amended
in such a way as to preserve the internal consistency of the plan pursuant to Section
163.3177(2)F.S." Amendments must also show consistency with the overall designation of land uses
as depicted on the Future Land Use Map, which includes agricultural, residential, recreational,
conservation, and commercial and industrial land uses and their densities.
The goals, objectives and policies are the most important parts of the Comprehensive Plan. Policies
are statements in the plan which identify the action which the county will take in order to direct the
community's development. As courses of action committed to by the county, policies provide the
basis for all county land development related decisions—including plan amendment decisions. While
all Comprehensive Plan policies are important, some have more applicability than others in
reviewing plan amendment requests. Of particular applicability are the following objective and
policies:
- Future Land Use Element Policy 13.3
The most important policy to consider in evaluating a plan amendment request for consistency with
the county's Comprehensive Plan is Future Land Use Element Policy 13.3. This policy requires that
one of three criteria be met in order to approve a land use amendment request. These criteria are:
• a mistake in the approved plan;
• an oversight in the approved plan; or
• a substantial change in circumstances affecting the subject property.
Staffs position is that this land use amendment request meets Policy 13.3's third criteria.
When the current Comprehensive Plan was approved on February 13, 1990, the plan assigned
commercial/industrial zoned properties to commercial nodes. These nodes were designated various
sizes to reflect commercial demand and were established in certain areas to incorporate lands deemed
suitable for commercial developmem The subject property was considered for inclusion in the node
at that time.
When the comprehensive plan was adopted, the subject property was not included in the node for
the following reasons:
• There was already sufficient land designated commercial/industrial to accommodate
projected demand; and
• Given the size and shape of the subject property, residential development was determined
to be feasible.
For these reasons, staffs position is that there was no mistake nor oversight in the Comprehensive
Plan.
There has been, however, a change in circumstances affecting the subject property. That change
relates to the county's airport zoning regulations (Section 911.17) which were adopted, pursuant to
Chapters 163 and 333 of the Florida Statutes, on March 18, 1993. Those regulations establish a
noise impact overlay zone. Prior to building permit issuance, developers of proposed residences
within noise impact zones must show that those impacts will be mitigated through one of the
following means:
• Veri' g in writing that MQnosed buildings are designed to achieve an outdoor to indoor
noise level reduction of at least 25 decibels. Normal residential construction can be expected
to provide a noise reduction level of 20 to 25 decibels; or
•
Executing and recording an aviation easement An aviation easement is a legal document
that grants to the owner/operator of a nearby airport a right to continue to operate the airport
under the current conditions, despite potential nuisance effects upon uses that are being
established in close proximity to the airport.
Because the subject property is located within a noise impact zone, these regulations apply to the
site. Staff s position is that due to unique circumstances of the subject property, these regulations
adversely impact the site to the extent that the site is not feasible for residential development Those
circumstances are related to the residential development potential of the site.
MARCH 10, 1998
0
-26-
•
The most feasible residential development scenario for the subject property involves lower cost or
affordable housing. That is due to the following factors:
• The site is designated for up to 10 unitstacre, the county's most dense residential land use
designation;
0 The site is located in an area of the county with a high proportion of low and very low
income households; and
• The site is located near several employment centers that generate a demand for nearby
affordable housing. Those employment centers include The Vero Beach Municipal Airport,
The Sheriffs Administration/County Jail Complex, Dodgertown, Indian River Memorial
Hospital, the Gifford CommerciaVindustrial Node, and the SR 60/58th Avenue
Commercial/Industrial Node.
Even though the added cost associated with development within noise impact zones is not
significant, that cost may be enough to impact the feasibility of an affordable housing project.
Therefore, the adoption of noise impact overlay zones and regulations for development within those
zones constitutes a change in circumstances affecting the subject property. For that reason, the
subject request is consistent with Future Land Use Policy 13.3.
- Future Land Use Element Policy 1.23
Policy 1.23 of the Future Land Use Element states that no node should be considered for expansion
unless 70% of the land area (less rights-of-way) is developed, or approved for development, with
non-agricultural and non-residential uses, unless otherwise warranted.
The ,intent of Future Land Use Element Policy 1.23 is to establish specific criteria for node
expansion. Without such criteria, decisions are often arbitrary and inconsistent The 701/6 standard,
then, is a measure of whether a node needs to be expanded. According to the County's
Commercial/Industrial Data Source, the subject node is 32% developed.
As stated in Policy 1.23, however, a node that is less than 70% developed may be considered for
expansion if otherwise warranted. Policy 123 states that otherwise warranted may include but not
be limited to changes in circumstances affecting property adjacent to a node. As described above,
the adoption of noise impact overlay zones and regulations for development within those zones
constitutes a change in circumstances affecting the subject property.
Policy 1.23 also states that otherwise warranted may include but not be limited to instances where
expansion of a node is necessary to include existing adjacent non -conforming commercial or
industrial uses, and a finding is made by the Board of County Commissioners that the non-
conforming uses cannot be otherwise eliminated. The packinghouse on the site constitutes an
existing adjacent non -conforming use. Based on the analysis, staffs position is that the proposed
land use amendment is the best method to eliminate that non -conformity. For those reasons, the
subject request is consistent with Future Land Use Policy 1.23.
- Future Land Use Element Policies L15 and 1.17
Future Land Use Element Policies 1.15 and 1.17 state that the commercial/industrial land use
designation should be within the urban service area and is intended for a wide range of commercial
and industrial uses. Fronting a major road, adjacent to C/I designated land, and with urban services
available, the subject property is appropriate for commercial/industrial uses. The proposed
amendment would allow commercial/industrial development on the site. Therefore, the proposed
amendment is consistent with Future Land Use Element Policies 1.15 and 1.17.
- Future Land Use Policy 121
This policy states that node boundaries are designed to eliminate strip commercial development and
urban sprawl, and to provide for maximum use of transportation and public facilities. Given the land
use designation pattern along 4111 Street, between 58' Avenue and US 1, the proposed amendment
will not result in strip commercial development.
Presently, non-residential/non-agricultural uses extend on the south side of 41s' Street from US 1
nearly to 581i Avenue, a distance of more than two miles. The exception is the M-2 designated
subject property and adjacent land on the west That land abuts 41' Street for only 981feet.
constituting a residential enclave in a non-residential/non-agricultural area. Redesignating this
property will result in infill, rather than strip, development
MARCH 109 1998
-27- e 1 [
UO�� m0 �� ! 1��J�
Fr -LO C I
NON .1 4
Because the development pattern of the area is already set and will not be impacted by the proposed
amendment, the proposed amendment will not cause strip commercial development along 41' Street.
For that reason, the request is consistent with Future Land Use Policy 1.21.
- Future Land Use Element Policy 1.24
Future Land Use Element Policy 1.24 states that any property redesignated commercial through a
land use plan amendment shall revert to its former designation if construction on the site has not
commenced within a two year period, unless such timeframe is modified by the Board of County
Commissioners as part of a development agreement. This policy decreases land speculation, and
helps ensure that demand for additional CII designated land is present before requests to expand
nodes are approved. This policy also allows for the correction of nodes mistakenly expanded in the
absence of demand for more CA designated land.
Staffs position is that commercial/industrial development on the subject property would result in
fewer incompatibilities than residential development on the site. Because the site is bordered on the
south by C/I designated land, the request is for the continuation of an existing land use designation
pattern. In fact, the subject property is an 18.7 acre residential enclave within a 351 acre
commerciallindustrial node.
By eliminating that enclave, the proposed amendment would result in a more consistent, efficient
and logical land use designation and zoning pattern in that area of the county. Additionally,
eliminating the enclave would also make zoning administration more efficient.
Residential development on the subject property would be particularly impacted by noise and traffic
generated by adjacent and nearby uses such as the airport, the jail, and industrial uses to the south.
Although designated for conservation uses in the City of Vero Beach's comprehensive plan, the
wooded area east of the site continues to be zoned for industrial uses. In contrast to residential
development on the site, the industrial and institutional uses surrounding the subject property would
have little impact on commercial development on the site. Although site design features such as
additional buffering may partially mitigate impacts on residential projects, the added costs of those
features may render a project unfeasible. This is especially relevant to affordable and lower cost
housing projects which are most feasible for the subject property.
The primary impacts of commercial development on the subject site would be on the residentially
designated citrus grove along the subject property's west boundary. That land consists of one 10 -
acre parcel that is 1330 feet wide. Since that site shares many of the same circumstances as the
subject property (including location within the noise impact zone), the feasibility of residential
development on that site is questionable.
For these reasons, staff feels that commercial development on the subject property would be
compatible with surrounding uses.
The site has been cleared, and contains no environmentally important land, such as wetlands or
native upland habitat. Therefore, development of the site is anticipated to have little or no impact
on the environmental quality of the site. Compared to residential development, however,
commercial/industrial development on the site may have a greater impact on the wooded areas
abutting the site on the east. Those impacts can be at least partially mitigated through site design.
For this reason, only minimal adverse environmental impacts associated with this request are
anticipated.
Situated within a noise impact zone, and adjacent to a municipal airport and industrially zoned land,
the subject property is located along the south side of 41s' Street, an area dominated by industrial,
heavy commercial, and institutional uses. The subject property is an appropriate site for
cwmmercial/mdustrial uses. The proposed amendment is the best alternative to eliminate the existing
non -conforming use on the site. Based on the analysis, staff has determined that the requested land
use designation and zoning district are compatible with surrounding areas, consistent with the
comprehensive plan, meet all concurrency criteria, will have no negative impacts on environmental
quality, and meet all applicable land use designation amendment and rezoning criteria For these
reasons, staff supports the request
MARCH 10, 1998
0
-28-
Based on the analysis performed, staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners
approve the attached ordinances to redesignate the subject property to C/I and to rezone the subject
property to CG.
— — — —
43RD AVE
,
I
0I
r
~�
- — °8r►
_
r
=<
C
D
r
�
T
to
o
N
-- - ---
t(�"�'�
— --
-
AEE
' m
M
`I
M
_ C7 M
c�
S
s
e
r
.e
— — — —
43RD AVE
,
I
0I
r
�
ca
v
M
c�
e
.e
1
GTY LIMITS
I
I
I —
I
s �
� f
n
' o
I
A]TAU Mph LAND U S E
MARCH 10, 1998
�fK s
-29-
S s I u
R —8
I
42nd s i IL RS -6
PALM GARDE
6 3 C Z
VERO BEj CH
vi NU M(A, n MIINI(1Al AINPIIN 1
FRACT 6
RS --6
w Subject
Q Property
M
TRACT 16
CH
CITK LIMITS
•
2
u
0
I z
i I _
Z
f 11 IAACT 10 O
� � N
I N'
� I
I
c I
I
c �
� IL I �
II ,:... c .. , 1
TRACT I7 "'i CTTI 14 I TRACT Ir
I ,
� I
r
1
I
0
M
•
0 1
Community Development Director Bob Keating stated that this request was approved
by the Board in November, 1997, for transmittal to the Department of Community Affairs.
This is an unusual case. The subject property is a grove which contains an illegal packing
house, converted from a barn. Staff has worked with the applicant to find a solution to the
problem. This property is in an airport noise zone, making it more difficult to develop as
residential property, with land zoned Commercial/Industrial on the south and east, and the
Sheriff's Complexto the west. The Planning andZoning Commissionrecommends changing
the land use designation. DCA has reviewed the changes and had no objections, comments
or recommendations.
The Chairman opened the public hearing and asked if anyone wished to be heard
regarding this matter.
Attorney Bruce Barkett, on behalf of the applicant, Tom Hammond, agreed with
staff's recommendation and noted that he is present to answer any questions the Board may
have.
The Chairman asked if anyone else wished to be heard regarding this matter. There
being none, the Chairman closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Ginn questioned whether there would be any problem with Vero Beach
well fields, and Director Keating advised none are anticipated. The City had no objections.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert,
SECONDED by Commissioner Adams, the Board
unanimously adopted Ordinance 98-003 amending
the land use element of the Comprehensive Plan by
changing the land use designation for f 18.7 acres
located approximately 1/4 of a mile east of 43'
Avenue, on the south side of 41" Street, from M-2 to
C/I; and providing severability and effective date
(Thomas S. Hammond).
MARCH 10, 1998
J
L
Fr- -I
b 0 ox
ORDINANCE NO. 98- 03
AN ORDINANCE OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, AMENDING THE LAND
USE ELEMENT OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN BY CHANGING THE LAND USE
DESIGNATION FOR ±18.7 ACRES LOCATED APPROXIMATELY %+ OF A MILE
EAST OF 43RD AVENUE, ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF 41' STREET, FROM M-2 TO C/I;
AND PROVIDING SEVERABILITY AND EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners adopted the Indian River County
Comprehensive Plan on February 13, 1990, and
WHEREAS, the county received comprehensive plan amendment applications during its July
1997 amendment submittal window, and
WHEREAS, the Local Planning Agency held a public hearing on Thomas S. Hammond's
comprehensive plan amendment request on October 9, 1997, after due public notice, and
WHEREAS, the Local Planning Agency voted 3 to 1 to recommend approval of this
comprehensive plan amendment to the Board of County Commissioners, and
WHEREAS, The Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County held a Transmittal
Public Hearing on November 4,1997, after advertising pursuant to F.S. 163.3184(15)(b)(1) and (c),
and
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners approved the transmittal of this
comprehensive plan amendment to the Florida Department of Community Affairs for their review
and comment, 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 this plan
amendment process, and
WHEREAS, the Florida Department of Community Affairs received this Comprehensive
Plan Amendment on November 24, 1998, for the State review pursuant to F.S. 163.3184(4), and
WHEREAS, Indian River County received the Objections, Recommendations, and
Comments (ORC) Report from the Florida Department of Community Affairs on February 2, 1998,
and
WHEREAS, the ORC Report contained no objections or comments regarding Thomas S.
Hammond's comprehensive plan amendment, and
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County held a
Comprehensive Plan Amendment Adoption Public Hearing on March 10, 1998, after advertising
pursuant to F.S. I 63.3184(15)(b)(2) and (c);
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED, by the Board of County Commissioners of Indian
River County, Florida, that:
MARCH 10, 1998
• -32-
•
r�
U
ORDINANCE NO. 98- 03
SECTION 1. Cg3jF' hensiw Plan Amendment Adoption and Transmittal
The amendment to the Indian River CountyComprehensive Plan identified in Section 2 is
hereby adopted, and three (3) copies are directed to be transmitted to the State of Florida Department
of Community Affairs and one (1) copy is directed to be transmitted to the Treasure Coast Regional
Planning Council.
SECTION 2. Amendments to the ComUMhensive Plan
The land use designation of the following described property situated in Indian River County,
Florida to wit:
THE WEST 20 ACRES OF TRACT 11, SECTION 27, TOWNSHIP 32 SOUTH,
RANGE 39 EAST, INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA; LESS ALL RIGHTS-
OF-WAY OF RECORD.
is changed from M-2, Medium -Density Residential -2 (up to 10 units/acre) to CA,
Commercialandustrial and the Future Land Use Map is hereby revised accordingly.
SECTION 3. Ren�eal of Conflicting Provisions
All previous ordinances, resolutions, or motions of the Board of County Commissioners of
Indian River County, Florida which conflict with the provisions of this ordinance are hereby repealed
to the extent of such conflict.
SECTION 4. Severab tv
It is declared to be the intent of the Board of County Commissioners that if any provision of
this ordinance and therefore, the Indian River County Comprehensive Plan Amendment is for any
reason finally held invalid or unconstitutional by any court of competent jurisdiction, such provision
shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and such holding shall not affect the
validity of the remaining provisions.
SECTION 5. Effective Date
The effective date of this ordinance, and therefore, this plan amendment, shall be the date a
final order is issued by the Department of Community Affairs or Administration Commission
finding the amendment in compliance with Section 163.3184(1)(b), Florida Statutes, whichever
occurs earlier. No development orders, development permits, or land uses dependent on this
amendment may be issued or commence before it has become effective. If a final order of
noncompliance is issued by the Administration Commission, this amendment may nevertheless be
made effective by adoption at a public meeting after public notice of a resolution affirming its
effective status, a copy of which resolution shall be sent to the Florida Department of Community
Affairs, Division of Resource Planning and Management, Plan Processing Team.
This ordinance was advertised in the Vero Beach Press -Journal on the 2ad day of March,1998
for a public hearing to be held on the 1011 day of March, 1998 at which time it was moved for
adoption by Commissioner Eggert , seconded by Commissioner Adams ,
and adopted by the following vote:
Chairman John W. Tippin Aye
Vice -Chairman Kenneth R. Macht Aye
Commissioner Fran B. Adams Aye
Commissioner Caroline D. Ginn Aye
Commissioner Carolyn K. Eggert Ave
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
BY: � � �/1'4 '�, �
�JTohn' . Tippin, !�
ATTEST BY:
effirey K. on, Clerlr� .e
(1 1 l�
MARCH 10, 1998
r�
u
WON, 104
Ofto 7
ORDINANCE NO. 98- 03
Acknowledgment by the Department of State of the State of Florida this 18 day of Marr A998.
Acknowledgment from the Department of State received on this 23 day of March ,1998,
at 11: QQMXQ. and filed in the office of the Clerk of the Board of County Commissioners of
Indian River County, Florida.
u\Aj%am2cpa.ord
IMM &W Ca I AlWaved i Date
Admin (:2 3
Legal
Budget
Deot. Am v— .: uJoi
Risk Mgr
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert,
SECONDED by Commissioner Adams, the Board
unanimously adopted Ordinance 98-004, amending
the Zoning Ordinance and the accompanying Zoning
Map from RS -6 to CG, for the property located
approximately 1/4 of a mile east of 43' Avenue, on
the south side of 41' Street, and described herein;
and providing for effective date (Thomas S.
Hammond).
ORDINANCE NO. 98-04
AN ORDINANCE OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, AMENDING THE
ZONING ORDINANCE AND THE ACCOMPANYING ZONING MAP FROM
RS -6 TO CG, FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED APPROXIMATELY %, OF A
MILE EAST OF 43RD AVENUE, ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF 41sT STREET, AND
DESCRIBED HEREIN, AND PROVIDING FOR EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission, sitting as the local planning agency on
such matters, has held a public hearing and subsequently made a recommendation regarding this
rezoning request; and
WHEREAS, the Board of County commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, did
publish and send its Notice of Intent to rezone the hereinafter described property; and
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners has determined that this rezoning is in
conformance with the Comprehensive Plan of Indian River County; and
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners has held a public hearing pursuant to this
rezoning request, at which parties in interest and citizens were heard;
MARCH 10, 1998
0
-34-
•
ORDINANCE NO. 98- 04
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED, by the Board of County Commissioners of Indian
River County, Florida, that the zoning of the following described property situated in Indian River
County, Florida, to -wit:
THE WEST 20 ACRES OF TRACT 11, SECTION 27, TOWNSHIP 32 SOUTH,
RANGE 39 EAST, INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA; LESS ALL RIGHTS-
OF-WAY OF RECORD.
Be changed from RS -6 TO CG
All with the meaning and intent and as set forth and described in said Land Development
Regulations.
Effective Date: This ordinance shall become effective upon the issuance by the State Department
Of Community Affairs of a Notice of Intent to find the related Comprehensive Plan Land Use
Designation Amendment contained in Ordinance No. 98- 0 3m compliance in accordance with
s.163.3184(9) or the issuance of a final order by the Administration Commission finding the
referenced amendment in compliance with s. 163.3184(10).
Approved and adopted by the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County,
Florida, on this 10th day of March, 1998.
This ordinance was advertised in the Vero Beach Press-Joumal on the 25th day of February,
1998 for a public hearing to be held on the 10th day of March, 1998 at which time it was moved for
adoption by Commissioner Eggert , seconded by Commissioner Adams
adopted by the following vote: and
Chairman John W. Tippin_ Ave
Vice -Chairman Kenneth R. Macht Aye
Commissioner Fran B. Adams _Aye
Commissioner Caroline D. Ginn Arte_
Commissioner Carolyn K. Eggert _gyp
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
! /John W. Tippin, C
ATTESTBY:
K Barton, erk
a
This ordinance was filed with the Department of State on the following date:
"d;; -v -ch -- ,-1 998
u\v\j%am2rzon.ord
MARCH 10, 1998
-35-
is
BOOK 104 FACE ;�
6000
9.A.2. PUBLIC HEARING - CONSIDERATION OF
EVALUATION AND APPRAISAL (EARL REPORT -
BASED INDIAN RIVER COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE
PLAN AMENDMENTS - THE HARBORTOWN CENTER
MALL DEVELOPMENT OF REGIONAL IMPACT
P.O. Box 1268 Vero Beach, Florida 32961 . 562-2315
all Preso Journal
COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER: STATE OF FLORIDA
Before the undersigned authority personally appeared Darryl K
Hicks who On oath says that he is President of the Press -Journal, a
daily newspaper published at Vero Beach in Indian River County,
AL "dAJKA)
billed
was published in saidAewspaper in the issue(s) of
S/woorn�to and subscribed before me this
.&:1 -day O
..........- (�President
'••••0�P`Y ANNA •`••' �� �f.yC.�-�
* YTCOfWI 10b ;N IQMBERLYANNE LAIS
z :
X4001.201 Notary Public, State of Florida
e 9 CO1 &'a. Q611092 fay Commission Exp. Jan. 01.2001
Comm. No. CC 611092
%�,.. _ •o�: Personally Known C or Produced 10 C
rcW et�L1C, STAM Type of 10 Pfodu4ad
MARCH 10, 1998
• -36-
NOTICE OF COMPREHENSIVE
PLAN TEXT AND LAND USE
DESIGNATION AMENDMENTS
i
rile CM0o
_.
on w
211 1 20
� f
The Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, will con-
sider several proposals to amend its Comprehensive Plan and to change the use
of land within the unincorporated portions of Indian River County. A public hear-
ing on the proposals will be held on Tuesday, March 10, 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 make a final decision whether to amend the county's Com-
prehensive Plan. The proposed amendments are Included in a proposed ordi-
nance entitled:
AN ORDINANCE OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, AMENDING THE
FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN BY
CHANGING THE LAND USE DESIGNATION FOR:
1. +/-18.7 ACRES, LOCATED APPROXIMATELY %4 MILE EAST OF
43rd AVENUE, ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF 41st STREET, FROM M-2
TO CA;
2. THE FOLLOWING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN EVALUATION AND
APPRAISAL REPORT BASED LAND USE DESIGNATION
AMENDMENTS:
2a. +/-87 ACRES OF THE +/-a2 ACRE TRACT LOCATED AT THE
NORTHEAST CORNER OF 63rd STREET AND US 1 FROM C/I
TO M-1.
2b. +1-182.5 ACRES LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER
OF US i AND 41st STREET, FROM M-1 TO CA;
2c. +/-37,9 ACRES LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF
86th AVENUE AND 33rd STREET (CHERRY LANE), FROM L-1
TO L-2;
2d. +/-9,687 ACRES OF ENVIRONMENTALLY IMPORTANT LAND
THAT HAS BEEN ACQUIRED BY PUBLIC AGENCIES FROM
AGA, AG -2, AG -3, L-1, L-2, C/l, C-2, AND C-3 TO C-1; AND
REVISING THE 15 ELEMENTS AND SUB -ELEMENTS OF THE COMPRE-
HENSIVE PLAN, BASED ON THE RECOMMENbAnoNS OF THE EVALUA-
TION AND APPRAISAL REPORT; AND PROVIDING CODIFICATION,
SEVERABILITY, AND EFFECTIVE DATE.
Interested parties may appear and be heard at the public hearing regarding
the approval of these proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendments. For more in-
formation, contact John Wachtel at 567.8000, extension 247.
The plan amendment applications may be inspected by the public at the Com-
munity Development Department located on the second floor of the County Ad-
ministration Building located at 1840 25th Street, Vero Beach, Florida, between
the hours of 8:30 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. on weekdays.
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.
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 567-8000, exten-
sion 223, at least 46 hours in advance of the meeting.
Indian River County
Board of County Commissioners
;w By: -a- John W. Tippin, Chairman
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of March 3, 1998:
TO: James E. Chandler
County Administrator
DIPAfLTMENT HEAD CONCURRENCE:
Robert K Keating, 'P
Community Development' r
THROUGH: Sasan Rohan, AICP - S -W.
Chi4 Long -Range Planning
FROM: John Wachtel.I•e1
Senor Planner, Long -Range Planning
DATE: March 3, IM
SUBJECT: Consideration of EAR (Evaluation and Appraisal Report) based Indian River
County Comprehensive Plan Amendments
(Adoption Public Hearing)
It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal consideration by the Board of County
Commissioners at its regular meeting of March 10, 1999.
Consistent with state statutes and state administrative miss, the Board of County Commissioners
adopted the county's current comprehensive plan in February, 1990. During 1996, the county
prepared its Comprehensive Plan Evaluation and Appraisal Report (EAR) and submitted the report
to the State of Florida Department of Community Affairs (DCA). DCA found the county's
evaluation and appraisal report to be sufficient
Since January 1997, planning staff has worked on revising all 15 elements and sub -elements of the
comprehensive plan to incorporate the findings and recommendations ofthe evaluation and appraisal
report.
In amending the comprehensive plan to incorporate the EAR's findings and recommendations, the
normal comprehensive plan amendment procedure must be followed. This procedure calls for a
Public hearing before the local planning agency (Planning and Zoning Commission), a transmittal
public hearing before the Board of County Commissioner, and a final adoption hearing before the
Board
Section 163.3191(4), F.S. states that EAR based amendments must be adopted within one year of
EAR adoption. Therefore, the adoption date for the county's EAR based amendments became
December 17, 1997. The county, however, received a six month extension for adopting its EAR
based amendments.
Following are relevam dates associated with the EAR -based Comprehensive Plan amendment
process.
MARCH 10, 1998
—37— 609K� f',%C�e�j
Fr-
``,, r
ACTIVITY
DATE
ELEMENTS AND SUB -
ELEMENTS
Planning and Zoning
92.5/97
Introductory, Land Use,
Commission Public Hearing
Sanitary Sewer, Solid Waste,
Aquifer Recharge, Economic
Development, Housing,
Recreation and Open Space,
Capital hollrovemeat,
h9agovemmental
Coordination
10/9/97
Potable Water, Stormwater
Management, Transportation,
Conservation, Coastal
Management
Board of County Commissioners
11/4/97
All
Transmittal Public Hearing
Amendments transmitted to DCA
11/14/97
All
DCA's ORC Report received
2/2/98
All
Board of County Commissioners
3/10/98
All
final public hearing
Adopted plan transmitted to DCA
324/98
All
for compliance finding
DCA issues compliance finding
5/12/98
All
The revised elements and sub -elements of the county's comprehensive plan incorporate all findings
and recommendations of the evaluation and appraisal report and meet all state requirements.
At its September 25, 1997 public hearing, the Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed 10
elements and sub -elements of the Comprehensive Plan as well as proposed changes to the Future
Land Use Map. The Planning and Zoning Commission approved the proposed revisions to the
Future Land Use Map with one change. That change was to recommend that the land use
designation of only two properties in the 33rd Street area be changed from L-1, Low Density
Residential up to 3 units/acre, to L-2, Low Density Residential up to 6 units/acre, while keeping the
remaining properties as L-1. The two parcels to be redesignated are those fronting 66th Avenue.
On October 9, 1997, the Plarming and Zoning Commission reviewed the remaining elements and
sub -elements of the comprehensive plan. The Planning and Zoning Commission approved all
elements and sub -elements of the comprehensive plan and recommended that the Board of County
Commissioners approve and transmit the revised plan to DCA. Additionally, the Planning and
Zoning Commission took a second vote regarding changing the land use designation of the two
properties south of 33rd Street fronting 66th Avenue. That vote was 3-1 in favor of the change.
Although a majority of Planning and Zoning Commissioners present voted in favor of the change,
Section 103.02.12 of the County Code of Laws and Ordinances states that any matter or application
considered by a board or commission with more than five members must receive four or more votes
for passage. Since the Planning and Zoning Commission has seven members and the motion
received only three afiimmative votes, the favorable recommendation technically failed.
The Board of County Commissioners approved the trarismittal of these amendments (which
constitute a rewrite of the eve plan) to the DCA on November 4, 1997. On February 2,
1998, planning staff received the Florida Department of Conu m ity Affairs' (DCA) Objections,
Recommendations and Comments (ORC) Report on the County's Evaluation and Appraisal Report
(EAR) based comprehensive plan amendments.
Staff has reviewed the objections raised in the ORC Report, and has made the necessary changes to
the Plan to address those objections. Most of the ORC Report objections are not substantive in
native: many relate only to clarification of objectives and policies. DCA also requested additional
data and analysis related to the EAR based future land use map changes,
At a February 24, 1998, Board of County Commissioners workshop, the Board reviewed the
comprehensive Plan firm land use map designations, the traditional neighborhood design objective
and policies, and DCA's ORC Report objections.
MARCH 10, 1998
_I
•
OBJECTIVES, RECOMMENDATIONS, COMMENTS REPORT
A copy of DCA's ORC Report is attached to this agenda item. In preparing the ORC Report, DCA
solicits comments from the Trauma Coast Regional Planning Council as well as other state agencies
such as Department ofTransportation, Department ofEnviromneatal Protection, Water Management
District and others. All approp=c agencies provided DCA with their objections and comments on
the county's revised comprehensive plan to the DCA.
In its ORC report, DCA raised 37 objections to the county's revised plan. The following list
indicates the number of objections by plan element:
ELEM[ENTS'
# OF OBJECTIONS
Capital Improvements (Concurrency Management System)
2
Future Land Use
5
2
Future Land Use Map
Housing
4
Infrastructure
8
Coastal Management
6
Conservation
5
Transportation
5
• There are no objections to the other elements
DCA'S OBJECTIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS AND COMMENT REPORT
As indicated previously, the ORC Report objections are not substantive in nature. To address those
objections, however, the draft plan has been revised The attached ORC response matrix indicates
how the DCA's objections are address. Generally, DCA's objections fall under one of the
following categories:
• Incomplete data and analysis
• Incomplete maps
• Objectives/policies which refer or defer to other federal, state, and local programs
• Non-specific policies which are unclear as to actions to be undertaken.
To address some of DCA's objections, the data and analysis section of the plan was revised as
indicated in the attached ORC response matrix. Other objections were addressed by revising maps
or preparing additional maps.
Most of the DCA's objections, however, relate to policies that refer or defer to other federal, state,
and local programs. Those policies were revised to add reference to the referred or deferred
programs and to indicate specific actions that will be undertaken (such as Coastal Management
Element policies 1.1, 1.7,1.15,1.16, 33, 3S, 3.6, 4.6, 7.5, 9.1, and others). The proposed actions
to address these objections are indicated in the ORC response matrix and shown on the attached
revised plan pages.
Another category of DCA objections relates to use of words such as "assist", "cooperate", "support",
or "participate", without an indication of how the county will be assisting, cooperating, supporting
or participating. These policies have been reworded to make the policies clear and action oriented
(such as Coastal Management Element policies 13, 1 A, 8.4, 5.1, 6.1 and others). The proposed
actions to address those objections are indicated in the ORC response matrix and shown on the
attached changes to the plan.
Upon feather review of the RCA's ORC report and the county's comprehensive plan, six policies
were deleted. Those policies were: policy 6.9 of the Sanitary Sewer Sub -Element, policies 2.4, 2.10,
4.1, 7.8, and 9.1 of the Conservation Element.
To address another ICA objection, this staff report includes additional data and analysis addressing
the proposed EAR -based land use map changes.
Also attached to this staff report are copies of the pages of the county's comprehensive plan which
were revised to address the ORC Report objections as well as the objections revised by other
agencies. Staffbelieves that these changes will address all of the ORC report objections. Changes
are indicated by strike -through and underlines.
MARCH 10, 1998
-39-
•
UoJo't � Fir;GE W
EAR BASED FUTURE LAND USE MAP CHANGES
Among the conclusions of the county's Evaluation and Appraisal Report was that the county's future
land use map generally was working well. The EAR found that development had occurred in areas
where appropriate urban services were available, and in a compact manner that is compatible with
surrounding areas. Additionally, the EAR found that all county facilities were meeting their adopted
levels of service.
The EAR, however, did recommend several relatively minor future land use map changes. Those
changes were identified and justified in the EAR On February 24, 1997, DCA found the entire
EAR, including the proposed future land use map amendments, to be sufficient. At the November
4, 1997 Transmittal Public Hearing, those changes were included as part of the EAR based
amendments presented to the Board At that hearing, the Board made the following minor
modifications to the proposed future land use map amendments:
e The Board chose to retain the R, Rural (up to 1 unit/acre) land use designation rather than
redesignating 1,115 acres of R designated land to L-1, Low -Density Residential-1(up to 3
units/acre); and
• The Board chose to redesignate +37.9 acres, rather than *160 acres, located at the southwest
corner of 660 Avenue and 331d Street, from L-1, Low-DensitY Residential -I (up to 3
units/acre) to L-2, Low -Density Residential -2 (up to 6 units/acre).
The result of both of those changes was a decrease in the land use designation density of the affected
areas and, therefore, a decrease in potential impacts. Thus, the analysis and justification presented
in the EAR still applies.
Nevertheless, it is necessary to adpublic facilities impacts and eve plan coruds=cY
for the four remaining EAR based future land use map changes. Those changes are identified and
discussed below.
Change +379 acres, located at the southwest corner of 661 Avenue and 331 Street, from L-1
to L-2.
The site, currently designated L-1, Low Density Residential -1 (up to 3 unitslacre), is depicted on
attachment 3. This amendment would change the land use designation of the site to L-2, Low -
Density Residential -2 (up to 6 units/acre). The site and all surrounding lands consist Primarily of
citrus groves. Land abutting flie site on the south is designated L 2, as is land to the east. across 66th
Avenue. Land abutting the site on the west is designated L-1. Land north of the site, across 33id
Street, is designated AG -1, Agricultural (up to 1 unit(5 acres). That land is outside of the urban
service area.
Classified as an arterial roadway on the future roadway thoroughfare plan map, 661h Avenue is a 2 -
lane paved road with 70 feet of public road right-of-way. It is programmed to expand to 120 feet
and 4 lanes by 2010. The site also fronts 331d Street, a 2 -lane collector road with 60 feet of public
road right-of-way. No improvements are currently planned for 331' Street
The most intense use of the site under the proposed land use designation would be 227 single-family
residences. A review of the traffic impacts that would result from such a development on the subject
property indicates that the existing level of service "D" or better on impacted roadways would not
be lowered The site fi f nmation used for determining traffic impacts is as follows:
1. For Single -Family Units in 6th Edition ITE Manual:
a. P.M. Peak Hour Trip Ends:1.01/urnit
b. Inbound (P.M. Peak Hour): 65%
i. Northbound (PAL Peak Hour): 53%
ii. Southbound (P.M. Peak Hour): 471/6
C. Outbound (P.M. Peak Hour): 35%
i. Northbound (P.M. Peak Hour): 47%
H. Soutthbound (P.M. Peak Hour): 53%
2. Peak Direction of 666 Avenue (link receiving the most trips), from 26* Street to 41" Street:
northbound
MARCH 10, 1998
0 -40-
0
3. Formula for Detemumlig Number of Peak Hour/Peak Season/Peak Direction Trips
Generated: Number of Units X P.M. Peak Hour Rate X Inbound P.M. Percentage X
Inbound -Northbound Percentage (227 X 1.01 X.65 X .53 m 79)
(trip disvibution based on a Modified Gravity Model)
4. Traffic Capacity on this segment of 666 Avenue, at a Level of Service "D": 1,230 peak
hour/peak season/peak direction trips
5. Total Segment Demand (existing volume + vested volume) on this segment of 666 Avenue:
323 peak hour/peak season/peak direction trips
To determine the number of trips that would be generated by the most intense use of the subject
property under the proposed land use designation, the total number of units allowed under the
proposed amendment (227) was multiplied by rMs factor of 1.01 tripshmit to determine the total
number of trips generated (230). Of these trips, 65% (150) will be inbound, and 35% (80) will be
outbound. Of the inbound trips, 53% or 79 will be northbound.
Using a modified gravity model and a hand assignment, the trips generated by the proposed use were
then assigned to impacted roads on the network. Capacities for all roadway segments in the county
are updated annually. Available opacity is the total opacity less existing and committed (vested)
traffic volumes; this is updated daily based upon vesting associated with project approvals.
The roadway segment that would be most impacted by development on the subject property is 666
Avenue, from 266 Street to 41° Street. The traffic opacity for that segment of 666 Avenue is 1,230
trips, while the Total Segment Demand (existing traffic volume + vested traffic volume) is 323 trips.
The additional 79 trips associated with the most intense us allowed under the proposed land use
designation would increase the total trips for that segment of 666 Avenue to approximately 402.
Based on the above analysis, staff determined that 666 Avenue and all other impacted roads can
accommodate the additional trips without decreasing their existing levels of service.
There is also sufficient water and wastewater pleat capacity to accommodate the proposed land use
designation. Based on the most intense use allowed under the proposed land use designation,
development of dm property will have a water consumption and a wastewater generation rate of 230
Equivalent Residential Units (EM), or 57,500 gallons/day. This is based on a level of service of
250 gallons/ERU/day. Although neither water nor wastewater lines currently extend to it, the site
is looted within the north county water plant and west county wastewater treatment plant service
areas, respectively. The north county water plant, which is expected to be completed by the summer
of 1998, will have a opacity of 2,000,000 gallons/day and will be able to accommodate the
additional demand generated by development of the subject property under the proposed land use
designation. Similarly, the west county wastewater treatment plant currently has a remaining
opacity of approximately 148,000 gallons/day and can accommodate the additional wastewater
generated by development of the subject property under the proposed land use designation.
With respect to solid waste disposal, the county's adopted level of service standard for landfill
opacity is 237 cubic yards/person/year. With the county's average of approximately 2.3
personshinit, a 230 unit residential development would be anticipated to house approximately 529
people (23 X 230). For the subject request to meet the county's adopted level of service standard
of 237 cubic yards4xnoa/year, the landfill must have enough opacity to accommodate
approximately 1,254 (529 X 237) cubic yards/year.
A review of the solid waste capacity for the active segment of the county landfill indicates the
availability of more than 840,000 cubic yards. The active segment of the landfill has a 1 year
capacity, and the landfill has expansion opacity beyond 2010. Based on the analysis, staff
determined that the county IandfiII can accommodate the additional solid waste generated by the site
under the proposed land use designation.
The stomrwater management impacts of development are reviewed in detail during the development
approval process. All developments are reviewed for compliance with county stormwater
regulations which require on-site retention, mon of floodplain storage and minimumm finished
floor elevations. In addition, development proposals must meet the discharge requirements of the
county Storrawater Management Ordinance. Since the site is looted within the M-1 Ihainage Basin
and the Indian River Farms Water Control District (1RFWCD), development on the property will
be prohibited from discharging any runoff in excess of two inches in a twenty-four hour period,
which is the approved IRFWCD discharge rate.
In this case, the minimuen floor elevation level of service standards do not apply, since the property
does not lie within a floodplain. However, both the on-site retention and discharge standards apply.
MARCH 10, 1998
l ,i l `:
Park Use Tma=
A review of county recreation facilities and the projected demand that would result from the most
intense development that could occur on the property under the proposed amendment indicates that
the adopted levels of service would be maintained. The table below illustrates the additional park
demand associated with the proposed development of the property and the existing surplus acreage
by park type.
PARK TYPE
LOS (ACRES/1000
POP.)
PROJECT DEMAND
(ACRES)
SURPLUS
ACREAGE
Urban District
5.0
2.65
157.524
Community (north)
3.0
1.59
13.037
Beach
1.5
0.79
57.657
River
1.5
0.79
18.654
While all comprehensive plan objectives and policies are important, some have more applicability
than others in reviewing plan amendand rezoning requests. Of particular applicability for this
request are the following objectives
ctives and policies.
Future Land Use Element Policy 14.3 requires that one of four criteria be met in order to
approve a land use amendment. One of those criteria is that the proposed amendment is
warranted based on a substantial change in circumstances affecting the subject property. The
proposed land use amendment meets that criterion based on the recent development of more
than 2,000,000 square feet of retail, including a regional mall, within the nearby SR 60
corridor. For that reason, the proposed amendment is consistent with Future Land Use
Element Policy 143.
Future Land Use Element Polity L11 states that the Low -Density Residential land use
designations shall be applied to areas which are suitable for urban and suburban scale
developmuen, and shall be limited to lands that are located within the urban service area and
near existing urian centers. Located within the turban service area, as well as near several
activity centers and several major roads, the site meets the policy's criteria for the Low -
Density Residential land use designations. For these reasons, the proposed amendment is
consistent with Future Land Use Element Policy 1.11.
Future Land Use Element Objeuive 4 states that the county will have a land use pattern that
reduces the number and length of trips on county roads. Located near several employment
centers, the proposed amendment increases the opportunity for people to live new their job,
thus reducing the length of their trips to and from work For this reason, the proposed
amendment implements Futuro Land Use Element Objective 4.
As part of its consistency analysis, staff compared the proposed amendment to all the objectives and
policies in the plan and found no conflicts. Therefore, the proposed amendment is consistent with
the comprehensive plan.
Located within the urban service area, along a major roadway, and trees several activity and
employment centers, the site is within one of the fast growing arras in the county. In addition to
having no negative impacts on county facilities, the proposed change is consistent with the goals,
objectives and policies of the comprehensive plan,
Extend the north boundary of the US #1 and 3T' Street HospbtaUCommeruaal Node to 41"
Street.
Containing *I V-5 acres, this site is depicted: on attachment 4. This proposed amendment is to
redesignate the site from M-1, Medimn-Density Residential -1 (up to 8 unitslacre) to CJ1,
COMICLOTC18IIIII&IStua The site consists primarily of citrus groves, as does land to the north, across
4112 Street Land to the east, across Indian River Boulevard, also contains citrus groves. The site's
south boundary abuts the US #1 and 376 Street Hospital/Commercial Node. To the southwest of the
area proposed for the land use change is the residentially developed wy_ Geoffrey Subdivision.
North ofthat subdivision, the site borders US #1. Across US #1 are some single-family residences
on CJI designated land.
MARCH 10, 1998
-42-
•
*ftg public arterial mond currently border the site. On the west is US #1, a 4 lane mad with 70 feet of
A& -Of -way- On the north is 41- Street, a 2 ]ane road with 100 feet of public
mad right-yf-way. On the east's Indian River Boulevard, a 4 land mad with 200 feet of public mad
nght-of- improvements to these mads are currently Pmgramme&
Centralized potable water braes mand to the site from the South County Reverse Osmosis P
while wastewater collection lines extend to the site from the Cert w Co �'
Plant. County Wastewater Treatment
The most intense use of the site allowed under the proposed land use designation is calculated to be
10,000 square feet of mail shopping center per acre of land proposed for redesigoaticm At that tate,
the most intense use of the site would be 1,82UM square feet of rash
development would be significantlymmmdy in ce
larger than any shopping center ccurrently nter. Such a
the county,including the Indian River Mall. A review of the traffic impacts that would result from such a
development an dee subject property indicates that the existing level of service "D" or better on
impacted roadways would not be lowered The site inf conation used for deters imug traffic Impacts
is as follows:
1. Use Identified in 6th Edition ITE Manual: Shopping Center
2. For 1,825,000 sq.R. Shopping Centers in 6th Edition ITE Manual:
a P.M. Peak Hour Trip Ends: 2.3 /1,000 square feet
b. Inbound (P.M. Peak Hour): 50%
L Northbound (P.M. Peak Hour): 60%
ii. Southbound (PAL Peak Hour): 40%
C. Outbound (P.M. Peak Hour): 50%
L Northbound (P.M. Peak Hour): 40%
ii. Southbound (P.M. Peak Hots): 60%
3. Peak Direction of Indian River Boulevard, from west Vero Beach city limits to 53'" Street:
Northbound
4. Percentage of Project Trips on This Segment of Indian River Boulevard: 50
5. Formula for Detnmimng Number of Peak Hour/Peak Season/Peak
Generated an the Most Direction Trips
tal Segment of the Roadway Network (Indian River
Boulevard): To
Square Footage X "L Peak Hoar Rate X Inbound PAL Percentage
X Inbound -Northbound Percentage X Percentage of Trips on Indian River Boulevard
(1,825,000 X 233/1,000 X.5 X.6 X.5 - 638)
(rep daft== based an FSUTMS Madel)
6. Traffic Capacity on this segntnt of Indian Rivet Boulevard, at a Level of Service "D":
1,890 peak hour/peak season/peak direction trips
7. Total Segment Demand (eatistmg volume + vested volume
Boulevard: 651 peak hour/peak seaso ) on this segment of Indian River
n/peak direction trips
Staff used the above kf nation and a methodology simil to the one used for the previous site to
determine traffic impacts. The only difference in the methodologies is related to the characteristics
of the sites. Those characteristics indicate that the previous site would likay have only one
ewancrJe= onto the roadway network, In contrast, development on the much
would likely have several �ee/eMt larger subject , R site
Boulevard would receive 50% of dee points. A trip distri'butiem model indicates that Indian River
gam.' tathex than assignall Ulps
to one
road as was done with the
Boulevard. previous 'only 50s1te'/0 of the tib were L to Indian River
Based on that distdbwtion, staff deteratined that the additional 638 trips armed by the most intense
use of the subject property under the proposed amendment would increase the Total Segment
Demand for this segment of Indian River Boulevard to approximately 1,289, less than its capacity
at LOS -D" (1,890).
MARCH 10, 1998
Based on the above analysis, staff determined that Indian River Boulevard and all other impacted
roads can accommodate the additional trips without decreasing their existing levels of service.
A retail commercial use of 1,825,000 square feet on the subject property will have a water
consumption nate and a wastewater generation rate of 5475 Equivalent Residential Units (ERU), or
136,875 gallons/day. This is based upon a level of service standard of 250 gallons/ERU/day. Water
lines extend to the site from the South County Reverse Osmosis Plant which currently has a
remaining qty of approy I,g66,000 gallons/day and therefore can accommodate the
potable water demand associated with the proposed amendment. The Central County Wastewater
Treatment Phut, which serves the subject site, currently has a remaining capacity of approximately
364,000 gallons/day and can accommodate the additionalwastewatergenerated bay the Propos
amendment.
For a 1,825,000 square foot commercial development on the subject site, solid waste generation will
be approximately 18,250 waste generation units (WGU) annually. A WGU is a Waste Generation
Unit measurement equivalent to one ton (2,000 pounds) of solid waste. Using the accepted
conversion nate of one cubic yard for every 1,200 pounds of compacted solid waste generated, the
1,825,000 square feet of commercial development would be expected to generate 30,417 cubic yards
of wastelyear.
A review of the solid waste capacity for the active segment of the county landfill indicates the
availability of more than 840,000 cubic yards. The active segment of the landfill has a 1 year
capacity, and the landfill has expansion capacity beyond 2010. Based on staff analysis, it was
determined that the county landfill can accommodate the additional solid waste generated by the
Proposed amendment.
The storruwater management impacts of development are reviewed in detail dining the development
approval process. All developments are reviewed for compliance with county stormwater
regulations which require on-site retention, preservation of floodplain storage and minimum finished
floor elevations. In addition, development proposals must meet the discharge requirements of the
county Stormwater Management Ord'mance. Since the site is located within the R-4 Drainage Basin,
development on the property will be prohibited from discharging any runoff in excess of the pre -
development runoff rate.
In this case, the minimum floor elevation level of service standard applies, since the property lies
within a floodplain. Consistent with Stormwater Management Element Policy 12, "all new
buildings shall have the lowest habitable floor elevation no lower than six inches above the elevation
of the 100 -year flood elevation as shown on the Federal Emergency Management Agency's Flood
Insurance Rate Map, or as defined in a more detailed study report." Since the subject property lies
within Flood Zone AE, which is a speaal flood hazard area located within the 100 -year floodplain,
any development on this property must have a minimum finished floor elevation of no less than 7.5
feet above mean sea level.
Be. P.&. impactsare genes only by residential arses, this proposed amendment will not
generate any park use MPacts.
Considering the existing land use designation and the anticipated use of the site, the actual increase
in land use intensity is lately to be less than typically associated with residential to
commerci land use amendments. Currently, the site is designated M-1 units/acre, the
county's second highest density land use designation. The M-1 designation allows residential
development with densities up to 8. In contrast, the primarily medical office type use anticipated
for this site under the proposed land use designation is one of the least intense uses allowed under
hand use designation. For t>iese reasons, a major increase in impacts on
public facilities and on surrounding areas is not anticipated.
MARCH 10, 1998
0 -44-
L_J
While all comprehensive plan objectives and policies are important, some have more applicability
than others in reviewing plan amendment and rcwmng requests. Of particular applicability for this
prposed amendment are the following policies.
• Future Land Use Element Policy 14.3 requires that one of four criteria be met in order to
approve a land use went- One of those criteria is that the proposed amendment is
warred based on a substantial change in circumstances affecting the Object ProPertY• The
proposed land use ami meets that criterion based on a significant increase in demand
for health care services. That demand is indicated by demographic shins and by the fact that
820/6 of the node is currently developed. For those reasons, the proposed amendment is
consistent with Future Land Use Element Policy 143.
• Future Land Use BamenrPolicy L15 sees that titre CQ land use mon shall be applied
to those stens which are suitable for urban scale development and intensitum and are looted
within the urban service area and new existing urban centers. Located within the urban
service area, adjacent to an existing C/I node and to three major roads, and served by
centralized water and wastewater facilities, the site meets the policy's criteria for C/I
designation. For those reasons, the proposed amendment is consistent with Future Land Use
Element Policy 1.15.
• Future Land Use Bement Policy 1.22 states that no node shall be expanded unless 70'/6 of
the node is developed. According to the County's Data Source, the
subject node is 82% developed. Therefore, the proposed amendment is consistent with
Future Land Use Element Policy 122.
• Future Land Use Element Policy 1.20 states that node size shall be based on population and
other demand characteristics within the general market area of the node, the fact that the
subject node is already 8216 developed and is the one of the fastest developing nodes in the
county demonstrates that there is demand for additional land in that node. For those reasons,
the request is consistent with Future Land Use Element Policy 120.
As part of its consistency analysis, staff compared the proposed request to all the objectives and
policies in the plan and found no conflicts. Therefore, the proposed amendment is consistent with
the comprehensive plan.
Crated primarily to accommodate the haft= industry, the US #1 and 3716 Street
Medical/Commercial Node is one offt county's major employment meters. Two factors indicate
the need to expand the node at this time. First, the healthcare industry is expected to continue to
grow rapidly and to continue to be an important part of the county's economy. Second, the amount
of developable land currently in the node is limit. As previously noted, the county's
CommerciaUindustrisl Data Source indicates that 820/6 of the node has already been developed.
Other circumstances that limit developable lard in the node include the fact that one entity, Indian
River Memorial Hospital, owns most of the node's undeveloped land, and that much of the node
consists of undevelopable wetlands.
In the past, the county's policy has been to concentrate medical uses together within a node. This
strategy has been beneficial to both the county and to the healthcare industry. In contrast to the
residentially devdoping land south of the node, land north of the node is currently undeveloped,
except for cines groves. For that reason, logical expansion of the node is to the north. This will
facilitate compatibility and the concentration of medical uses.
The site is located within the urban service area, along three major roads, and has water and
wastewater service available. The site is adjacent to arapidly developing node which is already 82%
developed. The analysis has demonstrated a need for node expansion, and has demonstrated that the
proposed amendment is consistentwiththe goals, objectives, andpoliciesoftbe comprehensive plan.
Finally, it is not anticipated that adoption of the proposed amendment would result in development
that would lower the level of service of county facilities.
Change the east *67 aces of the tM2 acre tract located at the northeast corner of 53rd Street
and US #1 from C/I to M-1.
MARCH 10, 1998
•
AA p� p ���
Currently designated CJI, Commorcialfindusttial, this a the site that was proposed for the
Harbo4own Mall DRI project. The site is shown on attachment 5. The site consists of a golf course
driving range and citrus groves. Land to the north of the site is designated L-1, Low -Density
Residential-1(up to 3 umts/a te) and consists of vaunt wooded land and citrus groves. Land to the
east of the site is designated M-1, Medium -Density Residential 1(up to 8 units/acre) and contains
the °River Club" portion of the Grand Harbor residential project. To the south of the site, land is
also designated M-1. That land, however, consists primarily of citrus groves. Abutting the site on
the west lad is designated CAL
The site fronts on 5311 Street, a 2 lane arterial road with app=imately 100 feet of public road right-
of-way
ightof-way. Water lines extend to the site Ecom the South County Reverse Osmosis Plant. Wastewater
lines extend to the corner of 49t° Street and US #1, approximately half a mile from the site.
On March 28, 1989, the county approved a Development Order (DO) for a 747,000 square foot
regional mall to be know as the Harbo+own Mall. That DO clearly states that if several deadlines
for commencing development activity are not met, then the DRI development approval would be
"undone" and terminated.
A Land Use Designation Amendment associated with the Harb+wn Mall project, was applied for
and adopted at the same time as the DO approval. That amendment redesignated the site from M-1
to C/L Deadlines for commencing development activity are also associated with that Land Use
Designation Amendment. Future Land Use Element Policy 124 states that when land is
redesignated to CJI, the county may change it back to residential if development activity has not
occurred within two years.
Although the Board has amended the DO to extend the deadlines several times, the required
development activity has not begun Specifically, the developer has failed to meet the following DO
conditions:
1. [Condition 2.a.] Failed to submit to the county planning division a complete site plan
application for any portion of the project on or before June 30, 1996.
2. [Condition 2.c.1.] Failed to commence any project construction on or before December 31,
1996.
3. [Condition 2.c2] Failed to complete all structural foundation elements for at least 320,000
square feet of mall building within 210 days of commenceinew date (last possible complying
commencement date was December 31, 1996).
Furthermore, because the proposed amendment would decrease the permitted land use intensity of
the site, the proposed amendment would decrease impacts on county facilities. For those reasons,
the subject site's land use designation should be changed back to M-1 and the DO should be
terminated (termination of the DO can be accomplished by adopting the attached resolution,
attachment 12).
Change *11,529 acres of environmentally important land that has been purchased by public
agencies (such as the St Johns River Water Management District, the State, and the County)
from AG -1, AG -2, AG -3, L-1, l.-2, CA, C-2, and C-3 to C-1.
The C-1, Publicly Owned Conservation -1, designation is intended for environmentally important
land that is in public ownership or control. This designation limits development to conservation and
passive recreational uses such as nature trails and canoe launchings.
Since plan adoption, *11,529 acres of such habit have been purchased. This land, depicted on
attachment 6, includes xeric scrub within the "Coraci" property along the St. Sebastian River,
tropical hammock within the "Korangy" property on the bearer island, and wetlands associated with
the St. Johns Marsh. These lands have become publicly owned through a variety of programs
including the county's lsnviroamentally Important Lands Acquisition Program, the St. Johns River
Water Management District's Upper Basin Project, and the state's Preservation 20M and
Conservation and Recreational Lands programs. The proposed amendment would change the land
use designation of the sites to reflect their public ownership for conservation.
MARCH 10, 1998
-46-
•
Conclusion—EAR Based Future Land Use Map Changes
Based on the analysis► the proposed map changes am rational and sensible. In addition to protecting
environmentally sensitive lands, the changes will increase the overall land use efficiency and
compatibility of the fiiture land we map. The changes are consistent with the goals, objectives and
policies contained in the comprehensive plan. Finally, these changes are anticipated to have only
a relatively minor impact on the provision of public services in the county.
The Board of County Commissioners has three options regarding the revised Indian River County
Comprehensive Plan. The Board can adopt the plan as presented, adopt the plan with changes, or
not adopt the plan. Either of the first two options are acceptable and will ensure that the county
meets the submittal deadline.
R1FC01fldErIDA33QN
Staff and the Planning and Zoning Commission recommend that the Board of County
Commissioners adopt the county's revised comprehaisive plan by approving the attached ordinance
and directing staff to transmit the adopted plan to the Department of Community Affairs for their
compliance finding- Additionally, staff recommends that the Board terminate the Harbortown
Development of Regional Impact Development Order by approving the attached resolution.
1. Indian River County 2020 comprehensive plan (A copy of the plan was forwarded to the
Board of County Commissioners and to the Hoard office at the time of transmittal).
2. Revised pages of the county's commove plan.
5. Proposed Furore Land Use Map change at the sou "va corner of 331' Street and 66'"
Avenue.
6. Proposed Future Land Use Map change at the southwest corner of 41" Street and Indian
River Boulevard.
7. Proposed Future Land Use Map change near the northeast comer of 53d Street and US #1.
S. Proposed Furore Land Use Map changes to C-1.
7. Approved minutes of September 25, 1997, Planning and Zoning Commission meeting.
8. Approved mimre4 of October 9,1997, Planning and Zoning Commission meeting.
9. Approved minutes of November 4,1997, Board of County Commissioners meeting.
10. A copy ofthe DCA's ORC Report
11. A copy of the ORC Report Response Matrix
12. Resolution tag the Harbortown Development of Regional Impact Development
Order.
13. Comprehensive plan adoption ordinance.
MARCH 10, 1998
•
1; 'Rau s.... SA60 ' ;TM''
E3- AREA PROPOSED TO BE
DESIGNATED 'L-2
MARCH 10, 1998
O
00
K-
:ty�
•
I*
•
L-2
®- AREA PROPOSED TO BE
DESIGNATED M-1
C"
680 awes
hem &0-3 to er
Maw"
heM AQ -2 IS Pri
132 almis
horn erz to C-1
lei nu
hen irsif fri
I
840 acres 960 was
10-2 IS rrl I to AN to M
---------r--- ----------------
0-1: Pabddy armed or costreffed (Die Beadq)
SCALE 0 1 2 3 MNes INDIAN RIVER COUNTY DATE FEB. M8
*I
0
FF- I
60ox
Community Development Director Bob Keating advised that staff has changed its
recommendation and is asking the Board to open the public hearing and discuss and consider
the issues but postpone the public hearing until next week's meeting as the Department
of Community Affairs (DCA) has not had a chance to review the changes made pursuant
to the Objections, Recommendations and Comments Report (ORC) received on February 2,
1998. The County has 120 days from receipt of the ORC to adopt the changes or take other
action and we are doing this in about 36 days. Staffwould be more comfortable waiting until
DCA has had a chance to examine the changes. Should the Board take action today, the
DCA would have no choice but to either accept or reject the amendments.
Director Keating continued that Objective 6 has been revised to reflect the input of
the discussions held with the citrus industry representatives as follows:
RECEIVED
• : J •CTT AgdodUg3d Protection
JLE TOTHESDARD
In recognition of the county's desire to protect ag[Jeulture despite ef&mffes and
MM"111IFT471-71n,
1%rough 2006, Indian PAYer C-ounty wiH have no act less of sefive 9gHetdtvrn1 6nd6
Gurrenfly,
Policy 6.1: Indian River County shall not provide public services or facilities which would
induce or encourage the development of agriculturally designated lands except in the following
instances:
• To provide for the health, safety and welfare of existing residents;
• Lots or portions of lots which front on a public. roadway that serves as an urban service
boundary, as long as the provision of utility service is consistent with potable Water Sub -
Element Policy 5.9 and Sanit= Sewer Sub -Element Policy 5.9; and
• Agricultural Planned Developments.
Policy 6.2: To protect and conserve agriculturally designated lands, Indian River County shall
maintain its development regulations which control the division and development of
agriculturally designated lands.
Policy 6.3: Indian River County shall permit the continuation of agricultural uses within the
urban service area where those uses serve as or enhance open space and green belt areas of the
county.
Policy 6.4: Within the urban service area, the county shall require subdivision and planned
development projects that propose new residential lots adjacent to active agricultural operations
to provide special buffers.
Policy 6.5: Indian River County land development regulations shall require the following special
conditions for Administrative Permit, Special Exception and/or Planned Development approval
of projects on agriculturally designated land:
• Caribbean Fruit Fly host plants shall be prohibited on the subject site. That prohibition
shall be enforceable through the county code enforcement board; and
• A deed restriction shall be recorded and established on the subject site. That deed
restriction shall prohibit the occurrence of Caribbean Fruit Fly host plants on the subject
site and shall be acceptable to the county attomey's office.
MARCH 10, 1998
• -52-
•
Chairman Tippin opened the public meeting regarding Objective 6. and asked if
anyone had any comments regarding this particular objective.
Commissioner Adams questioned whether other counties are having to include actual
numbers, and Director Keating responded that the DCA encourages specifics and measurable
objectives.
Peter Robinson of Laurel Homes noted that the amendments mention only existing
land uses from 1996 and felt that the number could now be less due to substantial changes
in land use in the past few years. He cited the Coraci property which contains a substantial
number of acres which are now classified "conservation".
Dan Richey, Post Office Box 1148, Vero Beach, President of Indian River Citrus
League, complimented stars willingness to accept public input.
Leonard Hatala, 5865 34'b Street, Vero Beach, a principal involved in the
Harbortown Center Mall DRI, questioned whether his 53rd Street inquiry regarding impact
fee credits would be heard today, and Chairman Tippin advised that the matter will be heard
next.
The Chairman then asked if anyone else wished to be heard regarding Objective 6.
There being none, he closed the public hearing.
Director Keating advised there are included several changes to the Land Use Map. and
the Resolution doing away with the DRI for Harbortown Center Mall.
Chairman Tippin then opened the public hearing to discussion of the remaining items.
Leonard Hatala advised that he has no objection to the rezoning of the property but
does have a problem to bring to the Board's attention. In 1987 when the County wanted to
extend Indian River Boulevard, a portion of his property was sold to the County for which
he was to receive impact fee credits of $112,218 for 70 feet by 1406 feet. These impact fee
credits were erroneously given to Grand Harbor.
MARCH 10, 1998
-53- WOK 104 4 PAGE 60
609K J 0 4 1, - Fa,Gc 6' 6
Commissioner Adams commented that she had spoken with Mr. Hatala and, while he
has a very valid concern, the issue needs to come before the Board as a public discussion
item. She also felt that Mr. Hatala's former attorney, Steve Henderson, should be given an
opportunity to appear and asked if the matter could be on next week's agenda.
CONSENSUS was reached to put Mr. Hatala's item on the agenda for next week's
public discussion items.
Commissioner Ginn asked staff to please make sure all the Commissioners have all
the backup regarding that matter.
Chairman Tippin asked if anyone else wished to comment. There being none, he
closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Ginn noted that she had several comments regarding Objective 18,
Traditional Neighborhood Development (TND). She felt that a minimum of 1% of the total
project area is a very limited space and did not want to see the County include a minimum
as builders would then build to the minimum. She questioned where this has been
successfully done without being subsidized.
Director Keating noted there was a very good article in Florida Trend this month that
presents a very balanced story about the negatives and positives of TNDs. The article cites
Seaside, Celebration, Hale Plantation, and a number of out-of-state developments in
California and Maryland.
Commissioner Ginn felt the County needs to be very concerned about minimums and -
expressed her own concern that a 40 acre parcel would be large enough for such a
development.
Director Keating agreed that ideally, the developments would be much larger but staff
feels developers should be encouraged to come in with at least the basic components of a
TND. This is a work -in -progress and is not cast in stone and staff hesitates to make the
requirements too specific and unenforceable.
Commissioner Ginn then noted the 10% density bonus on Page 89 of Objective 18
and reminded staff that they know that she has very negative feelings about density bonuses.
The Chairman re -opened the public hearing and recognized Debb Robinson from the
audience.
MARCH 10, 1998
0 -54-
•
Debb Robinson of Laurel Homes thought the TND concept is wonderful but her
strongest objections are to the street network concept. She has been in the development
business for 20 years and felt that people like to be able to walk in their neighborhoods. She
did not believe the TND would include a grid street concept. She hoped that the Board
would remember that 20 years ago her husband received threats of jail time when they put
trees in Laurelwood and times have changed considerably. She noted that a 40 -acre tract
with 3 homes per acre would be easier for the populace to afford than a 40 -acre tract with
2.4 homes per acre. People are going to have to pay for that 1%, plus 5% open area.
Chuck Mechling, 5215 Tradewinds Drive, Vero Beach, principal of Onsite
Management Group, noted that he lives in a neighborhood designed on a grid system and it
has worked very well. He felt Objective 18 has the ability to create neighborhoods.
Glenn Legwen, 5900 5' Street SW, questioned the recent changes to the County and
felt that someone soon will ask for a large development near the very large Indian River
Mall. He asked that the Board consider where we are going to be in 10 years and to
remember that their actions will have long -reaching effects.
The Chairman asked if anyone else wished to be heard regarding this matter. There
being none, the Chairman closed the public hearing.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert,
SECONDED by Commissioner Macht, the Board
unanimously agreed to table the matter until 9:05
A.M. Tuesday, March 17, 1998.
Chairman Tippin noted that the public hearing remains open and will be continued
at the next meeting.
Executive Aide Alice White asked that the Board retain their backup so that additional
copies will not be needed.
COPIES OF DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS
OBJECTIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS AND COMMENTS
REPORT AND ORC RESPONSE MATRIX ARE ON FILE
IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD
MARCH 10, 1998
11.A. REVISED INDIAN RIVER COUNTY LOCAL HOUSING
ASSISTANCE PLAN - REVIEW AND CONSIDERATION
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of March 3,,1998:
TO: James E. Chandler
County Administrator
D ,RRENCE:,U
11
Robert M. Keating, AICP
Community Developmen Directo • /
FROM: Sasan Rohani, AICP S •W -
Chief, Long -Range Planning
DATE: March 3, 1998
SUBJECT: REVIEW AND CONSIDERATION OF REVISED INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
LOCAL HOUSING ASSISTANCE PLAN
It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal consideration by the Board of County
Commissioners at its regular meeting of March 10, 1998.
Pursuant to the requirements of Section 420.907, F.S., the State Housing Initiatives Partnership
Program (SHIP), and Rule 9I-37.005, Florida Administrative Code (FAC), the Board of County
Commissioners approved the Indian River County Local Housing Assistance Plan (Ordinance #93-
13) on April 6,1993. In June,1993, the Florida Housing Finance Corporation approved the county's
plan and authorized the disbursement of SHIP funds.
According to a 1993 amendment to Rule 9I-37.005(2), Florida Administrative Code, the county had
to periodically submit a new Local Housing Assistance Plan to the Florida Housing Finance
Corporation. Subsequently, the county's plan was revised in 1994 and 1997.
On March 11, 1997, the Board of County Commissioners adopted resolution #97-16, which
approved the county's revised 3 year plan for FY 97-98, FY 98-99, and FY 99-2000. The Florida
Housing Finance Corporation then approved the county's revised plan on April 21, 1997, and
authorized the disbursement of SHIP funds until June, 2000.
Also, according to state requirements, each county or eligible municipality participating in the State
Housing Initiatives Partnership Program (SHIP) had to adopt an Affordable Housing Incentive Plan
within 12 months after the establishment of its local housing assistance program. To comply with
that requirement, the Indian River County Affordable Housing Advisory Committee reviewed local
established policies, procedures, ordinances, land development regulations, and the county's adopted
comprehensive plan and made specific recommendations to encourage or facilitate the provision of
affordable housing.
On January 13, 1994, the Indian River County Affordable Housing Advisory Committee held a
public hearing pursuant to the requirements of Section 420.9076 (5), F.S., and continued the public
hearing to a time certain date on February 10, 1994. At that time, the Affordable Housing Advisory
Committee voted to recommend that the Board of County Commissioners adopt the Indian River
County Affordable Housing Incentive Plan.
The proposed plan was presented to the Board of County Commissioners on March 8, 1994. At that
time, the Board approved resolution #94-44, adopting the Indian River County Affordable Housing
Incentive Plan. In accordance with state requirements, staff then transmitted a copy of the approved
Affordable Housing Incentive Plan and related information to the Florida Housing Finance
Corporation for their review.
MARCH 10, 1998
On October 26, 1994, the Florida Housing Finance Agency transmitted a copy of their SHIP review
committee findings to the county. According to these findings, the county's Affordable Housing
Incentive Plan failed to meet two minimum requirements of Section 420.9076(6), F.S. One of these
requirements related to establishment of expedited permit processing for affordable housing projects,
while the other related to establishment of a process for assessing housing cost increases associated
with proposed development regulations. Subsequently, the county revised its Affordable Housing
Incentive Plan. On December 13, 1994, the Board approved resolution #94162 approving the
revised Indian River County Affordable Housing Incentive plan.
Among the 1997 legislative changes to Chapter 420, F.S. was a requirement to incorporate the
county's Affordable Housing Incentive Plan into the County's Local Housing Assistance Plan (sec.
420.9076, F.S.). The county now must combine these two plans and transmit the revised plan to the
Florida Housing Finance Corporation.
Consistent with the above referenced state requirements, staff has revised the Local Housing
Assistance Plan to incorporate provisions that had been in the Incentive Plan and to update the
Housing Assistance plan itself. These revisions include the following:
changes to the existing local housing assistance plan to update the plan and to do some minor
clarification to the existing plan. Additions to the plan are shown as underl and deletions
are shown as strn.
update of the Florida Housing Finance Agency's housing delivery goals charts
addition of the affordable housing incentives strategies from the county's Affordable
Housing Incentive Plan to the Local Housing Assistance Plan (pages 48-64).
A copy of the revised Indian River County Local Housing Assistance Plan is available for review
at the Board of County Commissioners office.
As revised, the Local Housing Assistance Plan still provides the basic framework and operating
procedures for the SHIP program. As such, the Local Housing Assistance Plan includes SHIP
program strategy qualification requirements, and other provisions. As revised, the plan now includes
those strategies that had been incorporated in the Incentive Plan.
The revised plan meets state and local requirements. By adding affordable housing incentive
strategies to the Local Housing Assistance Plan, the county's Affordable Housing Incentive Plan is
no longer needed. This revision will ensure that all of the county's SHIP related information and
requirements are in one plan.
With respect to the proposed revisions to the Local Housing Assistance Plan, the Board of County
Commissioners has three alteratives. These are:
To adopt the revised plan
To adopt the revised plan with changes
To reject the revised plan
Either of the first two alteratives will ensure that the county will maintain its eligibility to receive
SHIP funds.
Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners adopt the attached resolution approving
the revised Indian River County Local Housing Assistance Plan and direct staff to submit two copies
of the revised plan to the Florida Housing Finance Corporation for its review and approval. Staff
also recommends that the Board authorize the Chairman to sign the certification page.
MARCH 109 1998
r p �
Li 1�1 Y
BOJ
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert,
SECONDED by Commissioner Adams, the Board
unanimously directed staff to submit two copies of
the revised plan to the Florida Housing Finance
Corporation for its review and approval; authorized
the Chairman to sign the Certification Page; and
adopted Resolution 98-031 amending the County's
Local Housing Assistance Plan for FY 1997-98, FY
1998-99, and FY 1999-2000.
RESOLUTION NO 99..x_
A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COWaSSIONERS OF INDIAN
RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA AMENDING THE COUNTY'S LOCAL HOUSING
ASSISTANCE PLAN FOR Fr 1997-98, FY 1998-99, AND FY 1999-2000.
WHEREAS, Chapter 420, Florida Statutes, describes the State
Housing Initiative Partnership Program (SHIP), and states that the
principal objective of that program is to increase the amount of
affordable housing within the State of Florida; and
WHEREAS, on April 6, 1993, Indian River County approved
ordinance number 93-13, establishing the Local Housing Assistance
Program; and
WHEREAS, the current county's Local Housing Assistance plan
expires on June 30, 2000; and
WHEREAS, according to Sec. 420.9076,F.S., the county must
combine its Affordable Housing Incentive Plan with the county's
Local Housing Assistance Plan; and
WHEREAS, on March 10, 1998, the Board of County Commissioners
considered proposed amendments to the county's Local Housing
Assistance Plan;
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of County Commissioners
of Indian River County, Florida that:
Section 1.
The above recitals are ratified in their entirety
Section 2.
The attached Indian River County Local Housing Assistance Plan
for FY 1997-98, FY 1998-99, and FY 1999-2000 is hereby amended
by the Board of County Commissioners
MARCH 10, 1998
• -58-
•
•
,7
Section 3.
The Board of County Commissioners directs staff to submit two
copies of the Indian River County Local Housing Assistance
Plan to the Florida Housing Finance Corporation by certified
mail. A minimum of one of the two copies shall bear the
original signature of the authorized official.
Section 4.
The county shall continue utilizing ten percent (10!k) of
available SHIP funds for administration of the SHIP program.
Section S.
The county's maximum assistance from the SHIP funds will be
fifteen thousand dollars ($15,000.00) per unit, and the
average assistance will be eight thousand five hundred dollars
($8,500) per unit.
Section 6.
The following table indicates the average and maximum per unit
SHIP funds allowable for each strategy:
STRATEGY
AVERAGE LOAN AMOUNT
MABINUM LOAN AMOUNT
Impact Fee Grant
5000.00
7500.00
Impact Fee Loan
5000.00
7500.00
Downpayment/Closing
9000.00
15000.00
Cost
Rehabilitation
9000.00
10000.00
Land Acquisition
7500.00
10000.00
Land Bank -Market
7500.00
10000.00
Purchase
Land Bank -Tax Deed
7500.00
10000.00
Purchase
The foregoing resolution was offered by Commissioner E99ert ,
and seconded by Commissioner Adam and being put to a vote,
the vote was as follows:
Chairman, John W. Tippin Aye
Vice Chairman, Kenneth R. Macht AM
Commissioner, Caroline D. Ginn AYR_
Commissioner, Carolyn K. Eggert AM
Commissioner, Fran B. Adams ue_
The Chairman thereupon declared the resolution duly passed and
adopted this 10th day of March, 1998.
MARCH 10, 1998
-59- 60111K 10 FAGICL 107
I
o 0 F�,-CWS
Board of County Commissioners
of Indian River County
st b
Jef rey R. Barton,
APPROVED AS TO POIN AND LEGAL SMICIENCY
BY:' -
William G. Collins, II
Deputy County Attorney
u\v\h\housing.res
Local Government: Indian River County
1. The county will advertise the availability of SHIP funds
pursuant to Florida Statutes.
2. All SHIP funds will be expended in a manner which will ensure
that there will be no discrimination on the basis of race,
creed, color, age, sex, familial status, handicap, religion,
or national origin.
3. A process for selection of recipients for funds has been
developed.
4. The county has developed a qualification system for
applications for awards.
5. Recipients of funds will be required to contractually commit
to program guidelines.
6. The Florida Housing Finance Corporation will be notified
promptly if the county will be unable to comply with the
provisions of the plan.
7. The Local Housing Assistance Plan shall provide for the
expenditure of SHIP funds within 24 months following the end
of the State fiscal year in which they are received.
8. The plan conforms to the Local Government Comprehensive Plan.
9. Amendments to the approved Local Housing Assistance Plan shall
be provided to the Corporation within 21 days after adoption.
10. The trust fund shall be maintained with a qualified depository
for all SHIP funds as well as moneys generated from activities
such as interest earned on loans.
11. Amounts on deposit in the local housing assistance trust fund
shall be invested as permitted by law.
12. The local housing assistance trust fund shall be separately
stated as a special revenue fund in the county's audited
financial statements, copies of the audits will be forwarded
to the Corporation as soon as available.
13. SHIP funds will not be pledged for debt service on bonds or as
rent subsidies.
MARCH 10, 1998
-60-
i �
14. Developers receiving assistance from both SHIP and the Low
Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) program shall comply with
the income, affordability and other LIHTC program
requirements, similarly, any units receiving assistance from
other federal programs shall comply with all Federal and SHIP
program requirements.
15. Loans shall be provided for periods not exceeding 30 years,
except for deferred payment loans or loans that extend beyond
30 years which continue to service eligible persons.
16. Rental units constructed or rehabilitated with SHIP funds
shall be monitored at least annually for 15 years for
compliance with tenant income requirements and affordability
requirements.
17. The document being submitted is the Indian River County Local
Housing Assistance Plan and all provisions of the plan conform
to the requirements of Sec. 420.9072, F.S., and Chapter 9I-37,
F.A.C.
Witness
Co sinner John W. Tippin
Wit !ss S1lairman. Bn
nearrl of Crnmty nmmi aa,.,
Name and Title
Attes
(Sealt) .e
u\v\h\l\haplan66.trn
MARCH 10, 1998
—61-
March 10 1998'
Date
600K 0 FAdL 6 zi
I
11.B. FY 1997-98 STATE AND LOCAL ASSISTANCE (SLA)
AGREEMENT AND PURCHASE OF CAPITAL
EQUIPMENT - FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF
COMMUNITY AFFAIRS (DCA). DIVISION OF
EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT GRANT
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of March 3, 1998:
TO: Board of County Commissioners
THROUGH: Doug Wright, Director
Department of Emergency Services
FROM: John King, Emergency Management Coordinator
Department of Emergency Services
DATE: March 3, 1998
SUBJECT: Approval of FY -97/98 State and Local Assistance (SLA) Agreement and Purchase
of Capital Equipment
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:
The Department of Emergency Services, Division of Emergency Management, has received the
attached, FY -97/98 State and Local Assistance (SLA) Agreement. These funds are federal
monies that pass through the Florida Department of Community Affairs, Division of Emergency
Management, to Indian River County. The County has been notified by the state that we are
eligible to receive a total grant amount of $32,401.
The SLA agreement is a matching grant amount and the County has met the matching funds
requirement in the 001-208 (Emergency Management) account without any additional funding.
The purpose and intent of the grant is to initiate the successful completion of activities/projects
in the Five -Year Strategic Plan; this County's plan received State approval earlier this fiscal
year.
The grant funds are planned for utilization as follows (footnotes below):
ACCOUNT NO.
DESCRIPTION
AMOUNT
039.02*
All Travel
$9,726
039.99*
Other Charges -Obligations
$2,500
**
Network Emergency Svcs. Dept.'
$12,675
**
EOC Software Development Phase 112
$3,000
**
Capital Expenditures'
$1,725
**
Outside Printing, Etc.4
$2,775
The majority of the travel -related funds in accounts 039.02 and 039.99 have been
obligated for training and meetings recommended by the Florida Division of Emergency
Management.
** These projects include capital equipment, software, outside services, staff training, and
supplies.
MARCH 10, 1998
Staff is seeking authorization to convert the Emergency Services Department Network
operating system to a Microsoft NT Server. The Microsoft NT Server network system
would enable the Department to set up a wide area network with remote access
capability, enabling the Department to communicate with the Fire and EMS Stations
throughout the County via modem. This would require a new server and software, but
the existing work stations would not need to be replaced with the exception of the
Emergency Management Coordinator's work station which is about six years old and
inadequate to handle Windows 95. This project is consistent with Goal #7, Task 1 of the
Five Year Strategic Plan. Total estimated cost, including hardware, software, setup, and
staff training in system administration:
2. Staff is seeking authorization to continue developing the Emergency Operations Center
software program. This year's funding request is to provide funds for Phase 3 of the
project. Included in this apportionment is conversion of the EOC local area network
computer to a wide area network with remote connectivity. This project is consistent
with Goal #9, Task 2 of the Five Year Strategic Plan.
Staff is seeking authorization to purchase capital equipment in support of Goals #5, #7,
and #11 of the Five Year Strategic Plan, including a recordable CD-ROM drive and a
digital camera with disk drive.
Staff is seeking authorization to utilize the remaining funds for preparation and
reproduction of emergency preparedness information disseminated throughout the media
and presentations given to community/civic groups. This is consistent with Goal #12 of
the Five Year Strategic Plan.
ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS:
The allocation of funds is based on monitoring reports and on-site inspections of the local
emergency management program, which is conducted by the Florida Division of Emergency
Management. During the last program analysis and evaluation, the County was found to be on
schedule and in compliance with our Five -Year Strategic Plan.
Acceptance and approval of the SLA agreement will allow the department to continue to improve
and expand the current program and meet the directives of the Five -Year Strategic Plan, which
is tantamount to continued funding eligibility under the provisions of this grant program.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff respectfully recommends approval of the FY -97/98 State and Local Assistance agreement
and the grant revenue utilization as noted above. Staff also requests the Board to authorize the
Chairman to execute the appropriate documents to secure the funding of $32,401.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert,
SECONDED by Commissioner Ginn, the Board
,inanimously approved the FY 1997-98 State and
Local Assistance Agreement; authorized the
Chairman to execute the appropriate documents to
secure the funding of $32,401; and approved the
grant revenue utilization as recommended by staff.
AGREEMENT IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE
OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD
MARCH 10, 1998
-63-
L
11.G.1. STORMWATER MANAGEMENT IMPROVEMENTS -
RFP 8048
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of March 3, 1998:
TO: James E. Chandler,
County Administrator
FROM: James W. Davis, P.E.
Public Works Director
SUBJECT: Indian River County Stomiwater Management Improvements - RFP 8048
DATE: March 3, 1998
In the FY 98/99 Local Option Sales Tax Capital Improvement Program, $1.1 Million has
been allocated for drainage improvement throughout the County. The County staff has
designed the Vero Beach Highlands - Highland Drive Culvert Replacement project in-
house(approximate cost $160,000). Additional projects will require professional
engineering and environmental services that staff will be hard pressed to perform in-house.
Two of the drainage projects, the Gifford area west of the FEC Railroad and the Roseland
Area Flood plains, will require extensive environmental permitting. Staff is of the opinion
that outside drainage and environmental consultants are needed. The alternatives
presented are:
Alternative No_ 1
Authorize staff to publish the attached request for-proposal(RFP # 8048) and
receive proposals from qualified consultants.
Perform design work in-house but use outside environmental consultants for
wetland delineation and protected species.
Staff recommends Alternative No. 1. Funding shall be by Local Option Sales Tax
Program.
MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Eggert,
SECONDED by Commissioner Adams, that the
Board authorize staff to publish the request for
proposal (RFP 8048) and receive proposals from
qualified consultants, as recommended by staff.
MARCH 10, 1998
• -64-
•
Under discussion, Commissioner Ginn questioned the installation of a sidewalk
between Sunset and Sunrise, and Public Works Director Jim Davis advised it has already
been designed and as soon as the culverts are in it will be completed, possibly by this
summer. The Department of Transportation has a current project to do the entire section but
is being held up by the installation of the culverts.
THE CHARUVIAN CALLED THE QUESTION and
the Motion passed unanimously.
11.G.2. 66TH AVENUE PAVING AND DRAINAGE
IMPROVEMENTS BETWEEN SR -60 AND 12TH STREET -
RFP 8049
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of March 4, 1998:
TO: James E. Chandler,
County Administrator
FROM: James W. Davis, P.E., ('
Public Works Director-- �
SUBJECT: 66"' Avenue Paving and D�ainage Improvements
between SR60 and 12`!' Street - RFP# 8049 -
Request for Engineering Services
DATE: March 4, 1998
Included in the County's 5 -year Capital Road Improvement Program is
the construction of a two lane paved road along 66`!' Avenue between
SR60 and Oslo Road. The Phase I and 2 improvement between Oslo
Road and 4"' Street are complete. At this time, $50,000 has been
budgeted to engineer a one mile section between SR60 and 12°x'
Street.
The Engineering Dept. currently has over 100 projects that are
being performed in-house. Since the -new Indian River Mall has
increased the demand for north/south traffic lanes in the South
County area, the 66`h Avenue improvements are needed at this time.
Also, a new bridge over the Main Relief Canal will be needed. The
Alternatives are as follows:
Alte_rnat;ve No_ 1
Publish the attached advertisement for Engineering
Services (RFP #8049) and begin the process to select an
engineering firm to design the project.
Alternative No. 2
Design the project in-house except for the Main Relief
Canal Bridge.
MARCH 10, 1998
-65- PACE
L
60JK -.,�i PACs
Staff recommends Alternative No. 1 whereby RFP # 8049 be
advertised. Funding in the amount of $50,000 has been budgeted in
the Secondary Road Construction Fund 109 for FY 97/98.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert,
SECONDED by Commissioner Adams, the Board
unanimously authorized staff to publish the
advertisement for Engineering Services (RFP 8049)
and begin the process to select an engineering firm
to design the project, as recommended by staff.
11.G.3. INDIAN RIVER COUNTY FIRING RANGE -
ENGINEERING SERVICES CONTRACT - C. VARGAS &
ASSOCIATES, LTD.
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of March 4, 1998:
TO: James E. Chandler,
County Administrator
FROM: James W. Davis, P.E.,
Public Works Director
J
SUBJECT: Indian River County Firing Range -
Engineering Services Contract
DATE: March 4, 1998
The Public Works Department has substantially completed the design
of the Indian River County Firing Range. The Range is similar to
the Teneroc Firing Range west of Orlando and designed by C. Vargas
and Associates, LTD, Consulting Engineers, for the Florida Game and
Fresh Water Fish Commission(FGFWFC). The County has been issued a
purchase order from the FGFWFC for approximately $740,000 for the
design and construction of the Indian River County Firing Range.
Since the design of Firing Ranges is a specialty type exercise, the
County Public Works and Risk Management Departments are of the
opinion that a firm specializing in Firing Range design should
perform a Value and Safety Engineering review of the County's
design. The Teneroc Range designer, C. Vargas and Associates, LTD,
of Jacksonville, F1. Was contacted and was requested to submit a
proposal for reviewing County staff's design.
The Consultant submitted a proposal to provide up to 130 hours of
design review for a not -to -exceed price of $9,700. This is
approximately 1.3% of the project cost.
MARCH 10, 1998
-66-
The Risk Manager has indicated that a review by an experienced
range designer is advisable since range design is a specialty. The
alternatives presented are as follows:
Alternative No_ 1
Approve the attached agreement with C. Vargas and Assoc.,
LTD, Consulting Engineers for review of the County's
range design at a not -to -exceed fee of $9,700.
Altprnative No
Build the range as designed by County staff.
It is recommended that Alternative No. 1 be approved. Funding to
be by the approximate $740,000 grant from the Federal Pitman
Robertson Act through the FGFWFC.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Adams,
SECONDED by Commissioner Eggert, the Board
unanimously approved the Agreement with C.
Vargas and Associates, Ltd., Consulting Engineers,
for review of the County's range design at a not -to -
exceed fee of $9,700, as recommended by staff.
is
AGREEMENT Wqi+ -B ON FILE IN THE OFFICE
OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD
WHEN EXECUTED AND RECEIVED
11.G.4. BLUE CYPRESS LAKE PARK - REVISION TO
COOPERATOR AGREEMENT OF JANUARY 11. 1994 -
FLORIDA GAME & FRESH WATER FISH
COMMISSION (,FGFWF(:)
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of March 2, 1998:
TO: James E. Chandler,
County Administrator
FROM: James W. Davis, P.E.,
Public Works Directo
SUBJECT: Revision to Cooperator Agreement between Indian River County
and Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission (FGFWFC)
dated Jan. 11, 1994 Regarding Blue Cypress Lake Park
-67-
DATE: March 2, 1998
MARCH 10, 1998
During the October 7, 1997 meeting of the Board of County
Commissioners, the Board approved accepting $4,000 from the FGFWFC
to replace the boat dock at Blue Cypress Lake Park. In order for
FGFWFC to appropriate the funds, Page 7, Paragraph 5 of the Jan.
11, 1994 Cooperator Agreement must be revised to extend the Term of
Agreement from 20 years commencing 1-11-94 to a new 20 year Term
commencing 10-7-97. The extension will therefore be effective
until Oct. 7, 2017.
Staff recommends approval of the time extension to Oct. 7, 2017.
MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Adams,
SECONDED by Commissioner Eggert, that the
Board approve extension of the Term of Agreement
to a new 20 -year term commencing October 7, 1997,
effective until October 7, 2017, as recommended by
staff.
Commissioner Ginn questioned the 20 -year agreement for $4,000, and Public Works
Director Jim Davis explained this is now the second project and FGFWFC wants another 20 -
year time frame. FGFWFC's policy is to put money into parks but they want to be sure that
it will be used as a park for at least 20 years.
THE CHAMMAN CALLED THE QUESTION and
the Motion'passed unanimously.
11.H.1. SEBASTIAN WATER EXPANSION - PHASE I -
RESOLUTION IV CERTIFYING "AS -BUILT" COSTS -
FINAL ASSESSMENT
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of March 3, 1998:
MARCH 10, 1998
0 -68-
•
.7
DATE: MARCH 3, 1998
TO:
JAMES E. CHANDLER
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
FROM:
DONALD R. HUBBS1 J 114
DIRECTOR OF UTILITY' CES
A
PREPARED
JAMES D. CHAST
AND STAFFED
MANAGER OF AS E NT PROJECTS
BY:
DEPARTMENT OF ITY SERVICES
SUBJECT: SEBASTIAN WATER EXPANSION - PHASE I
RESOLUTION IV - FINAL ASSESSMENT
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY PROJECT NO. UW -95 -28 -DS
On August 27, 1996, the Indian River County Board of County Commissioners
approved Resolution III, No. 96-100, for the preliminary assessment roll on the above -
referenced project. Construction of the project has been completed. Customer
connections began as various portions received DEP clearance, dating from June 1997
throughout the summer. Letters were mailed to property owners notifying them that
they could connect to the system. The last of these letters were mailed October 3,
1997. We are now requesting the Board of County Commissioners' approval of the
final assessment roll. (See attached minutes and Resolution M.
ANALYSIS
The preliminary assessment was for an estimated cost of $3,331,139.94, which
equated to $0.139949 per square foot of property assessed. The final assessment (see
attached Resolution IV and the accompanying assessment roll) is in the amount of
$2,429,559.60, which equates to a cost of $0.102722 (rounded) per square foot. The
final assessment is $0.0372 per square foot (26.60%) less than the preliminary
assessment.
The staff of the Department of Utility Services recommends that the Board of County
Commissioners approve adoption of Resolution IV, which is attached, and authorize
the chairman to execute same.
MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Eggert,
SECONDED by Commissioner Adams, that the
Board adopt Resolution 98-032 certifying "as -built"
costs for installation of water service to Sebastian
Area Water Expansion Phase I and such other
construction necessitated by such project; providing
for formal completion date, and date for payment
without penalty and interest.
Under discussion, Commissioner Ginn questioned whether the project had been
divided into 5 phases, and Director of Utility Services Don Hubbs explained that the project
was in 3 phases but Phase 2 of the project had been broken into 5 phases.
MARCH 10, 1998
"1�, C. -.
600K
THE CHAIRMAN CALLED THE QUESTION and
the Motionpassedunanimously, adopting Resolution
98-032.
As BuRt TM Rno.)
RESOLUTION NO. 98- 32
A RESOLUTION OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA,
CERTIFYING "AS -BUILT' COSTS FOR INSTALLATION OF
WATER SERVICE TO SEBASTIAN AREA WATER
EXPANSION PHASE I AND SUCH OTHER CONSTRUCTION
NECESSITATED BY SUCH PROJECT; PROVIDING FOR
FORMAL COMPLETION DATE, AND DATE FOR PAYMENT
WITHOUT PENALTY AND INTEREST.
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County determined that
water improvements for properties located within the area of Sebastian Phase I Water
Expansion are necessary to promote the public welfare of the county; and
WHEREAS, on Tuesday, August 27, 1996, the Board held a public hearing at which
time and place the owners of property to be assessed appeared before the Board to be heard
as to the propriety and advisability of making such improvements; and
WHEREAS, after such public hearing was held the County Commission adopted
Resolution No. 96-100, which confirmed the special assessment cost of the project to the
property specially benefited by the project in the amounts listed in the attachment to that
resolution; and
WHEREAS, the Director of Utility Services has certified the actual "as built" cost now
that the project has been completed is less than In confirming Resolution No. 96-100,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, as follows:
1. Resolution No. 96-100 is modified as follows: The completion date for the referenced
project and the last day that payment may be made avoiding interest and penalty charges is
ninety days after passage of this resolution.
2. Payments bearing interest at the rate of &5Y* per annum may be made in ten annual
installments, the first to be made twelve months from the due date. The due date is ninety
days after the passage of this resolution.
3. The final assessment roll for the project listed in Resolution No. 96.100 shall be as shown
on the attached Exhibit "A."
4. The assessments, as shown on the attached Exhibit "A," shall stand confirmed, and will
remain legal, valid, and binding first liens against the property against which such
assessments are made until paid.
5. The assessments shown on Exhibit "A," attached to Resolution No. 96-100, were recorded
by the County on the public records of Indian River County, and the lien shall remain prima
facie evidence of its validity.
The resolution was moved for adoption by Commissioner F,ggert and the motion
was seconded by Commissioner Adams . and, upon being put to a vote, the vote was as
follows:
Chairman John W. Tippin
Aye
Vice Chairman Kenneth R. Macht
Aye
Commissioner Fran B. Adams
Aye
Commissioner Carolyn K. Eggert
Aye
Commissioner Caroline D. Ginn
Aye
MARCH 10, 1998
The Chairman thereupon declared the resolution duty passed and adopted this 1!L_ day
of March 1998.
t� e
J K Barton, Clejo
Attachment: ASSESSMENT ROLL
SEBASTIAN WATER -PHASE 1
UW -95 -28 -DS
475-000-189-285.00
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
By ,
John W. Tippin
Chairman
imaia n.va �a Ata'v.ed py;�
CA.;•r n3
4 a a-7
j m -n Mgr.
SEOW PH1.WK4
Worksheet D
01/19/88
TFM
SEBASTIAN WATER EXPANSION PHASE 1
FINAL ASSESSMENT SUMMARY
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY PROJECT NO. UW -95 -28 -DS
TOTAL PROJECT CONSTRUCTION COST
$2,080,548.00
TOTAL BRISTOL STREET CONSTRUCTION COST
.ZB
TOTAL ASSESSABLE CONSTRUCTION COST
$2,070,178.79
PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING
$277,285.00
PROJECT EXPENSES
COUNTY UTILITIES ADMINISTRATION
E49,087.81
COUNTY UTILITIES ENGINEERINGANSPECTIO
$28,000.00
PERMITTING FEES
TOTAL
882.097.81
TOTAL PROJECT COST
$2,429,55980
FINAL ASSESSABLE SQUARE FOOTAGE
23.851,839
ASSESSMENT COST PER SQUARE FOOT
$0.10272180527
COMPLETE ASSESSMENT ROLL IS ON FILE
IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE
BOARD
MARCH 10, 1998
-71- 0.�- f'gt.1.
11.H.2. SOUTH WIl"ROW DRIVE WATER MAIN CONFLICT -
SEBASTIAN DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS -
DRIVEWAYS. INC.
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of March 2, 1998:
DATE:
MARCH 2, 1998
TO:
JAMES E. CHANDLER
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
FROM:
DONALD R. HUBBS, P.E.
DIRECTOR OF UTILITY SERVICES
PREPARED
MICHAEL C. HOTCHKISS, P.E.
AND STAFFED
ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEER
BY:
DEPARTMENT OF UTILITY SERVICES
SUBJECT:
SOUTH WIMBROW DRIVE WATER MAIN CONFLICT WITH
SEBASTIAN DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY PROJECT NO. UW -98 -04 -DS
BACKGROUND
On February 10, 1998, the Board of County Commissioners authorized
Driveways, Inc. to relocate a water main to accomodate the City of
Sebastian's replacement of a drainage culvert pipe underneath South
Wimbrow Drive (see attached copy of meeting minutes). Construction
of the project is now complete. The Department of Utility Services
is now requesting approval for final payment to the contractor.
ANALYSIS
The attached invoice is for $4,896.41 and represents 100% of the
labor contract amount. The contractor encountered a smaller than
anticipated water main once the pipe was exposed, resulting in
slightly lower labor cost savings. However, those savings were
offset by more stringent hardships due to additional dewatering.
There was a total of $1,955.63 in material charged to the project
(see attached invoice from U.S. Filter). The total project cost
including $500.00 for engineering and administration is $7,352.04
resulting in a $5,269.67 cost savings from the originally approved
estimated contract amount of $12,621.71. Utilities staff is
prepared to make final payment in the amount of $4,896.41.
RECOMMENDATION
The staff of the Department of Utility Services recommends approval
of final payment to Driveways, Inc. in the amount of $4,896.41.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert,
SECONDED by Commissioner Ginn, the Board
unanimously approved the final payment to
Driveways, Inc. in the amount of $4,896.41, as
recommended by staff.
MARCH 10, 1998
• -72-
•
11.H.3. BREEZY VILLAGE WATER PLANT SITE - DISPOSAL
OF BREEZY VILLAGE HOME SUBDIVISION UNIT 1
TRACTS A AND C
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of February 24, 1998:
DATE: FEBRUARY 24, 1998
TO: JAMES E. CHANDLER
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
FROM: DONALD R. HUBBS, P.E. 1
DIRECTOR OF UTILITY SE VIOLS 14
PREPARED AND GENE A. RAUTH AA -
STAFFED BY: MANAGER OF WATERIWASTEWATER OPERATIONS
SUBJECT: DISPOSAL OF BREEZY VILLAGE WATER PLANT
SITE (BREEZY VILLAGE HOME SUB UNIT 1
TRACTS A & C, PBI:9-34)
BACKGROUND
On March 1, 1989 Indian River County purchased Breezy Vnllage Water and Sewer
Utilities from Breezy Village Sewer and Water Company, Inc. (See attached contract for
sale and purchase). This purchase was part of the North County Sewer Transmission
Mains and Regional Wastewater Treatment Facility Project.
At the time of purchase, 92 customers of Breezy Village Sewer and Water Company, Inc.,
were assessed a surcharge in the amount of $706.52 per customer to recover purchase
costs so as not to have a financial burden on the entire utility base.
Since the time of the purchase, the customer base associated with this system has been
consolidated into the County's main utility system
ANALYSIS
The Department of Utility Services is now prepared to dispose of both Tracts A and C
(previous plant sites). Tract B is owned by Breezy Village Homeowners Association (See
map attached).
With reference to Tract C, under the terms of the contract for sale and purchase.
Paragraph 7; "Right of repurchase as to Tract C" (See attached) there are specific
conditional requirements that must be met to the previous owner of this property. Under
the terms of this agreement this condition of 90 days notice without the previous owner
repurchasing it back has been met. (See attached letter dated July 7, 1997). With regards
to tract A. no specific reference is made to dispose of this tract within the contract of sale
and purchase.
A preliminary evaluation analysis of Tracts A and C is attached. Tract A is within the
range of $6,429.00 to $7,144.00 ($19,600.00 to $21,780.00 per acre). Tract C is within
the range of $18,819.00 to $22,583.00 ($10,890.00 to $13,069.00, per acre).
The Staff of the Department of Utility Services has received an inquiry from the Breezy
Village Homeowners Association as to the disposition of both tracts of property.
MARCH 10, 1998
-73- 1
L
�a Y• ".� �n�''pE� o'er
There are several options as to the method of disposal of both Tracts A and C with the
most obvious being as follows:
Surplus both Tracts A and C by means of a public auction.
2. Sell both Tracts A and C to the Breezy Village Homeowners Association for a
nominal price.
3. Sell Tract A to Breezy Village for a nominal price and surplus Tract C at a public
auction.
RECOMMENDATION
The Staff of the Department of Utility Services recommends option number three (3); Sell
Tract A to Breezy Village for a nominal price and surplus Tract C at a public auction.
The Department requests direction from the Board of County Commissioners with regards
to this matter.
MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Eggert
that the Board sell Tract A to Breezy Village for a
nominal price and surplus Tract C at a public
auction, as recommended by staff.
Under discussion, the Chairman recognized Eric D. Pollard from the audience.
Eric D. Pollard, 6153 98'b Place, Sebastian, lives at Breezy Village. He reminded the
Board that they had problems with their water plants and the County agreed to buy the plants
if the residents put up the funds. They each paid $706.52 and the County operated the plants
for a short time. Each resident had previously paid the developer $750 each for these plants.
Thereafter, when the residents bought the property, a second impact fee of $1,250.00 each
was paid to the County when the North County sewer line was installed. The residents feel
that Tracts A and C have been paid for twice.
Mr. Pollard continued that the previous Director of Utilities had told them they would
get the water plant property and the developer would have the right of first refusal on the
sewer plant property. The residents are requesting that these properties revert back to Breezy
Village Association, Inc., a non-profit corporation set up in 1986.
Commissioner Adams clarified that Tract A is the water plant and Tract C is the sewer
plant. She then questioned whether the amounts paid by the residents included the properties
or just the plants, and County Administrator Jim Chandler believed it included the entire
amount of land and the facility.
MARCH 10, 1998
0 -74-
•
County Attorney Vitunac also advised that the $706 was paid for Tracts A and C and
both plants. The County has no money in this and Tract A is locked within the Breezy
Village development and would be of no use to any other party.
Commissioner Eggert WITHDREW HER MOTION.
General discussion ensued as to the price to be charged for the lands and the Board
agreed upon One ($1.00) Dollar.
with.
County Attorney Vitunac remarked that these residents have been a pleasure to work
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert,
SECONDED by Commissioner Ginn, the Board
unanimously approved the sale of Tracts A and C to
Breezy Village Homeowners Association for the
sum of One ($1.00) Dollar.
11.H.4. NORTH BEACH REVERSE OSMOSIS PLANT -
FINALIZATION PERMITTING - ISSUES FOR FACILITY
CLOSEOUT - DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION (DEP) - CAMP DRESSER & MCKEE
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of February 27, 1998:
DATE: February 27, 1998
TO: JAMES E. CHANDLER
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
FROM: DONALD R. HUBBS, P. . '
DIRECTOR OF UT Y
PREPARED WILLIAM F. MCCAIN, P.E.
AND STAFFED CAPITAL PROJECTS ENGINEER
BY: DEPARTMENT OF UTILITY SERVICES
SUBJECT: NORTH BEACH REVERSE OSMOSIS PLANT, FINALIZATION
PERMITTING, ISSUES FOR FACILITY CLOSEOUT
In 1988, the Indian River County Department of Utility Services assumed responsibility for the
North Beach Reverse Osmosis Plant from the North Beach Water Company. The County has,
since, expanded the facility to 1 MGD which includes a pilot design and a sidestream treatment
system. The County has also been solely responsible for all permit issues.
MARCH 10, 1998
-75- 6�JK Wl, PACE
-7
a�a�
boox 10Fr- ' pn, 694
As a byproduct of the treatment process, sidestream flow is generated which is typically referred
to as "brine" because of its salt content. The brine is treated prior to discharge into the Indian
River, and has, historically, been regulated by the DEP and EPA.
Through mid-1995, the North Beach R.O. facility maintained two separate discharge permits.
1) EPA - National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit.
2) Department of Environmental Protection (DEP), Industrial Waste Permit.
As a part of the Federal government's effort to consolidate permitting, the permits were
combined under DEP.
A warning letter dated October 8, 1997 (See attached) informed the County of alleged violations
as follows:
1) Operation of an industrial wastewater system without a permit.
2) Failure to meet permit imposed eluent limits.
3) Failure to provide required records, reports, and results.
These alleged violations were addressed to DEP as follows:
The expiration dates were different for both of the permits, prior to the aforementioned permit
merger. The NPDES permit expired in September, 1996, while the Industrial Waste (DEP)
Permit has not yet expired. There has been confusion on part of the County and DEP as to the
proper tracking of post -consolidation permit status.
The following facts are important to this case:
• The notice of permit consolidation received in 1995, (attached) is unclear regarding
expiration date, which led to the County's continued operation under the Industrial Waste
Permit, with the March, 1998 expiration date.
• As part of permit consolidation, a fee of $6,500.00 was collected by the DEP and paid yearly
by the County, including the current year, 1998.
• All reporting has been faithfully submitted and accepted by DEP, therefore, no failure of
reporting took place.
• The official notice of the 1996 permit expiration (listed as Warning Letter No. OWL -WW -
97 -0022, see attached) was received in late October, over one year after the expiration.
For details of alleged violation (2), please refer to staff's letter of November 25, 1997, (attached)
regarding potential permit parameter violations. As for the violation (3), please see the attached
correspondence dated December 5, 1997.
While DEP understands the confusion with regard to permit renewal, even to the extent that this
has occurred with other municipalities, Federal law prohibits elimination of the violation. The
plant has since, been removed from service, and Camp Dresser and McKee was commissioned
on an emergency basis to assist with the preparation of an NPDES permit renewal, and the
County has supplied all associated documentation requested by DEP. The results of these efforts
are presented in the analysis section below.
The first proposed violation fees from the District were set at $20,850.00. With negotiations by
staff and the plant shutdown, a settlement fee of $4,100.00 has been proposed by the district
(Please see the attached letter dated February 6, 1998.) In an effort to reduce further expenditure
by the County in both time and money while negotiating this issue, staff is recommending the
settlement. If this fee is agreed upon, the total cost to the utility will be $5,600.00. This total
consists of a fee of $4,100.00 for DEP and a fee of $1,500.00 for Camp, Dresser and McKee,
Inc., for their assistance in preparing the NPDES Permit application.
MARCH 10, 1998
• -76-
L�
On a positive note, if the application had been filed and processed when required and the plant
had not been shutdown, the expenditures to the County would have been in excess of $17,000.00.
Therefore, the net economic effect to the County is a one time reduction in the operation costs
(i.e. permit fees) of approximately $12,000.00 ±. Funding for these fees will be from the
permitting account, 471-219-536-034.97.
The Department recommends that the BCC approve the following:
1) Payment to DEP in the amount of $4,100.00
2) Approval of the Work Authorization No. 3 for payment to CDM in the
amount of $1,500.00 for emergency permit services.
3) Authorize the Chairman to execute the DEP Order, confirming the
negotiated agreement upon approval.
MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Eggert,
SECONDED by Commissioner Adams, that the
Board approve payment to the Department of
Environmental Protection in the amount of $4,100;
Work Authorization No. 3 for payment to Camp
Dresser & McKee in the amount of $11500 for
emergency permit services; and authorize the
Chairman to execute the DEP Order, confirming the
negotiated agreement
recommended by staff.
upon approval; as
•
Commissioner Ginn questioned how this happened and wondered whether we don't
have a schedule so that we don't end up with fines.
Director of Utility Services Don Hubbs stated there had been some confusion on the
part of the department but he believed, in view of the notice of violation, that we are settling
for a very small sum. The settlement saves the County about $12,000.
Commissioner Adams noted that DEP regulations are so complex; sometimes they
encourage disposal and then get you over a barrel, effectively enticing the County into
situations which are not to our advantage.
THE CHAIRMAN CALLED THE QUESTION and
the Motion passed unanimously.
DOCUMENTS ARE ON FILE IN THE OFFICE
OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD
MARCH 10, 1998
box
12. OSLO PLAZA ASSOCIATES - TRAFFIC IMPACT FEE
CREDITS AND MURPHY DEED ROAD RESERVATIONS -
SETTLEMENT OF ATTORNEYS' TITLE INSURANCE FUND
TITLE INSURANCE CLAIM
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of March 4, 1998:
TO: The Board of County Commissioners
FROM:. William G. Collins 11 -Deputy County Attorney
DATE: March 4, 1998
SUBJECT: Proposed Settlement of Title Insurance Claim Related to Oslo
Plaza Associates Traffic Impact Fee Credits and Murphy Deed
Road Reservations
FACTS:
Last year Oslo Plaza Associates, Inc. threatened suit if they were not allowed a
traffic impact fee credit pursuant to a 1990 purchase agreement between the
Board and a previous owner of the property. The staff recommended:
To ratify the staff decision to rescind traffic impact fee credits;
2. Notify the title insurer of pending claim in litigation; and
3. Authorize defense of any forthcoming suit.
The Board decided that it was important to honor their contractual obligations,
and because the developer compromised (reduced) his claim to traffic impact fee
credits by $26,536, directed staff to reinstate the balance of the traffic impact fee
credits and file a title insurance claim. Pursuant to Board direction on April 1,
1997, 1 filed a title insurance claim with Attomeys' Title Insurance Fund, Inc.
SUMMARY OF CLAIM:
Paid $195,986.00
Got 62,430.75 worth of property over and above what
was under reservation
Overpaid 133,555.25
Minus - 26,536.00 compromise of claim to traffic impact fee
credits by seller's successor
Claim $107,019.25
?ROVED FOR t -s- 16 -9y
B.C.C. MEETING - REGULAR AGENDA
4e -'C— � C .19 U
COUNTY ATTORNEY
RESPONSE:
Attached is a letter dated February 23, 1998 which sets forth the Fund's
defenses under the title insurance contract. The defenses include:
Lack of timely notice to the fund;
2. Voluntarily assumed liability without prior written consent of the Fund.
MARCH 10, 1998
0
-78-
•
.7
The Fund contends the subsequent developer was unrelated to the
purchase agreement and there was no obligation to restore the impact
fee credits. Doing so eliminated any possibility of the Fund asserting
such defenses in court, and that liability that they might have defended
against was voluntarily assumed by the Board.
3. That title insurance is a contracted indemnity against actual loss. Given
that the property was purchased for right-of-way and can be used for that
purpose even with the Murphy Deed reservation, they would argue no
loss.
Despite the availability of the defenses and recognizing that had the reservation
been disclosed, the County might not have gone forward with the purchase and
thus incurred some loss, they have offered to settle our $107,000 claim for one-
half of the cash value paid by the County.
RECOMMENDATION:
1. Agree to the Fund's settlement offer of $38,500.
2. Authorize the Chairman to execute the attached Release of Claim and
Acknowledgment of Subrogation Right upon receipt of the settlement
funds.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert,
SECONDED by Commissioner Ginn, the Board
unanimously approved Attorneys' Title Insurance
Fund's settlement offer of $38,500 and authorized
the Chairman to execute the Release of Claim and
Acknowledgment of Subrogation Rights upon receipt
of the settlement funds; as recommended by staff.
MARCH 10, 1998
RELEASE IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE
OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD
-79- t1011r �$s F'dCcti r�
6000�►,.�
U.B. VICE CHAIRMAN MACHT - REPORT ON NATIONAL
ASSOCIATION OF COUNTIES' LEGISLATIVE
MEETING - WASHINGTON, D.C. - PROPOSING
GRANTING OF APPEAL JURISDICTION OF LOCAL
ZONING MATTERS TO FEDERAL DISTRICT COURTS
UNDER SECTION 1983 OF TITLE 42 OF THE UNITED
STATES CODE
The Board reviewed a letter of March 4, 1998:
Telephone: (407) 567.8=
March 4, 1998
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
1840 25th Street, Vero Beach. Florida 32960
The Honorable Senator Bob Graham
524 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20510
Re: Bill #HR -1534
Dear Senator Graham:
Suncorn Telephone: 224-1011
I recently attended the National Association of Counties' Legislative Meeting in
Washington, D.C. and was distressed to find out from the program that Congress is
considering giving appeal jurisdiction in local zoning matters to federal district courts under
Section 1983 of Title 42 of the U.S. Code.
I have been under the impression that the announced intention of Congress and of the
Administration itself is to bring government back to the local level under the theory that
government closest to the people governs best. Local zoning issues are certainly a matter
which can be handled better by local courts than by the federal judiciary.
We also are told by our NACO representatives that the federal court system is understaffed
and overworked and years behind in its civil case workload. To add thousands of
additional zoning appeals would clearly worsen the problem. The delay and expense to the
federal court system which would be caused by this bill cannot work to the benefit of the
public.
We respectfully request that you use your good offices to defeat this bill. I would be
pleased to provide you any further information or assistance as you may desire.
Sincerely,
BOAR OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
enneth . Ma
Vice Chairman
cc: National Association of Counties
KRMNk SAME LETTER SENT TO
SENATOR CONNIE MACK
MARCH 10, 1998
0
-80-
Commissioner Macht asked for a discussion of this important matter and possible
actions by the Board, such as individual letters to senators and representatives.
County Attorney Vitunac explained that this year's Congress is considering this
insidious proposal whereby a local court can bounce local zoning matters right up to a
federal court and tie up the case for years. NACo (National Association of Counties) is
keeping an eye on this. Commissioner Macht met with the Senate recently and, because of
the strong representation at this meeting, some of the Senators seemed to be more in favor
of local issues.
Commissioner Macht commented that it was a NACo effort. They met with Senator
Trent Lott and later with Representative Newt Gingrich, who was a little less forthcoming
than Senator Lott. They discussed many issues such as ISTEA, childcare, juvenile justice,
rehabilitation and prevention of crime. The available funds are split 60% to rehabilitation
and 40% to prevention and he believed those should be reversed. They were told that
substance abuse will be a priority in both Houses.
Commissioner Macht asked for a resolution, copying local municipalities and asking
them to also support the action.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert,
SECONDED by Commissioner Ginn, the Board
unanimously adopted Resolution 98-033 in support
of retaining local appeal jurisdiction in local zoning
matters and in opposition to Bill HR #1534.
RESOLUTION NO. 98-33
A RESOLUTION OF INDIAN RIVER
COUNTY, FLORIDA, IN SUPPORT OF
RETAINING LOCAL APPEAL JURIS-
DICTION IN LOCAL ZONING
MATTERS AND IN OPPOSITION TO
BILL HR #1534.
WHEREAS, Congress is considering giving appeal jurisdiction in local zoning matters
to federal district courts under Section 1983 of Title 42 of the U.S. Code; and
WHEREAS, the federal court system is presently understaffed and overworked and
years behind in its civil case workload; and
WHEREAS, adding thousands of additional zoning appeals would clearly worsen the
problem; and
WHEREAS, it is the announced intention of the administration and Congress to
bring government back to the local level under the theory that government closest to the
people governs best; and
MARCH 10, 1998
-81-
EkOOK 10 4 F,aGES I
UL
SOOK 1-04 PA
WHEREAS, local zoning issues are certainly a matter which can be handled better by
local courts than by the federal judiciary; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that the Board hereby
goes on record in support of keeping local jurisdiction in local zoning matters and in
opposition to Bill HR #1534.
The resolution was moved for adoption by Commissioner Eggert, and the motion was
seconded by Commissioner Ginn, and, upon being put to a vote, the vote was as follows:
Chairman John W. Tippin Aye
Vice Chairman Kenneth R. Macht Aye
Commissioner Carolyn K. Eggert Aye
Commissioner Fran B. Adams Aye
Commissioner Caroline D. Ginn Aye
The Chairman thereupon declared the resolution duly passed and adopted this 10th day of
March, 1998.
Attest:
��
S
Jeffrey Barton, Clerk, ---).
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
By its Boa4ofnty �iiissioners
BJipparman eAIIR�OIVIUDIAS0 FORM
A D LEGAL SUFFICIENCY:
Charles P. Vitunac
County Attorney
B.C. COMMISSIONER ADAMS - TREASURE COAST
REGIONAL PLANNING COUNCIL - CITY OF
SEBASTIAN REQUEST TO BECOME A PERMANENT
VOTING MEMBER
The Board reviewed a letter of February 18, 1998:
MARCH 10, 1998
0 -82-
C,
•
1225 MAIN STREET o SEBASTIAN, FLORIDA 32958
TELEPHONE (561) 589-5330 o FAX (561) 589-5570
February 18, 1998
Fran B. Adams
County Commissioner
District 1
Indian River County
1840 25th Street
Vero Beach, FL 32960
Dear Mrs. Adams:
RECEIVED
FEB 2 6 1998
BOARD GF COUNT`
COMMISSION
Bt$TBIBUTION LIST
Commissioners
Administrator
Attorney
Personnel
Public Works
Community Dev.
Utilities
Finance
OMB
Emacs. Sere
Risk Mgt..__
Other
As you know, the voting membership from Indian River County is comprised of a County
Commissioner, a Governor's appointee, and representative of the one of the four
municipalities (Vero Beach, Sebastian, Town of Indian River Shores, Fellsmere) which is
rotated.
It was the consensus of the City Council that the County Commission be requested to ask
the Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council to add Sebastian as permanent voting
member from Indian River County.
Sebastian would like the Indian River County Commission to support Sebastian as a
permanent voting member of the Treasure Coast Planning Council, and if agreeable advise
Mr. Michael Busha at the Planning Council's next regularly scheduled meeting.
Sincerely,
Walter W. Barnes
Mayor
cc: City Council
Commissioner Ginn commented that the new Vero Beach City Council will sit for
their first meeting next Tuesday evening and suggested that the matter be brought back in 2
weeks, after asking the City of Vero Beach and the City of Sebastian to advise their desires
regarding this matter.
Commissioner Adams felt the City of Sebastian has expressed their desire.
MARCH 10, 1998
-83- 104,
F: >
L
I
SOUK FACE
to act.
Commissioner Ginn reiterated that she would like to wait for the City of Vero Beach
Chairman Tippin asked County Attorney Vitunac to notify the City of Vero Beach
that the Board needs to know their desires.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Ginn, SECONDED
by Commissioner Eggert, the Board, by a 4-1 vote
(Commissioner Adams opposed) tabled the matter
until the March 24, 1998 meeting.
There being no further business, on Motion duly made, seconded and carried, the
Board adjourned at 10:51 a.m.
ATTEST:
Minutes Approved: 7 9 g
MARCH 10, 1998
o W. Tippin, Ch '
0 -84-
•