HomeMy WebLinkAbout6/02/19980
MINUTES ATTACHED 0
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
A G E N D A
TUESDAY, JUNE 2,1998
9:00 A.M. - COUNTY COMMISSION CHAMBER
County Administration Building
1840 25th Street, Vero Beach, Florida 32960
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
John W. Tippin, Chairman (District 4)
Kenneth R. Macht, Vice Chairman (District 3)
Fran B. Adams (District 1)
Carolyn K. Eggert (District 2)
Caroline D. Ginn (District 5)
James E. Chandler, County Administrator
Charles P. Vitunac, County Attorney
Jeffrey K. Barton, Clerk to the Board
9:00 a.m. 1. CALL TO ORDER BACKUP
2. INVOCATION Chaplain Jack Hemskey PAGES
Civil Air Patrol
3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - James E. Chandler
4. ADDITIONS to the AGENDA/EMERGENCY ITEMS
5. PROCLAMATION and PRESENTATIONS
None
6. APPROVAL OF NUNUTES
Regular Meeting of May 12, 1998
7. CONSENT AGENDA
A. Received & Placed on File in Office of Clerk to
the Board: (1) Delta Farms Water Control District -
FY 1998/99 Budget ($165 per acre non -ad valorem
assessment established); (2) Indian River Soil and
Water Conservation District Update on Status of
Seat #3 and Minutes of May 11, 1998 Board Meeting
B. Approval of Warrants
(memorandum dated May 21, 1998) 1-14
C. Budget Adjustment, Sale of Surplus Property
(memorandum dated May 21, 1998) 15
D. Temporary Water Service Agreement - Indian River
County and Daniel A. Jones & Kathy L. Jones
(memorandum dated May 21, 1998) 16-25
8. CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS and
GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES
Karl Zimmermann - Tax Collector
Discussion regarding move to Luria's Plaza
(no backup provided)
9:05 A.M. 9.
10.
11.
PUBLIC ITEMS
A. PUBLIC HEARINGS
AN ORDINANCE OF INDIAN RIVER
COUNTY, FLORIDA AMENDING THE
FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT OF THE
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN BY CHANGING
THE LAND USE DESIGNATION FOR ±26.4
ACRES LOCATED BETWEEN I-95 AND THE
HORIZON OUTLET CENTER, FROM C/I TO
C-1; AND BY CHANGING THE LAND USE
DESIGNATION FOR ±26.4 ACRES LOCATED
APPROX. ONE HALF MILE SOUTH OF SR60
AND APPROX. ONE EIGHTH MILE WEST OF
I-95, FROM M-1 TO C/I; AND PROVIDING
SEVERABILITY AND EFFECTIVE DATE
(Legislative)
(memorandum dated May 27, 1998)
2. Proposed Development Order (D.O.) and
DRI Approval for the Horizon Outlet Center
(Quasi -Judicial)
(memorandum dated May 26, 1998)
BACKUP
PAGES
26-71
72-109
3. AN ORDINANCE OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY,
FLORIDA, AMENDING CHAPTER 306 OF THE
CODE, MISCELLANEOUS OFFENSES AND PRO-
GRAMS, BY ADOPTING SECTION 306.12 "USE
OF AIRBOATS IN THE ST. SEBASTIAN RIVER'
(memorandum dated May 25, 1998) 110-140
B. PUBLIC DISCUSSION ITEMS
Presentation by Bob Swift of Keep Indian River
Beautiful Beautification Committee Re: "Trees
for Public Spaces"
(memorandum dated May 13, 1998)
C. PUBLIC NOTICE ITEMS
None
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S MATTERS
None
DEPARTMENTAL MATTERS
A. Community Development
Request to Modify the Conceptual Master Land-
scape Plan for the I-95/SR60 Interchange and the
County/Horizon Cash Deposit & Escrow Agree-
ment
(memorandum dated May 26, 1998)
B. Emergency Services
None
141-143
144166
0 is
•
11. DEPARTMENTAL MATTERS (cont'd.):
C.
General Services
None
D.
Leisure Services
None
E.
Office of Management and Budget
None
F.
Personnel
None
G.
Public Works
—
1. Assignment of Wabasso Area CDBG
Project Construction Contract from Martin
Paving Co. to Ranger Construction Indus-
tries, Inc.
(memorandum dated May 26, 1998)
2. Wabasso Causeway Park Improvements
Project
(memorandum dated May 19, 1998)
H.
Utilities
None "
12. COUNTY ATTORNEY
None
13. COMMISSIONERS ITEMS
A.
Chairman John W. Tinpin
B. Vice Chairman Kenneth R. Macht
C. Commissioner Fran B. Adams
D. Commissioner Carolyn K. Eggert
E. Commissioner Caroline D. Ginn
•
BACKUP
PAGES
167-186
187-202
�'r ' i f.{JC11
1- 1 •vd F e F
Y
14. SPECIAL DISTRICTSBOARDS
A. Emergency Services District
None
B. Solid Waste Disposal District
None
C. Environmental Control Board
None
15. ADJOURNMENT
BACKUP
PAGES
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 J
Falcon Cable Channel 35 - rebroadcast Friday evening
•
•
INDEX TO MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING
OF BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
JUNE 2, 1998
1. CALL TO ORDER ............................................... 1-
2. INVOCATION .................................................. I-
3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ....................................... 1-
6. APPROVAL OF MINUTES ....... " .................................1-
7. CONSENT AGENDA ............................................ 2-
7.A. Reports ................................................... 2-
7.13. List of Warrants ............................................ 2-
7.C. Sheriff - Budget Adjustment - Sale of Surplus Property ........... .11-
7.D. Temporary Water Service Agreement - Daniel A. and Kathy L. Jones -
6260 58' Court, Vero Beach ................................ .12-
8. TAX COLLECTOR KARL ZIMMERMANN - MOVE TO LURIA'S PLAZA
............................................................. .13 -
JUNE 2,1998
I U �) rrsk.
9.A.1. PUBLIC HEARING - (1) ORDINANCE AMENDING THE FUTURE LAND
USE ELEMENT OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN BY CHANGING THE
LAND USE DESIGNATION FOR ±26.4 ACRES LOCATED BETWEEN I-95
AND THE HORIZON OUTLET CENTER FROM CA TO C-1; AND BY
CHANGING THE LAND USE DESIGNATION FOR ±26.4 ACRES LOCATED
APPROXIMATELY ONE HALF MILE SOUTH OF SR -60 AND
APPROXIMATELY ONE EIGHTH MILE WEST OF I-95 FROM M-1 TO CA -
(2) ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE AND THE
ACCOMPANYING ZONING MAP FOR ±26.4 ACRES LOCATED BETWEEN
I-95 AND THE HORIZON OUTLET CENTER FROM CG TO CON -1 AND BY
AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE AND THE ACCOMPANYING
ZONING MAP FOR ±26.4 ACRES LOCATED APPROXIMATELY ONE HALF
MILE SOUTH OF SR -60 AND APPROXIMATELY ONE EIGHTH MILE WEST
OF I-95 FROM RM -6 TO CG - HGI AND RALPH EVANS, TRUSTEE ... -17-
9.A.2. PUBLIC HEARING - HORIZON OUTLET CENTER - DEVELOPMENT
ORDER (DO) AND DEVELOPMENT OF REGIONAL RVIPACT (DRI)
............................................................ .41-
9.A.3. PUBLIC HEARING - ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 306 OF THE
CODE, MISCELLANEOUS OFFENSES AND PROGRAMS, BY ADOPTING
SECTION 306.12 "USE OF AIRBOATS IN THE ST. SEBASTIAN RIVER"
........................................................... .57-
9.B. PUBLIC DISCUSSION ITEM - KEEP INDIAN RIVER BEAUTIFUL
BEAUTIFICATION COMMITTEE - "TREES FOR PUBLIC SPACES" ... -73-
11.A. (1) I-95/SR-60 INTERCHANGE - MODIFY CONCEPTUAL MASTER
LANDSCAPE PLAN - (2) HORIZON/GLEN OUTLET CENTERS LWTED
PARTNERSHIP (HORIZON) - MODIFICATION TO CASH DEPOSIT AND
ESCROW AGREEMENT ...................................... .74 -
JUNE 291998
. -2- 41
:7
11.G.1. WABASSO AREA CDBG PROJECT - ASSIGNMENT OF
CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT FROM MARTIN PAVING CO. TO
RANGER CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRIES, INC ............... .90-
11.G.2. WABASSO CAUSEWAY PARK IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT - BRAD
SMITH ASSOCIATES .................................... .91 -
JUNE 291998
•
June 2, 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, June 2, 1998, at 9:00 a.m. Present were John W. Tippin, Chairman; Kenneth R.
Macht, Vice Chairman; Fran B. Adams; Carolyn K. Eggert; and Caroline D. Ginn. Also
present were James E. Chandler, County Administrator; Charles P. Vitunac, County
Attorney; and Patricia "PJ" Jones, Deputy Clerk.
1. CALL TO ORDER
Chairman Tippin called the meeting to order.
2. INVOCATION
Chaplain Jack Hemskey of the Civil Air Patrol delivered the Invocation.
3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
County Administrator Chandler led the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag.
6. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
The Chairman asked if there were any corrections or additions to the Minutes of the
Regular Meeting of May 12, 1998. There were none.
JUNE 211998
ON MOTION by Commissioner Macht,
SECONDED by Commissioner Ginn, the Board
unanimously approved the Minutes of the Regular
Meeting of May 12, 1998, as written.
-1-
'tj C 4-� 62,
7. CONSENT AGENDA
7.A. REPORTS
Received and placed on file in the Office of the Clerk to the Board:
1. Delta Farms Water Control District - FY 1998-99 Budget ($165 per acre non -
ad valorem assessment established)
2. Indian River Soil and Water Conservation District Update on Status of Seat #3
and Minutes of May 11, 1998 Board Meeting
7.B. LIST OF WARRANTS
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of May 21, 1998:
TO: HONORABLE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
DATE: MAY 21, 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 May 14 to May 21, 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 May
14, 1998 through May 21, 1998, as recommended by
staff.
JUNE 291998
CHECK
NAME
CHECK
CHECK
NUMBER
DATE
AMOUNT
0019404
AMERICAN FAMILY LIFE ASSURANCE
5/14/98
230.96
0019405
TEAMSTERS LOCAL UNION NO 769
5/14/98
3,692.80
0242504
A A FIRE EQUIPMENT, INC
5/21/98
1,083.50
0242505
ABC-CLIO INC
5/21/98
427.47
0242506
AMERICAN WATER WORKS
5/21/98
83.75
0242507
ADVANCED GARAGE DOORS, INC
5/21/98
85.00
0242508
AMERICAN LEGION POST 0039
5/21/98
124.95
0242509
AT YOUR SERVICE
5/21/98
2,269.60
0242510
ATCO TOOL SUPPLY
5/21/98
45.24
0242511
AUTO SUPPLY CO OF VERO BEACH,
5/21/98
100.09
0242512
AT EASE ARMY NAVY
5/21/98
558.00
0242513
ATLANTIC REPORTING
5/21/98
292.05
0242514
AMERICAN BUSINESS INFORMATION
5/21/98
811.00
0242515
ALRO METALS SERVICE CENTER
5/21/98
78.00
0242516
AVANTI INTERNATIONAL
5/21/98
720.00
0242517
ADAMS, COOGLER, WATSON &
5/21/98
242.82
0242518
A T & T LANGUAGE LINE SERVICES
5/21/98
244.10
0242519
AMERICAN LIBRARY ASSOC
5/21/98
22.40
0242520
ARROW MAGNOLIA INTERNATIONAL
5/21/98
587.06
0242521
ATLANTIC COASTAL TITLE CORP
5/21/98
64.00
0242522
AUTO PARTS OF VERO, INC
5/21/98
519.78
0242523
ANDERSON, RUSSELL L
5/21/98
372.27
0242524
A T & T
5/21/98
6.55
0242525
ALK MERIDIAN BIOMEDICAL INC
5/21/98
108.30
0242526
ALL AMERICAN CONCRETE
5/21/98
32,843.52
0242527
ACADEMIC SERVICES CORPORATION
5/21/98
315.00.
0242528
AFFORDABLE LAND SERVICES, INC.
5/21/98
500.00
0242529
BAKER DISTRIBUTING CO
5/21/98
40.80
0242530
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
5/21/98
4,300.93
0242531
BLACKHAWK QUARRY COMPANY
5/21/98
307.17
0242532
BROOKS, RONALD R
5/21/98
70.90
0242533
BRUGNOLI, ROBERT J PHD
5/21/98
800.00
0242534
BELLSOUTH MOBILITY
5/21/98
16.22
0242535
BERGGREN EQUIPMENT CO, INC
5/21/98
60.96
0242536
BRIDGESTONE SPORTS, INC
5/21/98
351.36
0242537
BURGOON BERGER CONSTRUCTION
5/21/98
1,077.65
0242538
BARTON, JEFFREY K
5/21/98
116.80
0242539
BAKER & TAYLOR INC
5/21/98
193.99
0242540
BARTON, JEFFREY K
5/21/98
2,537.50
0242541
BRODART CO
5/21/98
1,739.80
0242542
BLAIS ELECTRIC, INC
5/21/98
182.00
0242543
B & J LOCKSMITH, INC
5/21/98
79.00
0242544
BREVARD BOILER CO
5/21/98
263.00.
0242545
BFI MEDICAL WASTE SYSTEMS
5/21/98
427.76
0242546
BOOKS ON TAPE INC
5/21/98
105.50
0242547
BELLSOUTH
5/21/98
15,393.17
0242548
BAUER, JANICE
5/21/98
37.50
0242549
BLUE CROSS/BLUE SHIELD OF
5/21/98
8,206.00
0242550
BAKER & TAYLOR INC
5/21/98
1,256.04
0242551
BARTON, JEFFREY K
5/21/98
744.54
0242552
BERGOON & BERGER CONSTRUCTION
5/21/98
390.55
0242553
BLANTON III, KENNETH S
5/21/98
419.00
0242554
BONETA, CONNIE (BURGESS)
5/21/98
10,054.68
0242555
BROWN, CHARLES Y & EDITH M
5/21/98
1,158.14
0242556
BERTELL, SANDRA G.
5/21/98
371.60
0242557
CAMERON & BARKLEY COMPANY
5/21/98
186.00
0242558
CATAPHOTE INC
5/21/98
1,940.00
0242559
COLLINS BROWN & CALDWELL
5/21/98
10,000.00
0242560
COMMUNICATIONS INT'L INC
5/21/98
722.00
0242561
CORBIN, SHIRLEY E
5/21/98
511.50
0242562
CONGRESSIONAL QUARTERLY BOOKS
5/21/98
122,99
0242563
CUDDIE, DAVID AND SHANNON G
5/21/98
372.27
0242564
CHIVERS NORTH AMERICA
5/21/98
23.13
0242565
CROWE, MICHAEL W AND TAMMY
5/21/98
372.27
0242566
COMMONWEALTH LAND TITLE CO
5/21/98
892.90
0242567
COOGAN, MAUREEN
5/21/98
387.28
0242568
COLLINS & AIRMAN
5/21/98
1,007.34
0242569
CALLAWAY GOLF COMPANY
5/21/98
571.90
0242570
CASANO, F V ELECTRICAL
5/21/98
735.87
0242571
CALL ONE, INC
5/21/98
29.91
0242572
CORPORATION OF THE PRESIDENT
5/21/98
58.50
0242573
CENTRAL PUMP & SUPPLY INC
5/21/98
470.76
0242574
C D W COMPUTERS INC
5/21/98
69,97
0242575
CENTER FOR EMOTIONAL AND
5/21/98
57.00
0242576
C J BAILEY CONCRETE CO
5/21/98
1,800.00
0242577
COLUMBIA HOUSE
5/21/98
81.66
0242578
CUMMINS, CHERYL
5/21/98
24.00
0242579
CONSOLIDATED RESOURCE RECOVERY
5/21/98
78,733.44
0242580
CHAIT, ROBERT MD
5/21/98
600.00
0242581
CARWASH WEST, INC
5/21/98
3,320.00
0242582
CENTRAL DATA SUPPLY COMPANY
5/21/98
26.04
0242583
COMMERCIAL TITLE SERVICE,INC
5/21/98
3,371.97
0242584
CENTRAL AIR CONDITIONING &
5/21/98
44.42
JUNE 291998
-3-t
F
�'
-3-['111 h, , ._ � 1j;t ear
JUNE 291998
CHECK NAME
NUMBER
CHECK
CHECK
DATE
AMOUNT
0242585 DAVES SPORTING GOODS
5/21/98
54.60
0242586 DISCOVERY BOOK COMPANY
5/21/98
533.03
0242587 DAVIDSON TITLES, INC
5/21/98
88.48
0242588 DATA FLOW SYSTEMS, INC
5/21/98
215.73
0242589 DEAF SERVICE CENTER OF THE
5/21/98
416.67
0242590 DILL, WARREN W pA
5/21/98
4,470.64
0242591 DADE PAPER COMPANY
5/21/98
178.34
0242592 DERUSSO, ROBERT D
5/21/98
744.54
0242593 DOWNTOWN PRODUCE INC
5/21/98
86.60
0242594 DATABASE TECHNOLOGIES INC
5/21/98
29.00
0242595 DILLARD, LASSIE
5/21/98
36.05
0242596 DOCTORS' CLINIC
5/21/98
267.00
0242597 DEHEART, NIKKI
5/21/98
24.00
0242598 EVANS, FLOYD
5/21/98
12.50
0242599 EBSCO SUBSCRIPTION SERVICES
5/21/98
20.58
0242600 EGP, INC
5/21/98
465.00
0242601 EXPRESS REEL GRINDING, INC
5/21/98
2,700.00
0242602 ECKERD DRUG CO
5/21/98
109.91
0242603 EXPRESS TITLE
5/21/98
3,099.98
0242604 FLORIDA BAR, THE
5/21/98
586.00
0242605 FLORIDA EAST COAST RAILWAY CO
5/21/98
2,468.00
0242606 FLORIDA SOD OF THE TREASURE
5/21/98
11000.00
0242607 FLORIDA ASSOCIATION OF
5/21/98
200.00
0242608 FLORIDA BAR, THE
5/21/98
16.00
0242609 FPL
5/21/98
43,778.07
0242610 FLORIDA TREND
5/21/98
39.95
0242611 FOOT -JOY DRAWER
5/21/98
29.65
0242612 FRONTIER PRESS, THE
5/21/98
191.04
0242613 FLORIDA DETROIT DIESEL -ALLISON
5/21/98
1,362.33
0242614 FLINN, SHEILA I
5/21/98
147.00
0242615 FMC CORP
5/21/98
4,440.00
0242616 FLORIDA INSTITUTE OF C p A'S
5/21/98
135.00
0242617 FALZONE, MATTHEW
5/21/98
36.05
0242618 FELLSMERE POLICE DEPARTMENT
5/21/98
25.00
0242619 FIRE ENGINEERING BOOKS & VIDEO
5/21/98
59.95
0242620 F & W PUBLICATIONS INC
5/21/98
118.83
0242621 FINCH, KAREN
5/21/98
372.64
0242622 FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF LABOR &
5/21/98
21,673.93
0242623 FONTAINE, DIANE M & COLLINS J
5/21/98
9.85
0242624 F.A.C.E.
5/21/98
30.00
0242625 GATOR LUMBER COMPANY
5/21/98
62.75
0242626 GLIDDEN COMPANY, THE
5/21/98
19.25
0242627 GRAVES BROTHERS
5/21/98
2,326.20
0242628 GALE RESEARCH, INC
5/21/98
433.66
0242629 GIFFORD YOUTH ACTIVITIES CENTE
5/21/98
8,922.01
0242630 GOLLNICK, PEGGY _
5/21/98
63.00
0242631 GERGELY, CAROL A
5/21/98
87.47
0242632 HALL, PAMELA J
5/21/98
102.19
0242633 HOGAN, JAMES D
5/21/98
500.00
0242634 HERITAGE BOORS, INC
5/21/98
145.00
0242635 HACH COMPANY
5/21/98
270.75
0242636 HOLIDAY INN
5/21/98
150.00
0242637 HENDRY SOIL & WATER
5/21/98
49.00
0242638 HCFA LABORATORY PROGRAM
5/21/98
150.00
0242639 HULL, JANET SIMMONS
5/21/98
483.62
0242640 HARVEST CHRISTIAN RANCH
5/21/98
500.00
0242641 HEANEY, LAURA C.
5/21/98
372.27
0242642 INDIAN RIVER COUNTY SOLID
5/21/98
10,788.48
0242643 INDIAN RIVER COUNTY SCHOOL
5/21/98
1,200.00
0242644 INSTRUMENTATION SERVICES, INC
5/21/98
1,092.00
0242645 INDIAN RIVER COUNTY UTILITY
5/21/98
438.28
0242646 INGRAM
5/21/98
1,326.86
0242647 INTERSTATE BILLING SERVICE
5/21/98
272.84
0242648 ISIS PUBLISHING
5/21/98
60.75
0242649 INDIAN RIVER MEMORIAL HOSPITAL
5/21/98
28.50
0242650 INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
5/21/98
1,300.00
0242651 IBM CORPORATION
5/21/98
333.50
0242652 INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
5/21/98
118.00
0242653 IRC EMPLOYEE HEALTH INSURANCE-
5/21/98
102,097.69
0242654 IRON OFFICE SOLUTIONS
5/21/98
120.00
0242655 IRRIGATION CONSULTANTS UNLIMIT
5/21/98
80.36
0242656 JUDGE, JAMES A II
5/21/98
8.00
0242657 JR REPORTING ASSOCIATES, INC
5/21/98
719.50
0242658 J A A F
5/21/98
25.00
0242659 JEWETT ORTHOPAEDIC CLINIC
5/21/98
474.30
0242660 JUNIPERHILL PRESS
5/21/98
170.00
0242661 JACOBS, DELORES E
5/21/98
1,027.22
0242662 JONES, RICHARD & JUDY
5/21/98
961.20
0242663 KIMLEY-HORN & ASSOCIATES, INC
5/21/98
33,519.58
0242664 KARL, JAMES W
5/21/98
126.00
0242665 K S M ENGINEERING & TESTING
5/21/98
1,778.00
0242666 KT MOWER & EQUIPMENT
5/21/98
49.95
JUNE 291998
CHECK
NAME
CHECK
CHECK
NUMBER
DATE
AMOUNT
0242667
KLINK, RICHARD
5/21/98
1,232.00
0242668
KEITH, GINA L.
5/21/98
372.27
0242669
KILLIAN, ROBERT C.
5/21/98
1,027.22
0242670
KINNARD, LAWRENCE
5/21/98
372.27
0242671
LOWE'S HOME CENTERS, INC
5/21/98
239.13
0242672
LIVE OAK ANIMAL HOSPITAL
5/21/98
10.00
0242673
LIGHT SOURCE BUSINESS SYSTEMS
5/21/98
938.00
0242674
LESCO, INC
5/21/98
1,049.34
0242675
LIBERTY BUSINESS MACHINES
5/21/98
4,957.00
0242676
STEVEN LULICH, PA TRUST ACCT
5/21/98
1,117.59
0242677
LOWE'S HOME CENTERS, INC
5/21/98
4.16
0242678
MAXWELL PLUMBING, INC
5/21/98
42.12
0242679
MEEKS PLUMBING
5/21/98
75.30
0242680
MOSS, KATHY
5/21/98
360.00
0242681
MUNICIPAL SUPPLY &
5/21/98
6,952.90
0242682
MEDICAL RECORD SERVICES, INC
5/21/98
42.02
0242683
MEDIATION, INC
5/21/98
160.75
0242684
MEDIA MARKETING GROUP, INC
5/21/98
82.50
0242685
MCCLEARY, DENNIS
5/21/98
500.00
0242686
MIDWEST TAPE EXCHANGE
5/21/98
97.60
0242687- MR BOB PORTABLE TOILET
5/21/98
407.60
0242688
MARC INDUSTRIES
5/21/98
501.42
0242689
MEDCHECK
5/21/98
369.53
0242690
MAYR, SHARON
5/21/98
64.00
0242691
MAX DAVIS ASSOCIATES INC
5/21/98
163.44
0242692
MC MAHON, RICHARD & VALDER
5/21/98
377.48
0242693
MAXFLI GOLF DIVISION
5/21/98
951.34
0242694
MOORE, ROBERT L & IRENE
5/21/98
2,054.44
0242695
NATIONAL FIRE PROTECTION
5/21/98
371.85
0242696
NEW READERS PRESS
5/21/98
885.70
0242697
NORTH SOUTH SUPPLY
5/21/98
68.52
0242698
NOTARY PUBLIC UNDERWRITER, INC
5/21/98
93.00
0242699
NATIONAL FIRE PROTECTION
5/21/98
239.90
0242700
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF
5/21/98
890.00
0242701
NEAL-SCHUMAN PUBLISHERS, INC
5/21/98
40.59
0242702
OFFICE PRODUCTS & SERVICE _
5/21/98
649.10
0242703
O'BRIEN, TERRENCE
5/21/98
911.85
0242704
OFFICE DEPOT, INC
5/21/98
1,336.86
0242705
OFFICE DEPOT, INC
5/21/98
200.30
0242706
O'NEIL, LEE & WEST
5/21/98
9,500.31
0242707
OLYMPIC TITLE INSURANCE
5/21/98
3,977.58
0242708
OLSON, VINCENT
5/21/98
372,27
0242709
PEACE RIVER ELECTRIC
5/21/98
43.79
0242710
PETTY CASH
5/21/98
81.40
0242711
PETTY CASH
5/21/98
176.48
0242712
POSTMASTER
5/21/98
320.00
0242713
POSTMASTER $216
5/21/98
5,000.00
0242714
PROCTOR CONSTRUCTION
5/21/98
500.00
0242715
PETTY CASH
5/21/98
39.51
0242716
PINKERTON, DOREEN A
5/21/98
6.00
0242717
PROFESSIONAL TITLE OF
5/21/98
48,847.11
0242718
PORT PETROLEUM, INC
5/21/98
66.56
0242719
PRESTON, SIGLINDE
5/21/98
37.32
0242720
PRESS JOURNAL
5/21/98
323.30
0242721
PENINSULA STATE TITLE
5/21/98
7,426.90
0242722
PAGENET OF FLORIDA
5/21/98
273.30
0242723
PEOPLES TITLE, INC THE
5/21/98
10,372.27
0242724
PANGBURN, TERRI
5/21/98
24.00
0242725
PRESS JOURNAL/STUART NEWS
5/21/98
2,540.79
0242726
PRAXAIR DISTRIBUTION
5/21/98
63.00
0242727
PROCTOR, SHERRY D
5/21/98
350.00
0242728
QUALITY BOOKS, INC
5/21/98
105.57
0242729
QUALITY JANITORIAL SERVICE
5/21/98
260.00
0242730
R & J CRANE SERVICE, INC
5/21/98
210.00
0242731
RADIO SHACK ACCT RECEIVABLE
5/21/98
209.98
0242732
RIFKIN, SHEI ON H PHD
5/21/98
500.00
0242733
ROSELAND VOLUNTEER FIRE DEPT
5/21/98
14.00
0242734
RUSE, WAYNE
5/21/98
55.00
0242735
ROBERTS & REYNOLDS PA
5/21/98
15,675.34
0242736
R & G SOD FARMS
5/21/98
469.00
0242737
RELIANCE PETROLEUM CO, INC
5/21/98
158.25
0242738
RANGER CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRIES
5/21/98
170,926.80
0242739
ROGERS, RAYMOND E & LILLIAN
5/21/98
459.09
0242740
ROY CLARK
5/21/98
975.00
0242741
RIA GROUP
5/21/98
328.15
0242742
RENTAL 1
5/21/98
136.40
0242743
RSR WHOLESALE SOUTH, INC
5/21/98
4,401.85
0242744
RESOURCE MANAGERS, INC
5/21/98
15.00
0242745
RADISSON SUITE BEACH RESORT
5/21/98
330.00
0242746
RADDISON SANIBEL GATEWAY, THE
5/21/98
432.00
0242747
SCOTT'S SPORTING GOODS
5/21/98
278.40
0242748
SCOTTY'S, INC
5/21/98
1,529.64
0242749
SEBASTIAN BUSINESS SUPPLY, INC
5/21/98
15.00
JUNE 291998
JUNE 211998
CHECK
NAME
CHECK
CHECK
NUMBER
DATE
AMOUNT
0242750
SEBASTIAN VOLUNTEER FIRE DEPT
5/21/9831.00
0242751
SECURITY TITLE OF INDIAN
5/21/98
1,489.08
0242752
SEITNER SALES
5/21/98
53.00
0242753
SOUTHERN EAGLE DISTRIBUTING,
5/21/98
259.15
0242754
SOUTHERN ELECTRIC SUPPLY
5/21/98
112.91
0242755
SAFESPACE, INC
5/21/98
1,250.00
0242756
STANDARD & POOR'S
5/21/98
1,672.00
0242757
ST LUCIE PAPER & PACKAGING,INC
5/21/98
1,838.77
0242758
STA -CON, INC
5/21/98
497.48
0242759
SCHOLARLY RESOURCES, INC
5/21/98
140.82
0242760
STEIL, HOLLY
5/21/98
37.41
0242761
SIMON & SCHUSTER
5/21/98
146.68
0242762
SHERWOOD, FRANCES G
5/21/98
90.19
0242763
STEWART TITLE OF INDIAN RIVER
5/21/98
3,112.63
0242764
SCHOOL DISTRICT OF IRC
5/21/98
179.18
0242765
SEXTON, HILDY
5/21/98
80.00
0242766
STORY TIME PRODUCTIONS
5/21/98
232.15
0242767
SALEM PRESS, INC
5/21/98
312.00
0242768
SOUTHERN TRAFFIC SERVICES, INC
5/21/98
656.00
0242769
SOFTHAUS COMPUTER CENTER, INC
5/21/98
258.95
0242770
SHELDON, JAMES
5/21/98
679.96
0242771
SYSCO FOOD SERVICES OF
5/21/98
416.33
0242772
SIMPSON, JAMES E
5/21/98
1,000.00
0242773
SMITH, LINDA
5/21/98
71S.S0
0242774
STUART BUSINESS SYS, INC
5/21/98
192.00
0242775
SEBASTIAN POLICE DEPARTMENT
5/21/98
25.00
0242776
SIMS, MATTHEW
5/21/98
136.88
0242777
SEBASTIAN RIVER MEDICAL CENTER
5/21/98
2,300.00
0242778
SOUTHEAST LIBRARY BINDERY,INC
5/21/98
117.40
0242779
STAGE & SCREEN
5/21/98
26.24
0242780
SOUTHPORT APPAREL, INC
5/21/98
106.28
0242781
SANDLER, ALAN M -TRUST ACCOUNT
5/21/98
14,815.00
0242782
SUAREZ, ANTONIO
5/21/98
41.47
0242783
SOUTH BREVARD TITLE, INC
5/21/98
372.27
0242784
SAUCEDA, ROBERT MD
5/21/98
93.00
0242785
SECURITYLINK FROM AMERITECH
5/21/98
224.25
0242786
SEIFER, RONALD MD
5/21/98
77.00
0242787
SWYGERT, WILLIAM & MARGARET
5/21/98
596.12
0242788
SEDENSKY, RITA A.
5/21/98
513.61
0242789
TEN -8 FIRE EQUIPMENT, INC
5/21/98
3,756.76
0242790
THOMAS, DEBBY L
5/21/98
45.50
0242791
TREASURE COAST REFUSE CORP
5/21/98
31,574.02
0242792
SOUTHLAND CORPORATION, THE
5/21/98
10.00
0242793
TONY'S CARPET & UPHOLSTERY
5/21/98
288.00
0242794
TRUGREEN CHEMLAWN
5/21/98
48.00
-0242795
TREASURE COAST COURT
5/21/98
25.00
0242796
TELECOMMUNICATIONS
5/21/98
136.54
0242797
TREASURE CHEST COMPUTERS'
5/21/98
954.00
0242798
TOWN & COUNTRY TITLE GUARANTY
5/21/98
609.85
0242799
UNIQUE BOOKS, INC
5/21/98
6,490.72
0242800
UNIVERSITY OF CENTRAL FLORIDA
5/21/98
665.00
0242801
US FILTER DISTRIBUTION GROUP
5/21/98
47,648.14
0242802
ULTRA -CHEM INC
5/21/98
129.96
0242803
VERO BEACH VOLUNTEER FIRE
5/21/98
21.00
0242804
VERO BEACH, CITY OF
5/21/98
4,660.46
0242805
VERO LAWNMOWER CENTER, INC
5/21/98
411.30
0242806
VERO STARTER & GENERATOR
5/21/98
65.00
0242807
VERO BEACH, CITY OF
5/21/98
121.29
0242808
VERO LAKE ESTATES VOLUNTEER
5/21/98
37.00
0242809
VERO BEACH HIGH SCHOOL
5/21/98
35.00
0242810
VERO BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT
5/21/98
25.00
0242811
VAN DE VOORDE, RENE G
5/21/98
1,054.41
0242812
VOLUNTEER ACTION CENTER
5/21/98
- 25.00
0242813
VAUGH, W J, ATTORNEY
S/21/98
863.66
0242814
WAL-MART STORES, INC
5/21/98
1,002.78
0242815
W W GRAINGER, INC
5/21/98
1,621.78
0242816
WAL-MART STORES, 'INC
5/21/98
105.59
0242817
WILLHOFF, PATSY
5/21/98
130.00
0242818
WHITE'S PAINT & BODY
5/21/98
456.40
0242819
WHEELER, GARY SHERIFF
5/21/98
5,440.50
0242820
WHARTON-SMITH, INC
5/21/98
371,570.07
0242821
WOLFE, MEGAN
S/21/98
15.45
0242822
WAREFORCE INC
5/21/98
501.34
0242823
WEST GROUP PAYMENT CTR
5/21/98
902.31
0242824
WOLFE, ERIN
5/21/98
15.45
0242825
WILLIAMS SOUND CORPORATION
5/21/98
21.50
0242826
WELTER-WESTON CHIROPRACTIC
5/21/98
288.90
0242827
WOODARD-WANGER CO
5/21/98
5,236.74
0242828
WOLONOWSKI, JOSEPH M & MARY
5/21/98
7.47
0242829
WINTERS, GERALD
5/21/98
1,027.22
0242830
XEROX CORPORATION
5/21/98
493.83
0242531
YAVORSKY'S TRUCK SERVICE,INC
5/21/98
9.66
0242832
PEASE, CLINTON
5/21/98
298.68
0242833
CURTIS, ROBERT
5/21/98
338.18 .
0242834
KEMP, HAROLD
5/21/98
308.92
JUNE 211998
CHECK
NAME
CHECK
CHECK
NUMBER
DATE
AMOUNT
0242835
WARD JR, CHARLES
5/21/98
249.92
0242836
THOMAS, CHRISTOPHER
5/21/98
806.58
0242837
STROLLO, ROCCO
5/21/98
221.34
0242838
LESTICIER, ADMARIE
5/21/98
54.52
0242839
BELL, ROBERT
5/21/98
9.03
0242840
FLYNN, JEAN
5/21/98
38.57
0242841
GOLDSTEIN, ROBERT
5/21/98
27.56 '
0242842
HOSKER, VERNA G
5/21/98
144.11
0242843
GRAND HARBOR
5/21/98
82.14
0242844
HARRISON, R G
5/21/98
23.21
0242845
R ZORC & SONS BUILDERS INC
5/21/98
95.34
0242846
ATLANTIC BUILDING MATERIALS
5/21/98
38.03
0242847
CRANDALL III, WARREN & RUTH
5/21/98
94.05
0242848
MITCHELL, MARK D
5/21/98
16.15
0242849
KIDD JR, TULANE
5/21/98
55.01
0242850
BRUNSON, SABRINA
5/21/98
71.67
0242851
BICKNELL, DARstELL & NANCY
5/21/98
93.07
0242852
PROCTOR CONSTRUCTION CO INC
5/21/98
305.71
0242853
PINKNEY, DENISE
5/21/98
21.79
0242854_
ED SCHLITT, INC
5/21/98
18.59
0242855
MARSHAL, MONA
5/21/98
6.00
0242856
STONE, WILLIAM T
5/21/98
71.91
0242857
GHA, GRAND HARBOR LTD
5/21/98
52.13
0242858
WADSWORTH JR, BILLY J
5/21/98
32.26
0242859
SHOWCASE PROPERTIES LTD CO
5/21/98
41.67
0242860
AUSTIN, JOHN T
5/21/98
12.52
0242861
PORTSIDE SYSTEMS
5/21/98
30.55
0242862
SABINS, J
5/21/98
43.09
0242863
BRYAN, LOIS
5/21/98
30.16
0242864
PENNAMON, MARY
5/21/98
96.35
0242865
LOVING, ROBERT
5/21/98
33.78
0242866
RIGHTON, HARRY
5/21/98
74.10
0242867
PERUTA, GARY S
5/21/98
19.06
0242868
BOYD, RICHARD F
5/21/98
20.10
0242869
CEMCO
5/21/98
23.42
0242870
LAMELZA, JAMES -
5/21/98
16.42
0242871
LANDERS JR, KENNETH A
5/21/98
23.15
0242872
HARPER, JAMES B
5/21/98
15.94
0242873
HOWTON, MYRLEE
5/21/98
49.86
0242874
THE RIVERWALK GRILL
5/21/98
214.80
0242875
JOHN LLOYD BUILDERS INC
5/21/98
42.12
0242876
LEAL, NELIO
5/21/98
5.49
0242877
KRAMER, CAROL
5/21/98
16.15
0242878
TURNER, JASON DEREK
5/21/98
30.30
0242879
LEISSING, CHARLES
5/21/98
36.82
0242880
PERRY, DENISE
5/21/98
68.67
0242881
SAUNDERS, JAMES F
5/21/98
31.46
0242882
KNIGHT, PATRICIA G
5/21/98
25.76
0242883
MELIN, BO INGAMAR
5/21/98
52.51
0242884
SOSTA JR, FRANK
5/21/98
43.45
0242885
LE COQ SPORTIF DESIGNER
5/21/98
67.24
0242886
GHO VERO BEACH INC
5/21/98
114.22
0242887
PETERSON, JESSIE L
5/21/98
72.19
0242888
CONDON, JAMES & MARYBETH
5/21/98
89.42
0242889
INDIAN RIVER CLUB
5/21/98
146.72
0242890
NELSON, JAMES W
5/21/98
32.62
0242891
GAMBLE, LAROLA F B
5/21/98
36.18
0242892
MARTIN PAVING CONPANY
5/21/98
41.00
0242893
ZORCORP BUILDERS INC
5/21/98
27.52
0242894
O MAHONY, MICHAEL D
5/21/98
20.57
0242895
SNOW, JUDITH A
5/21/98
64.96
0242896
CORNERSTONE SELECT HOMES INC
5/21/98
51.83
0242897
WONG, LIN W
5/21/98
82.13
0242898
BROWN, HUBERT
5/21/98
87.13
0242899
MC COLLUM, CHARLES & LARUE
5/21/98
101.90
0242900
VESELY, ED
5/21/98
37.71
0242901
SANDY PINES LTD
5/21/98
53.59
0242902
BRIDEAU, ANNE F
5/21/98
75.42
0242903
ASHTON, MARK G
5/21/98
7.73
0242904
TRIGO JR, AGUSTIN
5/21/98
39.33
0242905
RICH, NORMAN A
5/21/98
59.17
0242906
PERRY, LILLIAN M
5/21/98
77.55
0242907
WALKER, LAURA ANNE
5/21/98
54.57
0242908
SMALL, SHERYL L
5/21/98
20.80
0242909
MARTINI, JOANNE
5/21/98
37.45
0242910 WEIR, JEAN
5/21/98
66.28
0242911 DANIEL, FRANK
5/21/98
100.92
0242912 MC CANN, SANDRA C
5/21/98
39.05
0242913 VILLAGE WALK, INC
5/21/98
1.22
0242914 LORION, BERNARD
5/21/98
31.48
0242915 BEAZER HOMES FLORIDA INC
5/21/98
94.86
0242916 FISH, KELLY
5/21/98
7.85
JUNE 291998
Aok
CHECK NAME
NUMBER
0242917
WAHL, POLLY
0242918
PURDY, JOHN D
0242919
LANDRY, JOHN B
0242920
SMID, FRANK R
0242921
CLARK, SALLY D
0242922
HARDING, RICHARD E
0242923
SCHOENTHAL, LINDA L
0242924
ROACHE, CLAUDETTE
0242925
GOODFELLOW, MARY D
0242926
CUTRONE, MARC
0242927
HARTOG, BETH A
0242928
MURDOCK, JULIE
0242929
GOVERNALE, FSK R
0242930
BLUE, YOLANDA
0242931
FOX, LOREN B
0242932
GILLESPIE, L GLEN & NANCY
0242933
CARTER, ROY & VIRGINIA
0242934
TOWLES, TIM
0242935
HOME COLLECTION
0242936
THIGPEN, SHERRI MC LAUGHLIN
0242937
GIRVEN, MARIAN
0242938
PALM BEACH CONFECTIONS
0242939
RICH, LONNIE
0242940
SMITH, GARY A
0242941
GIBSON, CHRISTINA E
0242942
H U D
0242943
ROBERTS, BLANCHE H
0242944
MACKESy, STEVE J
0242945
J K INVESTMENT USA INC
0242946
CORNELIUS, LUCIA
0242947
WOLKE, MATTHEW
0242948
CONN, ALAN & SANDIE
0242949
CREECH, CYNTHIA P
0242950
PICKERILL, BRENDA H
0242951
SHEA, SETH
0242952
HURLEY, ROBERT E
0242953
JACKSON, MARK E
0242954
DIXON, ROBERT
0242955
ENGLEHART, RHONDA M CAUDILL
0242956
MAC GILLIVRAY, REBECCA
0242957
BRADSHAW, MARK D
0242958
HALLER, OTTO
0242959
LANKTREE, RICHARD J
0242960
STEPHENS, JOSEPH
0242961
0242962
0242963
0242964
0242965
0242966
0242967
0242968
0242969
0242970
0242971
0242972
0242973
0242974
0242975
0242976
0242977
0242978
0242979
0242980
0242981
0242982
0242983
0242984
0242985
0242986
0242987
0242988
0242989
0242990
0242991
0242992
0242993
0242994
0242995
0242996
0242997
0242998
0242999
0243000
SUBWAY MGMT OF TREASURE COAST
JONES, PATTI LEE F
BENNETT, CATHERINE & GARY
MARTIN, DAVVID S
BARNES, JOEL
WHITE SPUNNER CONST CO
FREY JR, HARLAND
DYAL, DAPHNE
SANIN, HERMAN
SCHLOSSER, JANICE C
GARCIA, LUZ
VAN SCIVER, GRETCHEN
HOELKE, ARTHUR N
RITCHSON, LYN L
LA CLAIR, MONICA
LOWERY, JOHN
DILLON, FRANK F
SCHWELLENBACH, DAMIAN
SORRENTINO, MARIO
MAGGIO, BENITO
ADDEO, MELISSA
CLARK, DOROTHY
RAMOS, OLVIN
HAND, LILLIAN
TAMPE, GREGORY
BRANDON, JAROD
AVILA, CARLOS
LITTLEFIELD, MARILYN M
HERBST, JODY
G E CAPITAL MORTGAGE
STOMAD PARTNERS INC
PROCACCI, SOFIA
SROXTON, LYDIA
PARKER, BARBARA
SPECTRUM
TEL TEC INC
WALSH, ROLAND E
BRYANT, GILBERT
HAYWARD, DAVID
SMITH, JOHNNIE F
JUNE 291998
0
CHECK
CHECK
DATE
AMOUNT
5/21/98
39.25
5/21/98
41.84
5/21/98
70.57
5/21/98
34.68
5/21/98
28.43
5/21/98
67.80
5/21/98
42.22
5/21/98
29.92
5/21/98
57.16
5/21/98
51.16
5/21/98
64.68
5/21/98
48.53
5/21/98
39.97
5/21/98
11.86
5/21/98
5.18
5/21/98
37.44
5/21/98
31.37
5/21/98
17.05
5/21/98
51.93
5/21/98
27.76
5/21/98
12.90
5/21/98
61.95
5/21/98
22.46
5/21/98
39.54
5/21/98
11.41
5/21/98
4.81
5/21/98
59.78
5/21/98
30.69
5/21/98
3.22
5/21/98
35.08
5/21/98
36.31
5/21/98
40.45
5/21/98
38.47
5/21/98
9.69
5/21/98
78.45
5/21/98
61.48
5/21/98
28.05
5/21/98
5.97
5/21/98
22.12
5/21/98
3.88
5/21/98
7.24
5/21/98
35.48
5/21/98
12.77
5/21/98
30.60
5/21/98
23.21
5/21/98
18.12
5/21/98
23.48
5/21/98
35.73
5/21/98
61.29
5/21/98
328.80
5/21/98
73.77
5/21/98
12.49
5/21/98
36.11
5/21/98
29,71
5/21/98
24.50
5/21/98
35.86
5/21/98
22.77
5/21/98
47.74
5/21/98
31.93
5/21/98
21.60
5/21/98
19.27
5/21/98
70.40
5/21/98
25.55
5/21/98
83.95
5/21/98
42.31
5/21/98
62.99
5/21/98
66.89
5/21/98
40.05
5/21/98
40.90
5/21/98
12.25
5/21/98
17.11
5/21/98
43.38
5/21/98
4.24
5/21/98
63.61
5/21/98
312.25
5/21/98
15.64
5/21/98
251.17
5/21/98
8.35
5/21/98
100.00
5/21/98
93.64
5/21/98
41.49
5/21/98
84.53
5/21/98
58.68
5/21/98
40.57
•
CHECK
NAME
CHECK
CHECK
NUMBER
DATE
AMOUNT
0243001
BRANDT, DALE & DEBORAH
5/21/98
21.16
0243002
HARBOR BRANCH OCEANOGRAPHIC
5/21/98
976.46
0243003
ANDERSON, FRED
5/21/98
123.00
0243004
ATKINSON; RICHARD F
5/21/98
309.00
0243005
ANDERSON, CAROLINE AND CITY
5/21/98
4.00
0243006
BECHT, TONYA AND CITY OF VERO
5/21/98
70.00
0243007
BROXTON, LYDIA
5/21/98
206.00
0243008
BEUTTELL, PETER M
5/21/98
272.00
0243009
SILKEN GROUP
5/21/98
1,029.00
0243010
BEANS, ROBERT
5/21/98
90.00
0243011
BELL PROPERTY MANAGEMENT
5/21/98
1,643.00
0243012
BOUYSSOU, STEPHANE H
5/21/98
319.00
0243013
BROOKS, DEAUNDRA AND CITY OF
5/21/98
50.00
0243014
BLAHNIK, CHRIS OR MILDRED
5/21/98
24.00
0243015
BROOKHAVEN, TOWN OF
5/21/98
558.97
0243016
BREVARD COUNTY HOUSING AUTHRTY
5/21/98
813.94
0243017
BROWN, HUBERT OR LOLA
5/21/98
170.00
0243018
BEAUREGARD, KELLY AND CITY OF
5/21/98
40.00
0243019
BAYLES, DENNIS
5/21/98
303.00
0243020
CARTWRIGHT, WILLIAM AND/
5/21/98
168.00
0243021
CORR, RHODA L
5/21/98
292.00
0243022
COLLINS, THOMAS H
5/21/98
539.00
0243023
COSCO, KEN
5/21/98
346.00
0243024
CARLTON, ALLAN R
5/21/98
256.00
0243025
C P E ASSOCIATES
5/21/98
1,428.00
0243026
CAPAK, GERALD T
5/21/98
335.00
0243027
CUMMINGS, JERRY
5/21/98
418.00
0243028
CALMES, JOHN W
5/21/98
389.00
0243029
CARLUCCI, LEONARD A
5/21/98
361.00
0243030
DAN PREUSS REALTY, INC
5/21/98
333.00
0243031
DOOLITTLE AND ASSOCIATES
5/21/98
1,951.00
0243032
D'HAESELEER, GAYLE OR RONALD
5/21/98
219.00
0243033
DENNISON, WANDA
5/21/98
827.00
0243034
DOVE, E WILSON
5/21/98
299.00
0243035
DOYLE, DON
5/21/98
307.00
0243036
DORSETT, DONNELLA
5/21/98
30.00
0243037
ELWELL, JACQUELINE & F P & L
5/21/98
4.00
0243038
EDGEWOOD PLACE (305-113)
5/21/98
215.00
0243039
FOGERTY, GEORGE A
5/21/98
323.00
0243040
FRESH, DANIEL J
5/21/98
195.00
0243041
FT PIERCE, CITY OF
5/21/98
1,442.91
0243042
FOGARTY INTERPRISES, INC
5/21/98
380.00
0243043
GILLESPIE, JOHN AND/OR GWEN
5/21/98
418.00
0243044
GASKILL, ROBERT
5/21/98
249.00
0243045
GRIMM, FLOYD OR HELEN
5/21/98
149.00
0243046
GIFFORD GROVES, LTD
5/21/98
8,403.00
0243047
GEORGE, MARY KIM
5/21/98
575.00
0243048
GATCHELL, JOSEPHINE AND CITY
5/21/98
78.00
0243049
GRACE'S LANDING LTD
5/21/98
607.00
0243050
HICKMAN, CARLA & F P & L
5/21/98
43.00
0243051
HILL, C J
5/21/98
927.00
0243052
HAWKINS, WANDA
5/21/98
220.00
0243053
HERAN, SHAUNA
5/21/98
309.00
0243054
HUNT, MARY
5/21/98
35.00
0243055
INDIAN RIVER INVESTMENT
5/21/98
556.00
0243056
IMBRIANI, VINCENT
5/21/98
279.00
0243057
JAMES A DOOLITTLE & ASSOCIATES
5/21/98
9,180.00
0243058
JENSEN, PETER C
5/21/98
528.00
0243059
JONES, MARCUS
5/21/98
181.00
0243060
JONES, DOROTHY
5/21/98
10.00
0243061
JAHOLKOWSKI, PAUL
5/21/98
257.00
0243062
JENNINGS, LESSIE
5/21/98
413.00
0243063
JULIN, PAUL
5/21/98
210.00
0243064
JONES, WILLIAM C
5/21/98
337.00
0243065
JONES, ALPHONSO
5/21/98
222.00
0243066
KOLB, GREGORY L
5/21/98
433.00
0243067
LAWRENCE, TERRY A
5/21/98
200.00
0243068
LLERENA, E D
5/21/98
582.00
0243069
LOFTON, BERTHA
5/21/98
272.00
0243070
LANGLEY, PHILIP G
5/21/98
791.00
0243071
LABELLA, ARTHUR
5/21/98
300.00
0243072
LANDERS, VIVIEN BONELLI
5/21/98
13.00
0243073
L & S MANAGEMENT
5/21/98
475.00
0243074
MIXELL, LLONALD AND/OR
5/21/98
573.00
0243075
M 0 D INVESTMENTS
5/21/98
1,237.00
0243076
MONTGOMERY, WILLIAM
5/21/98
210.00
0243077
MANN, ROBERT OR WANDA ARMA
5/21/98
217.00
0243078
MALGERIA, PRISCILLA
5/21/98
419.00
0243079
MORRILL, TINA AND CITY OF
5/21/98
34.00
0243080
MILLER, ALVIN L
5/21/98
375.00
0243081
MCINTOSH, SYLVESTER B JR
5/21/98
498.00
0243082
MULLINS, B FRANK
5/21/98
325.00
JUNE 291998
la
[-C""F�
•
���ti fr�VC IIL.r
CHECK
NAME
CHECK
CHECK
NUMBER
DATE
AMOUNT
0243083
NELSON, DONALD J & VALENTINE R
5/21/98
0243084
NEUHAUSER, ERNEST
5/21/98
500.00
0243085
O'CONNOR, DANIEL T & DEIDRA E
5/21/98
273.00
0243086
OLIVER, DOROTHY
5/21/98
418.00
0243087
ORANGE COUNTY HOUSING AND
5/21/98
193.00
0243088
PARKER, RALPH & CITY OF VERO
5/21/98
604.97
0243089
PIUMELLI, DOMENICA
5/21/98
77.00
0243090
PALMER TRAILER PARK
5/21/98
533.00
0243091
PITTMAN, CATHERINE & CITY OF
5/21/98
417.00
0243092
POLLY, EMMA
5/21/98
18.00
0243093
PIERSON, JOHN H DBA
5/21/98
348.00
0243094
POSADO, LORI
5/21/98
324.00
0243095
PINKNEY, RACHEL J
5/21/98
322.00
0243096
PALUMBO, LOUIS
5/21/98
151.00
0243097
REAGAN, WILLIE C
5/21/98
305.00
0243098
RENNICK, RONALD
5/21/98
828.00
0243099
RAUDENBUSH, ERNEST
5/21/98
271.00
0243100
REALTY CONNECTIONS OF VERO,INC
5/21/98
121.00
0243101
REARDANZ, MARVIN
5/21/98
1,215.00
0243102
RODRIGUEZ, BLANCA
5/21/98
408.00
0243103
RICOTTI, RICARDO
5/21/98
504.00
0243104
SCHORNER, JAMES A
5/21/98
114.00
0243105
ST FRANCIS MANOR
5/21/98
115.00
2,611.00
0243106
SCROGGS, BETTY DAVIS
5/21/98
327.00
0243107
S B M RENTALS, INC
5/21/98
111.00
0243108
SACCO, JACQUELINE AND/OR
5/21/98
458.00
0243109
SABONJOHN, FLORENCE
5/21/98
327.00
0243110
SANFORD HOUSING AUTHORITY
5/21/98
0243111
SMOAK, JEANETTE AND CITY
5/21/98
506.97
34.00
0243112
SANDY PINES
5/21/98
2,974.00
0243113
SHELTON, ROBERT L
5/21/98
505.00
0243114
STARCK, MICHAEL R
5/21/98
117.00
0243115
SPEARS, PRISCILLA AND CITY OF
5/21/98
15.00
0243116
SPIRES, TISA AND CITY OF VERO
5/21/98
26.00
0243117
STRIBLING, WILLIAM JR
5/21/98
444.00
0243118
SUNDMAN, IVAN
5/21/98
203.00
0243119
SMITH, MARILYN
5/21/98
19.00
0243120
SARTAIN, CHARLES S & TELECIA
5/21/98
123.00
0243121
SANDERS, NATALIE
5/21/98
123.00
0243122
TROPICAL SHORELAND, INC OR
5/21/98
243.00
0243123
TROW, KENNETH
5/21/98
551.00
0243124
TOLBERT, JEANETTE AND F p &-L
5/21/98
58.00
0243125
ULISKY, WILLIAM B OR MARLENE
5/21/98
431.00
0243126
VERO MOBILE HOME PARK
5/21/98
420.00
0243127
VOLF VILCEK, JULIANNA
5/21/98
265.00
0243128
VERO FIRST CORPORATION
5/21/98
1,869.00
0243129
BLAKE, SALLIE (WYNN)
5/21/98
285.00
0243130
WILLIAMS, TOBIAS M
5/21/98
401.00
0243131
WILLIAMS, KAYTRINA D AND
5/21/98
46.00
0243132
WILLIAMS, DEBRA WASHINGTON
5/21/98
125.00
0243133
WEBB, DONNA
5/21/98
162.00
0243134
YORK, LILLY B
5/21/98
202.00
0243135
YORK, DAVID
5/21/98
464.00
0243136
ZANCA, LEONARD
5/21/98
666.00
0243137
ZORC, RICHARD J
5/21/98
232.00
1,391,327.86.
JUNE 2,1998
• -10-
•
C�
Z C SHERIFF - B UDGET ADJUSTMENT -SALE OF SURPLUS PROPERTY
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of May 21, 1998:
6beriff
GARY C. WHEELER • INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
IAEMBER F_CRIDA SHERIFFS- ASSCC:ATICN
'AEMBE� C° ".+T CNA_ SHER'OLS=SSCC;ATICN
4055 41stAVENUE VERO BEACH. FLORIDA 32960-1808 PHONE (561) 569-6700
May 21, 1998 RECEIVED
MAY 2 2 1998
The Honorable John Tippin, Chairman BOARD OF COUNTY
Board Of County Commissioners COMMISSION
Indian River County
1840 25h Street
Vero Beach, FL 32960-3394
Re: Budget Adjustment, Sale of Surplus Property
Dear Mr. Tippin:
This letter is a request to amend our 1997-98 Operating Budget by $44,827. These funds
represent the proceeds generated from the sale of Surplus Property at Auction. These funds will
be used to purchase a vehicle, provide match for a previously approved Law Enforcement Block
Grant and to purchase office equipment, all in the current year.
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
Richard Dees, Comtroller
JUNE 211998
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert,
SECONDED by Commissioner Ginn, the Board
unanimously approved the Sheriff's request to
amend his 1997-98 Budget by $44,827, representing
the proceeds generated from the sale of Surplus
Property at Auction, to be used to purchase a
vehicle, provide match for a previously approved
Law Enforcement Block Grant and to purchase
office equipment, as recommended by staff.
-11-
7.D. TEMPORARY WATER SERVICEAGREEMENT - DANIEL A. AND KATHYL.
.TONES - 6260 587"COURT. VERO BEACH
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of May 21, 1998:
DATE: MAY 21, 1998
TO: JAMES E. CHANDLER
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
FROM: DON R. HUBBS, P.E.
DIRECTOR OF UTILITY -SERVICES
PREPARED JAMES D. CHA
AND MANAGER OF SS LENT PROJECTS
STAFFED BY: DEPARTMENT OF UTILITY SERVICES
SUBJECT: TEMPORARY WATER SERVICE AGREEMENT
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY AND DANIEL A. JONES
AND KATHY L. JONES
Daniel A. Jones and Kathy L. Jones have requested that temporary service be installed
from the water line on Kings Highway to service their property at 6260 58th Court,
Vero Beach, Florida 32967 prior to the installation of a water main on 58th Court. '
ANALYSIS
The Agreement states that the Indian River County Department of Utility Services shall
provide temporary water service to Mr. and Mrs. Jones until such time that a water
line may be constructed on the 58th Court easement by assessment. They agree to pay
all fees required to make this connection. They further agree to participate in the
assessment and to reconnect to this water line as required by the Indian River County
Department of Utility Services.
RECOMMENDATION
The Department of Utility Services recommends that the Board of County
Commissioners approve the attached Agreement with Mr. And Mrs. Jones and
authorize the chairman to execute same.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert,
SECONDED by Commissioner. Ginn, the Board
unanimously approved the Agreement with Daniel
A. Jones and Kathy L. Jones, as recommended by
staff.
AGREEMENT IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE
OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD
JUNE 291998
0
-12-
•
•
8. TAX COLLECTOR KARL ZIMMERMANN - MOVE TO
LURIA' S PLAZA
The Board reviewed the following Relocation Costs:
KTOTHEBOARD KARL ZIMMERMANN MAY 2 9 1998
TAX COLLECTOR BOARD OF COON
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY COMMISSION
LURIA'S PLAZA RELOCATION COST
Building Remodeling - $162,804.00
(Does not include new extension construction)
Office Furnishings - $ 72,000.00*
(Work stations, desks, chairs, shelving, etc.)
Computer Wiring & Relocation - $ 8,650.00
(Pre -wiring and moving of P.C.'s & setup in new location)
Mechanical & Electrical Engineering fees $ 6,500.00
(Part of design activity - existing building only)
Fiber -Optics Telephone Access - $ 26,700.00
& Equipment to connect to Administration
Building Switchboard
Moving Expenses - $ 3,800.00*
(Pack & move to new facility and unpack)
Work station equipment - $ 4,350.00*
(Cash drawers, validators, printers)
Security and fire alarm system - $ 2,325.00
$ 287,129.00
*
Cannot use 1 % sales tax revenue for this cost category per Indian River
Bounty Management & Budget.
Due to review by Management and Budget, based on cost implications, use of
I% sales tax funds is less desirable. Proposal is based on using Tax Collector
unused fees, projected to be approximately $1,700,000.00 this fiscal year.
05/28/98
Tax Collector Karl Zimmermann requested the Board's permission to move to Luria's
Plaza and announced that he had available to answer any questions Philip Steel, the
Architect, Mr. Bryant, the selected general contractor, and Robert Nall, Tax Collector's
Office Attorney. He noted that the remodeling costs relate to the original building of 5,000
square feet. The new construction will add 2,100 square feet. He is responsible for the
remodeling of the old building while the developer is responsible for construction of the new
JUNE 291998
-13-
m
�J
tlic guff'
portion. The list includes everything needed to operate the office. Of course, files, copy
machines, the FAQ etc. will be moved from the present offices. However, new ergonomic
work stations will be added to cope with the problems of long-term computer use at desks
which have been modified from typewriter configurations. 3 members of his staffhave been
diagnosed with carpal tunnel; one had surgery on one hand and will have 3 trigger fingers
surgically corrected on the other hand. 2 others are wearing special harnesses in the
evenings. He has had other complaints and, to date, 121/6 of his work staff have been
diagnosed with work-related medical problems.
Mr. Zimmermann continued that the computer network manager will do all the
rewiring and take the computers to the new facility, hook them up and check them. He
estimates that a one-week shut down will be sufficient for the move and plans to move over
the Labor Day weekend. The telephone system will tie in with the switchboard in the
Administration Building and the City of Vero Beach may be willing to co-op on that moving
expense. The new security system will provide motion sensor equipment without charge and
the fire alarm system will pinpoint the location of the fire to the station.
Budget Director Joe Baird brought to his attention that approximately $80,000 of the
cost cannot be paid for with sales tax dollars. It will be necessary to process a budget
amendment for that $80,000. A budget amendment will be prepared for the entire amount
which will show the revenue source, fees from his department. The budget amendment will
be filed with the Department of Revenue which is responsible for all budget action in the Tax
Collector's Office in the State of Florida.
Commissioner Eggert questioned whether a projected annual operations cost had been
prepared, and Mr. Zimmermann replied that no budget impact for the next year has been
prepared but the rent is about $59,000 per year. Other than that, the only additional expenses
will be for janitorial services and utilities. He also noted an additional point in the summary
of the cost of construction which added $1 per square foot to the rental rate so that years 1
through 5 will go from $7.50 to $8.50; while years 6 through 10 will go from $8.50 to $9.50.
Commissioner Ginn questioned whether this move was based on overcrowded
conditions or simply to give improved services to the public.
Mr. Zimmermann commented that Commissioner Ginn had been present at the talk
he gave to the Taxpayers Association. He had tried to make it clear that the main purpose
behind the move was to allow his department to run properly and efficiently in one
configuration. He felt that he could remain in the Administration Building if the Board were
JUNE 291998
• -14-
•
able to allow him 7,000 square feet. There is no way to rearrange the present offices for
better efficiency. If they have 6 people in the motor vehicles department and 4 in the
licensing department, someone is out into the hallway due to lack of space.
Commissioner Ginn questioned whether each station in the present location could do
double -duty for licensing and motor vehicles and whether Mr. Zimmermann could not get
ergonomic work stations now.
Mr. Zimmermann responded that would be an additional expense and the work
stations would not be adaptable to the new office.
Commissioner Ginn then questioned whether the Tax Collector were not obligated
to maintain a principal office within the county seat, and Mr. Zimmermann referred that
question to Attorney Robert Nall.
Robert Nall, Attorney, stated that Commissioner Ginn was correct; the Tax
Collector's principal office does need to be located within the county seat. However, this
Board could authorize the move to Luria's by resolution. He believed the City limit stops
just south of the K -Mart store. He also noted that the Sheriff's Department is located outside
the County seat.
Commissioner Eggert commented that she had many feelings about the future new
administration building and the communication necessary among the different departments.
Mr. Zimmermann responded that his intent is to provide all necessary services at the
new office, with no need for clients to return to the County Administration Building. Only
4% of clients need to be referred elsewhere. Those clients are now referred to the Planning
Department relative to application for occupational licensing. He has met with Community
Development Director Bob Keating and Planning Director Stan Boling who have developed
a questionnaire which can be completed at the Tax Collector's Offices. That application can
then be sent to the Planning Department, while the occupational license is being processed
at the Tax Collector's Office. There will also be extension telephones available to the public
for any questions to other departments.
Commissioner Eggert then questioned the proposed drive -up service, and Mr.
Zimmermann noted that the plans for the new office call for a drive -up window.
Commissioner Adams requested a copy of the plans, and Mr. Zimmermann agreed
that he would furnish copies for the Board.
Commissioner Ginn questioned the term of the lease, and Mr. Zimmermann replied
that the lease is for a 10 year period, with an option for a 5 -year extension.
JUNE 291998
-15-
In response to a query by Commissioner Ginn, County Attorney Vitunac
recommended that the lease be signed by the County to solve the issue of whether a new Tax
Collector would be bound by that lease.
Property Appraiser David Nolte commented that Chapter 13 8.32, F. S., says that the
Board may, by resolution, expand the county seat; only after not less than 2 public hearings.
He felt that public hearings must be held as there is a big public interest in this momentous
decision.
County Attorney Vitunac noted that there is no question that 2 public hearings are
necessary and believed that Mr. Zimmermann was asking the Board to begin that process.
Mr. Zimmermann did not believe there were any public hearings held when the
Sheriff's Department moved out west of town.
County Attorney Vitunac replied that 2 public hearings were held to expand the
county seat when the Sheriff moved and county staff understands that is part of the process.
Commissioner Ginn felt all government services should be kept together, in one
location. She believed this would be a poor time to have the Tax Collector move while
expansion of the Administration Building is being considered.
MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Ginn,
SECONDED by Commissioner Adams, that the
Board deny permission to the Tax Collector for this
IIIT-A
Commissioner Adams questioned whether an operational budget had been prepared
for the ensuing year, and Mr. Zimmermann noted that an operational budget had not been
prepared but that the only additional expenses would be janitorial services and utilities.
Chairman Tippinwouldlike to see Mr. Zi arm follow through with his proposal
and noted that there are several departments in the existing Administration Building who
need to hire new personnel and cannot because of the lack of space. He wanted to see all the
departments in one location but a new Administration Building would be at least 3 to 4 years
away and something needs to be done.
Commissioner Macht emphasized that Mr. Zimmermann is a constitutional officer and
knows his business. He would be very reluctant to withhold permission for this move and
did not see any reason to withhold the Board's permission. He did feel that perhaps
judgment should be suspended until after the 2 public hearings. -
JUNE 291998
COMMISSIONER GINN WITHDREW HER MOTION.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Ginn, SECONDED
by Commissioner Eggert, the Board unanimously
directed staff to set up the public hearings to expand
the County Seat through Luria's Plaza.
9.A.1. PUBLIC HEARING - (1) ORDINANCE AMENDING THE
FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT OF THE
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN BY CHANGING THE LAND
USE DESIGNATION FOR ±26.4 ACRES LOCATED
BETWEEN I-95 AND THE HORIZON OUTLET CENTER
FROM C/I TO C-1: AND BY CHANGING THE LAND USE
DESIGNATION FOR ±26.4 ACRES LOCATED
APPROXIMATELY ONE HALF MILE SOUTH OF SR -60
AND APPROXIMATELY ONE EIGHTH MILE WEST OF
I-95 FROM M-1 TO CA - (2) ORDINANCE AMENDING
THE ZONING ORDINANCE AND THE
ACCOMPANYING ZONING MAP FOR ±26.4 ACRES
LOCATED BETWEEN I-95 AND THE HORIZON
OUTLET CENTER FROM CG TO CON -1 AND BY
AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE AND THE
ACCOMPANYING ZONING MAP FOR ±26.4 ACRES
LOCATED APPROXIMATELY ONE HALF MILE
SOUTH OF SR -60 AND APPROXIMATELY ONE
EIGHTH MILE WEST OF I-95 FROM RM -6 TO CG - HGI
AND RALPH EVANS, TRUSTEE
JUNE 291998
-17- H,,1':
NOTICE PUBUC HEARING
PRESS -JOURNAL The Board of tau* Commission-
ers of Indian River County, Florida,
Published Daily will considir the WoPflon'Of 0
counly.9rdInanoe hpz�nlng land
Vero Beach, Indian River County, Florida wl the
of Indian River Co4nty..The-subled
M
COUNTY OF INDIAN RI: STATE OF FLORIDA property is . owned".by. HGI'and
Before the UIXINSOW wftft W90nally appeared Darryl K Now who on -Ralph Evans, Trustee, A. public
Oath Says that he Is President of the Preselournal, a daily newspaper published at Vero Beach hearing at which -parties In. WGrOd
In Indian River Comly, Florida. that the attached copy of ad neat, being and ciizensjholl have on opportu-
nity to be jheard; will be hold an
a Tuesday, JW4 2, 1"B at'9.05 axL
in the County: Commission Cham -
In the Matter of ben of the County Aiministration
-Bulidings, boated at 1040 25th
Street, Vero, Sead% Florida. At this
public hearing -the BOOM Of. County
Commiplahiji will make a final
tn the court. was PA- decision wheiher to rp7ime the sub-
lished In said newspaper in the issuesLr 22-0, led properties. Thi ptoposed ardi-
If 14 nonce to rezonelthe- subled proper -
V ties Is entitled:
AN" ORCTIN4NCE '01" INDIAN
.RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA,
Aunt further ss that the said Prese%lownal Is a newWapar published at Vero Beach, In AMENDING ' THE. ZONING
said Indian River county, Florida, and that the said heretofore bow ORDINANCE AND THE ACCOM-
=*ww published In said Indian Rim Comty, Florida, eacho=anPheas bow entered as
w=W class mall matter at the post office In Vero Beach. In Said Indian Rim County, FbrkW PANYING ZONING MAP FOR:
for a Period of one year next preceding the fM puboatin of the attached copy of 1.+.26.4 -ACRES IOCATED
advertisement and afflant further says that he has neither paid nor promised any person, firm BETWEEN - I.95. _AC.RES
THE HORI-
any dismmt, rebate, commission or refund for the purpose of eacuring this
adv publication In said newspaper. ZON, OUTLET. CENTER; 'FROM
CG. TO CON -1; AND
SWOM to and eubscribed before me A n. 2.+.26.4 . A6RIS, LOCATED
of APPROXIMATELY ONE + HALF
....... MILE - SOUTH Of IR '60 AND
AP0R0XtMATEtX, ONE EIGHTH
presidenf) 'MILE WEST OF.I-95, FROM RM -6
To GG, •
IOMBERLY ANNE 8 IS AND -PROVIDING 'COPIFICA-
Notary Public, state of Florida TIOK - SEVERABILITY1' AND
My Commission Exp Jap.01 2001 EFK-CTIVEDATL.Comm. No. CC 6115� The rezoning applitattan may
Personally Known orFroducedID ,
13
bei inspected by -the vublie at the
Type of ID Produced Community Development- Depart-*
me located ori flan selcdqd floor of
the County Administration 'Building
located at 1840 25th Street, Vero
Beach, Florida, between the hours
of 8:30 a.m. and' 5-00 p.m. an
weekdays.. FormoreInformation,
cwftd-.,-John Wachtel at 567-
8000,extension Wi
The proposed ordinona may be
inspected 'by the public: between
8:30 am. and. 54M p.nL at the
office of the Clark,l0-" Board of
County G,6= *Iomvs, 1840 25th
Street, Vero Beach, Florida.
. The' 96cird'r-of County Commls-
ifaneis may adopt another zoning
district, other, than the district
requested, - provided that * the
adopted - zoning disirld Is consis-
tent with the bounWs comprehen-
sive plan.-
Anyone Who may wish to
appeal any decision which may be
made at ft*xoWngwill need to
ensure that a verbatim rftwd of
-go proceedings Is made, which
includes the testimony and evl-
dance, upon which ' the appeal Is
based. - - i ' ' .4;8 . ,
Anyone who; needs a special
accommodati6n -(* this r"fing
must contact -114 county's Amari -
cans ". Disabilities (ADA) Coor-
dinator at;; %74000,- ' extension
223, at leos!'A -hours -in advanci
of,the moffing.' • :Indian Rivet County.
+-Bbard.of-
County Commissioriirs
•1hr"40how,
JUNE 291998 .+ chalmov* '.
Toy 20,1098-, - " 1347041 r
0
•
P.O. Box 1268 Vero Beach, Florida 32961 .\562-2345
LIM -Vreoo 3ourna�
COUNTY OF INDIAN RMR STATE OF FLORIDA
Before the undersigned authori�nt Y appeared Daryl X
Hicks Who on oath w that he Is t of the Pressloumal, a
Florida; thmit
d per publ hed'a Vero Beach In Indian River County,
A display ad measuring 20 col. inches at 10.62 per
col. inch was
-b!]W t„-- LR. Planning Dept. -------- - -
was published In said newspaper In the IMM(s) of
Tuesday, May 26th, 1998 on page Sid
Sworn to and subscr%ed before me this
26th -lay or May
M
JUNE 291998
5P 1"s
Trim of 10 Plod""
or Produced ID 0
•
NOTICE OF COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE
DESIGNATION AMENDMENTS
The Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County,
Florida, will consider a Proposal to amend its Comprehensive Plan to
change the use of hued within the unincorporated portions of Indian
River County. A public hearing on the proposal will be held on
Tuesday, June 2, 1998 at 9:05 aam 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
�Coun�ty Commissioners will make a final decision whether to amend
tys Comprehensive Plan. The proposed amendment is
included in a proposed ordinance entitled,
AN ORDINANCE OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY,
FLORIDA, AMENDING THE FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT
OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN BY CHANGING THE
LAND USE DESIGNATION FOR,
1. +/- 26.4 ACRES LOCATED BETWEEN I.95 AND THE
HORIZON OUTLET CENTER, FROM CA TO C-1; AND
2. +/- 26.4 ACRES, LOCATED APPROXIMATELY ONE HALF
MILE SOUTH OF SR60 AND APPROXIMATELY ONE EIGHTH
ILE WEST OF 1-95, FROM M.1 TO C/i;
AND PROVIDING CODIFICATION,
EFFECTIVE DATE. SEVERABILITY, AND
Interested parties may appear and be heard at the public hearing
regarding the approval of this proposed Comprehensive Plan
AmendmeuL
The plan amendment application may be inspected by the public at the
Community Development Department located on the second floor of
the County Administration Building located at 1840 25th Street,
Vero Beach, Florida, between the hours of 8:30 am. and 500 p.m. on
weekdays. For more information, contact John Wachtel at 56740,
extension 247.
The Proposed ordinance may be inspected by the Public between 8:30
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, extension 223, at least 48 hours in advance of the
meeting.
_,! _ Indian River County
Board of County
...
c4 _ Commissioners
Byt -s- John W. Tippin,
`;s + Chairman
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of May 27, 1998:
TO: James E. Chandler
County Administrator
DEPARTMENT HEAD CONCURRENCE
Obert AI. Keating, ICP
Community Development rector
THROUGH: 5as n Ytohani, AICP
Chief, Long -Range Planning
FROM: John wachte1A
Senior Planner, Long -Range Planning
DATE: May 27, 1998
RE: HGI and Ralph Evans. Trustee. Request to Amend The Comprehensive Plan to
Redesignate ±26.4 Acres From M-1 to C/I, And to Rezone Those ±26.4 Acres
From RM -6 to CG; And to Amend The Comprehensive Plan to Redesignate
±26.4 Acres From C/I to C-1, And to Rezone Those ±26.4 Acres from CG to
Con -1
PLAN AMENDMENT NUMBER: LUDA 97-11-0023
It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal consideration by the Board of County
Commissioners at its regular meeting of June 2, 1998.
Memo
This is a request to redesignate ±26.4 acres 'from M-1, Medium -Density Residential -1 (up to 8
unitsiacre) to CII, Commercial/Industrial, while simultaneously redesignating a contiguous =26.4
acre tract from C/I, Commercial/Industrial, to C-1, Publicly Owned or Controlled Conservation (zero
density). Unlike node expansion requests, the proposed amendment will not increase the amount
of CT designated land in the county. Rather, this amendment would reconfigure the SR 60/I-95 C'I
node.
In contrast to node expansions which increase the overall land use density/intensity depicted on the
future land use map, this redesignation will decrease land use densitviintensity. While the amount
of CJI designated land will not change with this amendment, the redesignation will reduce the overall
residential development potential by 211 units. Additionally, the proposed amendment will facilitate
the enhancement, enlargement and preservation of an environmentally sensitive freshwater wetland.
The property to be redesignated from C/I to C-1 is located between I-95 and the existing Horizon
Outlet Center. That property will be referred to as Subject Property 1. The request also involves
rezoning Subject Property 1 from the CG, General Commercial, District, to Con -1, Publicly Owned
or Controlled Conservation District (zero density). While Subject Property 1 is not publicly owned,
public control of the site will be secured through a conservation easement to the St. Johns River
Water Management District.
The property to be redesignated from M-1, Medium -Density Residential -1 (up to 8 units/acre) to C/I,
Commercial/Industrial, is located approximately one half mile south of SR 60 and approximately
one eighth of a mile west of I-95. This property will be referred to as Subject Property 2. The
request involves rezoning Subject Property 2 from RM -6, Multiple -Family Residential District (up
to 6 units/acre) to the CG, General Commercial, District.
There are r%vo purposes for this request. First, as referenced, the proposed amendment will facilitate
enlarging, enhancing, and preserving an environmentally sensitive freshwater wetland located on
Subject Property 1. This will be accomplished by changing the land use designation of Subject
Property 1 from C/I to C-1.
JUNE 291998
• -20-
•
The other purpose of this request is to reconfigure the shape of the existing commercial area
boundaries to accommodate expansion of the outlet center. This request is needed to secure the
necessary land use designation and zoning district to develop Subject Property 2 with commercial
uses. In addition to the existing 333,089 square foot outlet center, HGI proposes to construct a
commercial complex containing 200,000 square feet of outlet retail, 120,000 square feet of general
retail, 12 movie screens, 280 hotel rooms, a 9 hole golf course, and 3 acres of recreation/amusement
uses. A portion of that expansion is proposed to occur on Subject Property 2. The entire project
(existing and expansion) is being reviewed as a Development of Regional Impact (DRI). The
proposed DRI Development Order will be considered by the Board of County Commissioners at a
related public hearing on June 2, 1998. The boundaries of the DRI area, depicted on attachment 5,
extend east to I-95 and south more than one quarter of a mile from Subject Property 2.
On January 8, 1998, the Planning and Zoning Commission voted 6 to 0 to recommend that the
Board of County Commissioners approve the proposed land use amendment and rezoning.
On January 27, 1998, the Board of County Commissioners voted 4 to Ito 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.
Although the number of plan amendments that a local government may consider is not limited, the
frequency with which local governments can amend their comprehensive plan is regulated by state
law. According to Florida Statutes, plan amendments are limited to twice per calendar year. For that
reason, the county accepts general plan amendment applications only during the "window" months
of January and July. All requests submitted during each window month are processed
simultaneously. That method ensures that plan amendments will be adopted no more than twice per
calendar year.
State law, however, provides several exceptions to the twice per calendar year limitation. One of
those exceptions is for plan amendments, such as the subject plan amendment request, that are
associated with DRIs. For that reason, the subject request is exempt from the twice per calendar year
adoption limit.
The procedures for reviewing Comprehensive Plan amendments associated with DRIs are the same
as those applied to non -DRI amendments. First, the Planning and Zoning Commission, as the Local
Planning Agency, conducts a public hearing to review the request. The Commission has the option
to recommend approval or denial of the Comprehensive Plan amendment request to the Board of
County Commissioners. Also, the Planning and Zoning Commission may recommend approval of
or deny any associated rezoning request. If the rezoning request is denied, only the land use
amendment request is forwarded to the Board, unless the denial to rezone is appealed.
Following Planning and Zoning Commission action, the Board of County Commissioners conducts
two public hearings. The first of those hearings is for a preliminary decision on the land use
amendment request. At that hearing, the Board determines whether or not the land use amendment
warrants transmittal to DCA for further consideration. A Board of County Commissioners decision
not to transmit the land use amendment to DCA constitutes denial of both the land use amendment
and rezoning requests.
If the land use amendment is transmitted,, DCA conducts a review which includes soliciting
comments from the Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council (TCRPC), several state agencies, and
neighboring local governments. After its review, DCA compiles its objections, if it has any, in an
Objections. Recommendations, and Comments (ORC) Report, and transmits that report to the
county. After staff addresses any issues that were raised in the ORC Report, the second and final
Board of County Commissioners public hearing is conducted. The Board takes final action to
approve or deny the land use amendment and rezoning requests at that time.
The DRI review is conducted by the TCRPC in conjunction with local and state agencies. The focus
of this review is on the environmental, social, economic, and physical impact of the proposed
development on the local and regional area.
Following the TCRPC review and recommendation, the Planning and Zoning Commission reviews
the application and makes a recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners. In this case,
the Planning and Zoning Commission, at its meeting on April 9, 1998, voted 7 to 0 to recommend
approval of the DRI application. After Planning and Zoning Commission review, the Board of
County Commissioners considers the DRI proposal and corresponding draft Development Order
(DO). The DO constitutes an agreement between the county and the developer, and identifies the
necessary improvements and conditions which will govern the overall development. These
improvements and conditions can include factors such as type of buildings, general retail mix,
buffers, parking, and off-site improvements.
JUNE 291998
•
-21-`I� FAGS 7Li
In this case, the Board will consider the proposed DO in a separate hearing to be held immediately
following the final adoption public hearing for the Comprehensive Plan amendment. If the DO is
approved, then the development will be subject to the standard site plan review and approval process.
Consistent with state regulations, DCA reviewed the proposed amendment and prepared an
Objections, Recommendations and Comments (ORC) Report (dated April 10, 1998), which planning
staff received on April 14, 1998. The DCA ORC Report (attachment 10) contained four objections
to this proposed amendment. Those objections are listed below.
The proposed land use designationicategory for Subject Property 2 of "Commercial/
Industrial" lacks density/intensity standards. Development standards for this category have
not been established within the County's Comprehensive Plan. [Section 163.3177(6)(a), FS,
and Rule 9J -5.006(3)(c)7., FAC]
2. The proposed designation of Subject Property 2 is internally inconsistent with the Future
Land Use Element of the County's Comprehensive Plan. Objective 7, Policy 7.2, and Policy
7.4 call for the protection of floodplain on site and nearby wetlands. The proposed
amendment proposes intensification of land use activities within the floodplain on site,
which may pose negative potential impacts to the natural function of nearby wetlands. [Rule
9J -5.005(5)(a), FAC]
3. The County has not demonstrated the suitability of the site for the proposed use, designation,
and intensification of use within the floodplain. [Rule 9J -5.006(2)(b)3. and 4., FAC]
4. The proposed amendment is inconsistent with the State Comprehensive Plan. Section
187.(8)(b)8. and 187.(16)(b)6., Chapter 187, FS promote the protection of wetlands and
floodplains. Section 187.(8)(b)8. encourages the establishment of stringent floodplain
management programs on all level of government to preserve hydrologically significant
wetlands and other natural floodplain features. Section 187.(16)(b)6. Mandates that
consideration be given to the impacts of development on water quality, quantity, and the
potential for flooding. {Section 163.3184(1)(b), FS]
These objections relate to inconsistencies with portions of Chapters 163 and 187, FS, Rule 9J-5,
FAC, and the county comprehensive plan. Not specifically related to this land use amendment, the
first objection is based on DCA's interpretation that the county comprehensive plan lacks intensity
standards for the C/I, Commercial/Industrial, land use designation. The other objections relate to
floodplain and wetland protection. The analysis section of this staff report contain a response to
DCA's objections.
- Subject Property 1
Subject Property 1 and adjacent properties to the north and west are zoned CG. Subject Property 1
consists of a :� 12.7 acre borrow pit, t7 acres of environmentally sensitive freshwater wetland, and
=6.7 acres of undeveloped pine flatwoods. The Horizon Outlet Mall borders the northern portion
of Subject Property 1's western boundary. Land along the southern portion of that boundary consists
primarily of undeveloped pine flatwoods. I-95 borders Subject Property 1 on the east.
- Subject Property 2
Subject Property 2 and properties to the east and south are zoned RM -6 and consist primarily of
undeveloped scrubby flatwoods. North of Subject Property 2, land is zoned CG and primarily
consists of undeveloped pine flatwoods. A-1, Agricultural District (up to Iunit/5 acres), zoned citrus
groves are located west of Subject Property 2. Freshwater wetlands are located between those groves
and the irregular southern portion of Subject Property 2's western boundary. The boundary of
Subject Property 2 was drawn specifically to exclude those wetlands which are zoned RM -6.
-Subject Property 1
Subject Property 1 and lands to the north, east, and west are designated C/I, Commercial/Industrial.
This designation permits various commercial and industrial zoning districts. Land to the south of
Subject Property 1 is designated M-1, Medium -Density Residential -1, on the county's future land
use map. The M-1 designation permits residential uses with densities up to 8 units/acre.
JUNE 291998
0
-22- .
•
- Subject Property 2
Subject Property 2 and properties to the south, east, and west are designated M-1, Medium -Density
Residential -1, on the county's future land use map. Land to the north of Subject Property 2 is
designated C/I, Commercial/Industrial, on the county's future land use map.
- Subject Property 1
The northern =7 acres of Subject Property 1 contain an environmentally sensitive freshwater
wetland. The site also contains X6.7 acres of pine flatwoods. The site is not within a designated
flood hazard area.
Several protected species of plants and animals have been observed on site. Animals that have been
observed on site and that are listed as species of special concern or threatened species by the Florida
Game and Freshwater Fish Commission and/or the United States Fish and Wildlife Service include
little blue heron, American alligator, eastern indigo snake, and gopher tortoise. Plant species that
have been observed on site and are listed as threatened or commercially exploited by the Florida
Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services include dahoon holly, prickly pear cactus, wild
pine, and royal fern.
- Subject Property 2
Subject Property 2 consists primarily of scrubby flatwoods, an ecological community which is
common throughout the county. No wetlands or any other environmentally sensitive habitat exist
on Subject Property 2. Several listed plants and animals have been observed on site.
Based on information contained in Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) maps,
approximately 1.08 acres, or 4%, of the site are within Flood Zone A. with a presently undetermined
minimum base flood elevation requirement. This indicates that a small portion of the property may
be within the 100 year floodplain.
FEMA maps, however, provide a general indication of flood zone areas. Because of the scale and
the generalized nature of FEMA maps, FEMA allows for more detailed and accurate site specific
studies. Because Subject Property 2 is part of a DRI application, those types of studies have been
conducted for Subject Property 2. Those studies indicate that all of Subject Property 2 is outside the
area likely to be flooded in the event of a 100 year storm.
Water lines extend to within a quarter mile of both subject sites from the South County Reverse
Osmosis Plant, while wastewater lines extend to within a quarter mile of the sites from the West
Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant.
SR 60 provides access to both sites. West of I-95, SR 60 is classified as a principal arterial roadway
on the future roadway thoroughfare plan map. This segment of SR 60 is a two-lane paved road with
approximately 200 feet of existing public road right-of-way. This segment of SR 60 is currently
programmed for expansion to four lanes by 1999.
In this section, an analysis of the reasonableness of the application will be presented. Following a
discussion of plan amendment review standards, this section will include the following:
• the county's response to DCA's ORC Report objections;
• an analysis of the proposed amendment's impact on public facilities;
• an analysis of the proposed amendment's compatibility with surrounding areas;
• an analysis of the proposed amendment's consistency with the comprehensive plan; and
• an analysis of the proposed amendment's potential impact on environmental quality.
JUNE 2J998
•
-23- 1C,K U rAuE 943
1v
Unlike most land use designation amendment requests, this request does not involve an increase in
land use intensity. As proposed, the request involves a minor reconfiguration, rather than an
expansion. of the commercial/industrial node.
For this reason, the subject request can be characterized differently from most plan amendments.
Typically, plan amendments involve increases in allowable density or intensity of development. As
such, the typical amendment would result in impacts to public facilities and changes to land use
patterns. Consequently, both the county comprehensive plan and state policy dictate that a high
standard of review is required for typical plan amendments. This standard of review requires
justification for the proposed change based upon adequate data and analysis.
The subject amendment, however, differs significantly from a typical plan amendment request.
Instead of proposing density or intensity increases, the subject amendment involves only a locational
shift in future land uses with an overall decrease in land use intensity.
Staffs position is that these different types of plan amendments warrant different standards of
review. Since the typical type of amendment can be justified only by challenging the projections,
need assessments, and standards used to prepare the original plan, a high standard of review is
justified. For amendments involving just shifts in land uses and no intensity/density increase, less
justification is necessary. This recognizes that no single land use plan map is correct and that many
variations may conform to accepted land use principles and meet established plan policies.
In fact. the county has recently amended its comprehensive plan to specifically allow future land use
map amendments that do not increase the county's overall land use density or intensity. That change
was recommended in the county's adopted Evaluation and Appraisal Report (EAR), which was
found sufficient by DCA. EAR based amendments, including that recommendation, have been
adopted by the county and found "in compliance" by DCA.
Because Objections 2, 3, and 4 of DCA's ORC Report are related, the county's response will be
divided into two sections. The first section will address Objection 1, while the second section will
address Objections 2, 3, and 4 together.
- Objection 1
DCA's first ORC Report objection is that the county's comprehensive plan does not contain land
use intensity standards for the Commercial/Industrial land use designation. While density, usually
reported in unitsiacre, measures residential land use intensity, Floor Area Ratio (FAR) measures non-
residential land use intensity. FAR indicates the ratio of building floor space to parcel size. For
example, a 10,000 square foot building on a 1 acre parcel has a.23 FAR (10,000/43,560 =.23). Add
a 5,000 square foot second story and the FAR increases to .34 (15,000/43,560 = .34).
Because Objection 1 does not apply specifically to the proposed amendment, the appropriateness of
that objection within an ORC Report for the proposed amendment is questionable. A clearly more
appropriate opportunity to raise that objection would have been during the recently completed
evaluation and appraisal of the entire comprehensive plan.
Nevertheless, two points are particularly relevant to this objection. The first point is that, until DCA
reviewed the proposed amendment, this objection had never been raised. That DCA has had
numerous opportunities to raise this objection is demonstrated by the fact that the comprehensive
plan was adopted in 1990, found "in compliance" in 1991, amended 38 times since adoption, and
been the subject of an Evaluation and Appraisal Report that was determined to be -sufficient by DCA.
In effect, DCA has found the existing comprehensive plan "in compliance" numerous times,
although the plan has no established C/I intensities.
A more important point is that the comprehensive plan does, in fact, indirectly set intensity standards
for development within the Commercial/Industrial land use designation. Future Land Use Element
Policies 1.16 and 1.18 state that county land development regulations shall provide performance
standards for commercial/indusuW development which at a minimum address gross floor area, open
space, impervious surface ratios, buffering, landscaping, and parking. Consistent with those policies,
county land development regulations do set such standards.
To address the first ORC Report objection, the "Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan" section
of this staff report has been expanded to include a discussion of Future Land Use Element Policies
1.16 and 1.18.
Additionally, planning staff proposes one other action to address the first objection in DCA's ORC
Report. During the next comprehensive plan amendment application window, which is the month
of July 1998, planning staff will initiate a comprehensive plan text amendment to specifically set
land use intensity standards for the Commercial/Industrial land use designation.
JUNE 291998
0
-24- .
•
- Objections 2, 3, and 4
DCA's Objections 2, 3, and 4 ignore the fact that, as a whole, the proposed amendment will decrease
overall land use intensity and will enhance overall environmental quality by enlarging, enhancing
and preserving existing wetlands. Those objections raise concerns about allowing more intense land
uses on Subject Property 2. Specifically, those objections relate to the proposed amendment's
impact on on-site floodplain and on nearby wetlands.
The analvsis will demonstrate the following:
• Subject Property 2 is not within the area likely to be flooded by a 100 year storm;
• Even if Subject Property 2 were located within an area likely to be flooded, existing
comprehensive plan policies and land development regulations enure that commercial
development could take place on that site without degrading the floodplain; and
• Changing the land use designation of Subject Property 2 would not adversely impact nearby
wetlands.
As noted in the description and conditions section of this staff report, FEMA maps place a small
portion of Subject Property 2 within Flood Zone A. While FEMA maps provide a general indication
of flood zone areas, more specific flood area information is available.
While preparing the Horizon Outlet Center Application for Development Approval (ADA),
extensive topographic data were collected and presented on Map C of the ADA. Attachment 6 of
this staff report contain topographic information from Map C of the ADA. Attachment 6 also
depicts Subject Properties I and 2, and the boundary line between Flood Zones A and X as derived
from the FEMA map. Attachment 6 indicates that the majority of Subject Property 2 is at an
elevation of 30 or more feet above Mean Sea Level (MSL), while the western edge of Subject
Property 2 slopes to an elevation of 26 feet above MSL.
One hundred year storm canal elevations found in the Indian River Farms Water Control District
document Evaluation and 1 J do ating of the Pla4 of Reclamation. Works of improvement (July 1990)
by Carter and Associates, Inc. and Williams, Hatfield, Stoner, Inc., indicate that the 100 year storm
elevation in the area of Subject Property 2 would be approximately 26 feet. Therefore, development
of Subject Property 2 would not likely be flooded by a 100 year storm, and would not result in the
reduction of floodplain storage capacity.
As indicated in Attachment 7, most of the land in the county is within flood prone areas. Therefore,
the development of standards to allow some development in some flood prone areas has been
necessary. Thus, the following comprehensive plan policies and land development regulations
ensure that even within flood prone areas, commercial development can take place without degrading
the floodplain.
• FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT POLICIES: 1.3, 3.3, 3.4, 7. 1, and 7.5
• STORMWATER MANAGEMENT SUB -ELEMENT POLICIES: 1.1 and 1.2
• C.APITAL IMPROVEMENT ELEMENT POLICIES: 3.3 and 3.5
• LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS CHAPTER 930 (Stormwater Management and
Flood Protection)
The above listed policies will be discussed in greater detail in the "Consistency with the
Comprehensive Plan" section of this staff report.
Finally, Objections 2, 3, and 4 raise concerns about development on Subject Property 2 impacting
nearby wetlands. Despite those concerns, current county comprehensive plan policies ensure that
impacts on existing wetlands are minimized. Wetland protection policies exist in the Future Land
Use Element (Policies 1.3, 7.3, 7.4, and 7.6) and the Conservation Element (Policies 2.4, 5.3, 7.2,
7.3, and 7.4). Those policies, which include policies that require wetland buffers and stormwater
management provision, have been incorporated into land development regulation chapter 928 and
are the same under both the existing residential designation and the requested commercial
designation. Therefore, changing the land use designation of Subject Property 2 would not adversely
impact nearby wetlands.
It is important to note that, as previously referenced, the proposed amendment is related to a DRI.
Because the proposed amendment is associated with a DRI, site design issues such as stormwater
management, setbacks, landscaping, and others may be considered when reviewing the
reasonableness of the proposed amendment. In fact, the DRI and the associated Development Order
related to the proposed amendment have been reviewed by DCA, the St. John River Water
Management District, the Florida Department of Environmental Protection, and numerous other state
and regional agencies. Each of those agencies has found the proposed DRI acceptable, subject to
condition contained in the recommended Development Order.
JUNE 291998
-25-
E:� ,, M , F+1, ��'
I U�FA` 7
GE
Based on the analysis, this staff report addresses DCA's ORC Report objections and provides
justification for DCA to find the proposed amendment "in compliance" with state law.
Both sites comprising this request are located within the County Urban Service Area, an area deemed
suited for urban scale development. The comprehensive plan establishes standards for.
Transportation, Potable Water, Wastewater, Solid Waste, Stormwater Management, and Recreation
(Future Land Use Policy 3.1). The adequate provision of these services is necessary to ensure the
continued quality of life enjoyed by the community. To ensure that the minimum acceptable
standards for these services and facilities are maintained, the comprehensive plan requires that new
development be reviewed. For land use designation amendment requests, this review is undertaken
as part of the conditional concurrency determination application process.
As per section 910.07(2) of the Concurrency Managemdnt Chapter of the County's Land
Development Regulations, projects which do not increase land use density or intensity are exempt
from concurrency requirements. For the subject request, the size of the C/I node will not change,
although the node's shape will be reconfigured. Additionally, ±26.4 acres of M-1 designated land,
with a development potential of 211 units (26.4 acres X 8 units/acre = 211 units), will be eliminated,
while the same amount of C-1 designated land, with no development potential, will be added. That
"swap" will result in an overall decrease in land use intensity of 211 units. Therefore, this land use
amendment request is exempt from concurrency review because the requested land use designation
changes would not increase the potential land use intensity that the sites could accommodate.
It is important to note that approval of this request will not affect service levels for any public
facility. In this case, a detailed concurrency analysis has been done in conjunction with the DRI
application. That analysis addressed facility service levels and demand, and determined that
minimum service levels will be met with site development.
Granting the proposed request would result in development on the subject properties that is
compatible with surrounding areas. Typically, land use impacts are most significant where
residential development abuts commercial/industrial development. Those impacts can include noise,
lights, and aesthetic concerns. For the proposed amendment, such impacts could occur along the
south, east, and west boundaries of Subject Property 2. In such situations, county land development
regulations somewhat mitigate potential impacts through site design and by requiring
commercial/industrial development to provide vegetative buffers.
In this case, the legally binding DRI Development Order provides assurance that land to the south
and east, and the land along the south ±843 feet of the west boundary of Subject Property 2 will be
developed with conservation, recreation and/or open space uses. The remaining land west of Subject
Property 2 consists of a citrus grove. Although currently zoned A-1, that land is designated for
residential development. Therefore, granting the proposed amendment would result in ±485 feet
where commercial and residential land development would be most likely to impact each other. That
is a substantial decrease from the existing±1,300 feet.
Several factors, however, work to mitigate the potential impacts of commercial development on land
to the west of Subject Property 2. In addition to required buffers and the provisions of the SR 60
Corridor Plan, the DRI Development Order requires that a parking area, rather than buildings, be
placed in that portion of Subject Property 2. Another mitigating factor is physical separation. In this
case, additional separation is provided by 60 feet of Indian River Farms Water Control District right-
of-way. That right-of-way is used for a drainage ditch. Finally, at nearly 40 acres, the property west
of Subject Property 2 is large enough to provide additional buffers if desired.
For these reasons, staff feels that the proposed land use amendment would not increase potential
incompatibilities with surrounding areas.
Land use amendment and rezoning requests are reviewed for consistency with all policies of the
comprehensive plan. As per section 800.07(1) of the land development regulations, the
"comprehensive plan may only be amended in such a way as to preserve the internal consistency of
the plan pursuant to Section 163.3177(2), FS." 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.
JUNE 291998
• -26-
Since the proposed amendment was first transmitted to DCA for review, the county has adopted
comprehensive plan amendments based on a detailed evaluation and appraisal of the comprehensive
plan. Those amendments, which have been found "in compliance" by DCA, have resulted in
renumbering and revising many goals, objectives and policies of the plan.
The goals, objectives and policies are the most important parts of the comprehensive plan. Policies
are statements in the plan which identify actions which the county will take in order to direct the
community's development. As courses of action committed to by the county, policies provide the
basis for all county land development related decisions—including plan amendment and rezoning
decisions. While all comprehensive plan objectives and policies are important, some have more
applicability than others in reviewing plan amendment and rezoning requests. Of particular
applicability for this request are the following policies and objectives.
- Future Land Use Element Policy 14.3
In evaluating a land use amendment request, the most important consideration is Future Land Use
Element Policy 14.3. This policy requires that one of four criteria be met in order to approve a land
use amendment request. These criteria are:
• The proposed amendment will correct a mistake in the approved plan;
• The proposed amendment will correct an oversight in the approved plan;
• The proposed amendment is warranted based on a substantial change in circumstances
affecting the subject property; or
• The proposed amendment involves a swap or reconfiguration of land use designations at
separate sites and, that swap or reconfiguration will not increase the overall land use density
or intensity depicted on the Future Land Use Map.
The proposed land use amendment meets the policy's third and fourth criteria. In this case, the
change in circumstances referenced in the policy's third criterion relates to overall land use
efficiency. _
The proposed amendment would allow commercial development, consistent with market demand,
while simultaneously increasing publicly controlled conservation areas. Additionally, the proposed
amendment will facilitate the enlargement and the enhancement, by the applicant, of an
environmentally sensitive wetland. That environmentally sensitive wetland (Subject Propenyl) is
currently designated C/I. Because that wetland is more appropriately designated C-1, and does not
require a GT land use designation, and because there is a demand for the C/I designation on Subject
Property 2, the proposed node reconfiguration would increase overall land use efficiency. By
facilitating the creation and public control of the wetlands without a large expenditure of public
resources, the proposed amendment is the most efficient manner in which to protect and preserve
that land.
Therefore, the opportunity to increase publicly controlled conservation areas and to increase
environmentally sensitive wetland habitat constitutes a change in circumstances affecting the subject
properties. For that reason, the proposed amendment meets the third criterion of Future Land Use
Element Policv 14.3.
Even more clearly, the proposed amendment meets the policy's fourth criterion. As specifically
cited in the policy, the proposed amendment involves a swap or reconfiguration of land use
designations at separate sites and, that swap or reconfiguration will not increase the overall land use
density or intensity depicted on the Future Land Use Map. In this case, the swap/reconfiguration
will result in a decrease the overall land use density/intensity. For those reasons, the proposed
amendment meets the fourth criterion of Future Land Use Element Policy 14.3.
Because the proposed amendment meets the policy's third and fourth criteria, the proposed
amendment is consistent with Future Land Use Element Policy 14.3.
- Future Land Use Element Policies 1.3, 3.2, 3.3, 3.4, 7.1, and 7.5; Stormwater Management
Sub -Element Policies 1.1 and 1.2; and Capital Improvement Element Policies 3.3 and 3.5
Each of these policies regulates development in flood prone areas. These policies are relevant
because, according to FEMA maps, a small portion of Subject Property 2 is within Flood Zone A.
Future Land Use Element Policies 1.3, 3.3, and 3.4 require the county to set standards and
procedures regarding the development of land in flood prone areas, and to incorporate those
standards and procedures into the county's land development regulations. Future Land Use Element
Policy 3.2 specifically states that regardless of land use designation or zoning district, no
development shall be permitted to exceed established levels of service. Future Land Use Element
JUNE 291998
`;
-27- E C�� x JF A -6E 7�
Policy 7.1 requires development to be consistent with regulations established by the National Flood
Insurance Program, and Future Land Use Element Policy 7.5 specifically states that stormwater
runoff from new development shall not negatively impact adjacent properties or receiving surface
waterbody quality.
Stormwater Management Sub -Element Policy 1.1 and Capital Improvements Element Policy 3.5
actually set the drainage level of service standard for the county. These policies state that for a 25
year/24 hour storm, post development runoff shall not exceed pre -development runoff unless a
maximum discharge rate has been adopted for the applicable drainage basin and the discharge does
not exceed that rate.
An additional requirement is found in Stormwater Management Sub -Element Policy 1.2 which
requires all new buildings to have the lowest habitable floor elevation no lower than the elevation
of the 100 -year flood elevation as shown on FEMA maps or as defined in a more detailed study.
Finally, Capital Improvements Element Policy 3.3 requires that the infrastructure necessary meet the
adopted level of service be in place concurrent with the impacts of new development.
All of these policies have been incorporated into the county's land development regulations,
particularly chapter 930, Stormwater Management and Flood Protection. Development of both
subject properties must be consistent with each of the referenced plan policies and land development
regulations. For these reasons, development of the subject properties under either the existing or
proposed land use designations would not degrade the floodplain or its storage capacity. Therefore,
the proposed amendment is consistent with these policies.
- Future Land Use Element Policies 1.3, 7.3, 7.4 and 7.6; and Conservation Element Policies
2.4, 5.3, 7.2, 7.3, and 7.4
These policies relate to the protection of wetlands and/or environmentally sensitive lands. Future
Land Use Element Policies 1.3, 7.3, 7.4, and 7.6, and Conservation Element Policies 2.4, 5.3, 7.2,
7.3, and 7.4 require the county to adopt land development regulations that protect wetlands and
environmentally sensitive lands. These policies require environmental surveys, coordination with
other agencies, mitigation, setbacks, buffers, native plant preservation, and native plantings.
All of these policies have been incorporated into the county's land development regulations,
particularly chapter 928, Wetland and Deepwater Habitat Protection. Development of both subject
properties must be consistent with each of the referenced plan policies and land development
regulations. For these reasons, development of the subject properties under either the existing or
proposed land use designations would not adversely impact wetlands or environmentally sensitive
lands. Therefore, the proposed amendment is consistent with these policies.
- Future Land Use Element Policies 1.5 and 1.6
Future Land Use Element Policy 1.5 states that the.conservation land use designations are applied
to those areas which are vital or essential to the normal functions of ecosystems and have been
identified in the Conservation Element as meriting preservation. Future Land Use Element Policy
1.6 limits the use of C-1 designated land to conservation and recreational uses. The wetlands that
currentiv exist and that will be created on Subject Property I meet the criteria set in Future Land Use
Element Policy 1.5. Because the proposed amendment redesignates Subject Property 1 to C-1, and
because the use of Subject Propenyl will be limited to conservation and recreational uses, the
amendment is consistent with Future Land Use Element Policies 1.5 and 1.6.
- Future Land Use Element Policies 1.15 and 1.16
Future Land Use Element Policies 1.15 and 1.16 state that the commercial/industrial land use
desisnation should be within the urban service area and is intended for retail and wholesale trade,
offices, business and personal services, and similar uses.
Near the existing portion of the Horizon Outlet Center, adjacent to commercially designated and
zoned land, within the urban service area, with access to SR 60, and with urban services available,
Subject Property 2 is appropriate for commercial uses. The proposed amendment would allow
commercial development on Subject Property 2. Therefore, the proposed amendment is consistent
with Future Land Use Element Policies 1.15 and 1.16.
- Future Land Use Element Policy 1.17
Future Land Use Element Policy 1.17 states that county land development regulations shall provide
performance standards for commercial/industrial development which at a minimum address the
following:
• eross floor area;
• impervious surface ratios;
• minimum open space;
• parking;
• buffering and landscaping; and
• environmental impact.
JUNE 291998
As mandated in Future Land Use Element Policy 1. 17, county land development regulations contain
standards for commercial/industrial development. Those standards limit the intensity of
commercial/industrial development throughout the county. Therefore, through Future Land Use
Element Policy 1.17, the county has intensity standards for commercial/industrial development.
Because any commercial /industrial development on either subject property would be subject to
those standards, the request is consistent with Future Land Use Element Policy 1.17.
- Future Land Use Element Policy 1.20
Future Land Use Element Policy 1.20 states that nodes shall have a designated size based on the
intended use, service area population, existing land use pattern and other demand characteristics.
The amount of GT designated land is based on service area population, the existing land use pattem,
and other demand characteristics. The proposed amendment will not alter the amount of C/I
designated land. Therefore, the proposed amendment is consistent with Future Land Use Element
Policv 1.20.
- Future Land Use Element Policy 1.21
Future Land Use Element Policy 1.21 states that node boundaries should provide for efficient land
uses and maximum use of transportation facilities while eliminating strip development. By adding
depth to the existing node, the proposed amendment works to limit strip commercial development
along SR 60. For these reasons, the proposed amendment is consistent with Future Land Use
Element Policy 1.21.
- Future Land Use Element Policy 1.22
Future Land Use Element Policy 1.22 states that 70% of the land area of a node should be developed
with non-residential and non-agricultural uses before that node is considered for expansion. The
intent of this policy is to regulate increases in the amount of C/I designated land. Since the proposed
amendment does not increase in the amount of C/I designated land in the subject node, Future Land
Use Element Policy 1.22's 70% developed standard does not apply to this amendment.
- Economic Development Element Policy 43
Economic Development Element Policy 4.3 states that the county shall evaluate the size and location
of nodes to ensure they can properly provide for growth. Since the proposed amendment
reconfigures the subject node to better provide for growth, the proposed amendment implements
Economic Development Element Policy 4.3.
- Conservation Element Objective 5
Conservation Element Objective 5 states that there will be no net loss of the natural functions
provided by wetlands or deepwater habitats in Indian River County. By redesignating Subject
Property 1 to C-1, the proposed amendment works to implement this objective by facilitating the
preservation of existing wetlands and the creation of new wetlands.
- Conservation Element Objective 7
Conservation Element Objective 7 states that there will be no reduction in the critical habitat of
endangered or threatened species of animals and plants in Indian River County. By working to
ensure the permanent conservation of Subject Property 1, the proposed amendment works to achieve
Conservation Element Objective 7.
As part of the staff analysis, all policies in the comprehensive plan were considered. Based upon
that analysis, staff determined that the proposed land use designation amendment is consistent with
the comprehensive plan.
Construction of the portion of the proposed DRI located south of Subject Property 2 will cause a loss
of environmentally sensitive wetlands. To mitigate that loss, the applicant has agreed to enlarge and
conserve a nearby wetland on Subject Property 1. Thus, the negative environmental impacts of
construction of the portion of the proposed DRI located south of Subject Property 2 are balanced by
enhancing, enlarging and preserving wetlands on Subject Property 1. For that reason, the proposed
amendment would enhance environmental quality.
JUNE 291998
-29- c'C:
Subject Property 1 contains environmentally sensitive wetlands. No wetlands exist on Subject
Property 2. Current land use designations potentially could allow Subject Property 1 to be developed
with up to 264,000 square feet of shopping center, while Subject Property 2 potentially could be
developed with up to 211 residential units. Under the proposed amendment, no development would
be allowed on Subject Property 1, while up to 264,000 square feet of shopping center potentially
could be developed on Subject Property 2. Therefore, the proposed amendment shifts development
from environmentally sensitive land to land more suited for development, ensures the protection of
environmentally sensitive land, and decreases overall development potential by 211 residential units.
The proposed amendment is consistent with the comprehensive plan, compatible with all
surrounding land uses, and will cause no adverse impacts on the environment or the provision of
public services. The proposed change increases land use efficiency and facilitates economic
development while mitigating environmental impacts through habitat enhancement and conservation.
Finally, the data and analysis contained in this report address DCA's ORC Report objections. For
these reasons, staff supports the request.
Based on the analysis, staff and the Planning and Zoning Commission recommend that the Board
of County Commissioners take the following actions:
• approve the attached comprehensive plan amendment ordinance redesignating Subject
Property 1 to C-1, and redesignating Subject Property 2 to C/I; and
• approve the attached rezoning ordinance rezoning Subject Property 1 to Con -1, and rezoning
Subject Property 2 to CG.
JUNE 291998
-30-
0
JUNE 291998
L
ZONING
MTAQWN 4
-31—
ST
Director Bob Keating stated that this item is also associated with 9.A.2., the proposed
Development Order and DRI approval for the Horizon Outlet Center, and is exempt from any
limit on amendments because it is in conjunction with this DRI. The Department of
Community Affairs (DCA) raised 4 objections which have been responded to. There are 2
separate pieces of property, each of which is 26.4 acres. Property # 1 is the northern portion
and Property #2 is the southern portion. Property #1 will be changed from C/I to
Conservation and Property #2 from medium density to C/I. This will decrease the overall
density and will preserve an environmentally sensitive area on Property #1 which includes
7 acres of wetlands and 6.7 acres of pine flatwoods. DCA's Objection #1 said our Comp
Plan does not have any intensity standard for C/I areas. However, this is covered by Land
Use Policy 1.17. During the July Comp Plan amendment window we will establish an
intensity standard. The other 3 objections all relate to Property #2 and staff has addressed
these objections.
The Chairman opened the public hearing and asked if anyone wished to be heard
regarding this matter. There being none, the Chairman closed the public hearing.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert,
SECONDED by Commissioner Ginn, the Board
unanimously adopted Ordinance 98-011 amending
the future Land Use Element of the Comprehensive
Plan by changing the Land Use Designation for
±26.4 acres located between I-95 and The Horizon
Outlet Center from C/I to C-1; and by changing the
Land Use Designation for ±26.4 acres located
approximately one half mile south of SR -60 and
approximately one eighth mile west of I-95 from M-
1 to C/I; and providing severability and effective
date.
JUNE 291998
0 -32- 0
•
ORDINANCE NO. 98- 11
AN ORDINANCE OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, AMENDING THE FUTURE
LAND USE ELEMENT OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN BY CHANGING THE LAND USE
DESIGNATION FOR±26.4 ACRES LOCATED BETWEEN I-95 AND THE HORIZON OUTLET
CENTER, FROM C/I TO C-1; AND BY CHANGING THE LAND USE DESIGNATION FOR
±26.4 ACRES LOCATED APPROXIMATELY ONE HALF MILE SOUTH OF SR 60 AND
APPROXIMATELY ONE EIGHTH MILE WEST OF 1-95, FROM M-1 TO C/I; AND
PROVIDING SEVERABILITY AND EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners adopted the Indian River County
Comprehensive Plan on February 13, 1990, and
WHEREAS, the Local Planning Agency held a public hearing on this comprehensive plan
amendment request.on January 8, 1998 after due public notice, and
WHEREAS, the Local Planning Agency voted 6 to 0 to recommend 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 January 27, 1998 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 the plan
amendment process, and
WHEREAS, the Florida Department of Community Affairs received this Comprehensive
Plan Amendment on February 3, 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 April 14, 1998,
and
WHEREAS, the ORC Report contained four objections to this comprehensive plan
amendment, and
WHEREAS, the support documents accompanying this comprehensive plan amendment have
been revised to address those objections, and
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County held a
Comprehensive Plaut Amendment Adoption Publi. Roxing on Juno =, 199S, rulrr aJi cnisiiib
pursuant to F.S.163.3184(15)(b)(2) and (c);
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED, by the Board of County Commissioners of Indian
River County, Florida, that:
SECTION 1. Comprehensive Plan Amendment Adoption and Transmittal
The amendment to the Indian River County Comprehensive 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.
JUNE 291998
-33-
•
E d ti
. � � Fret 73
ORDINANCE NO. 98- 11
SECTION 2. Amendments to the Comprehensive Plan
The land use designation of the following described property situated in Indian River County,
Florida to wit:
A PARCEL OF LAND BEING IN A PORTION OF TRACTS 10, 15, 16, SECTION 3,
TOWNSHIP 33 SOUTH, RANGE 38 EAST, INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA. AS
SHOWN ON THE PLAT OF INDIAN RIVER FARMS COMPANY AS RECORDED IN
PLAT BOOK 2, PAGE 25 OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF ST. LUCIE COUNTY,
FLORIDA NOW BEING IN INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA.
SAID PARCEL DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
COMMENCE AT THE INTERSECTION OF THE WEST LINE OF THE AFORESAID
TRACT 10 AND THE SOUTH LINE OF STATE ROAD 60. (A 200 -FOOT WIDE
RIGHT-OF-WAY): THENCE RUN SOUTH 00°3678" WEST ALONG THE WEST LINE
OF THE AFORESAID TRACT 10. A DISTANCE OF 600.00 FEET; THENCE RUN
SOUTH 89°16'32" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 870.36 FEET TO INTERSECT WITH THE
WEST RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF INTERSTATE 95; THENCE RUN SOUTH 25°52'34"
EAST ALONG THE AFORESAID WEST RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF INTERSTATE 95,
A DISTANCE OF 174.36 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE CONTINUE
ALONG THE AFORESAID WEST RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF INTERSTATE 95,
SOUTH 25052'34" EAST A DISTANCE OF 174.87 FEET; THENCE RUN SOUTH
16048'31" EAST A DISTANCE OF 441.98 FEET TO A CURVE CONCAVE TO THE
RIGHT HAVING A RADIUS OF 5529.58 FEET WITH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF
12052'23" AND AN ARC LENGTH OF 1242.37 FEET TO INTERSECT WITH THE
SOUTH LINE OF THE AFORESAID SECTION 3, TOWNSHIP 33 SOUTH, RANGE 38
EAST; THENCE LEAVING THE AFORESAID WEST RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF
INTERSTATE 95, RUN NORTH 88°53'55" WEST ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF
SECTION 3, A DISTANCE OF 463.07 FEET TO A CURVE CONCAVE TO THE RIGHT
AND LEAVING THE SOUTH LINE OF SECTION 3, HAVING A RADIUS OF 25.00
FEET WITH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 89025'40", AN ARC LENGTH OF 39.02 FEET;
THENCE RUN NORTH 00°31'46" EAST A DISTANCE OF 376.18 FEET; THENCE RUN
NORTH 88056'34" WEST, A DISTANCE OF 485.72 FEET; THENCE RUN NORTH
27030'32" WEST A DISTANCE OF 570.61 FEET; THENCE RUN NORTH 00°31'46"
EAST A DISTANCE OF 239.97 FEET; THENCE RUN SOUTH 89003'56" EAST A
DISTANCE OF 466.42 FEET; THENCE RUN NORTH 00°43'28" EAST A DISTANCE
OF 391.19 FEET; THENCE RUN SOUTH 89°16'32" EAST A DISTANCE OF 114.02
FEET TO A CURVE CONCAVE TO THE LEFT HAVING A RADIUS OF 107.00 FEET
WITH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 68016'46", AN ARC LENGTH OF 127.51 FEET;
THENCE RUN NORTH 2202642" EAST A DISTANCE OF 186.29 FEET; THENCE RUN
NORTH 64°07'46" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 20.00 FEET TO THE POINT OF
BEGINNING.
CONTAINING 26.42 ACRES MORE OR LESS AND SUBJECT TO ALL EASEMENTS
OF RECORD.
Is changed from CA, Commercial/Industrialto C-1, Publicly Owned or Controlled Conservation -1
(zero density) and the Future Land Use Map is hereby revised accordingly.
The land use designation of the following described property situated in Indian_ River County,
Florida to wit:
A PARCEL OF LAND BEING IN A PORTION OF TRACT 2, SECTION 10, TOWNSHIP
33 SOUTH, RANGE 38 EAST, INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA. AS SHOWN ON
THE PLAT OF INDIAN RIVER FARMS COMPANY AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK
2, PAGE 25 OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA NOW
BEING IN INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA. SAID PARCEL DESCRIBED AS
FOLLOWS:
COMMENCE AT THE INTERSECTION OF THE WEST LINE OF THE TRACT 10,
SECTION 3, TOWNSHIP 33 SOUTH, RANGE 38 EAST, INDIAN RIVER COUNTY,
FLORIDA AND THE SOUTH LINE OF STATE ROAD 60, (A 200 -FOOT WIDE RIGHT-
OF-WAY); THENCE RUN SOUTH 00°36'28" WEST ALONG THE WEST LINE OF THE
AFORESAID TRACT 10, A DISTANCE OF 600.00 FEET; THENCE RUN SOUTH
89016'32" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 870.36 FEET TO INTERSECT WITH THE WEST
RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF INTERSTATE 95; THENCE RUN SOUTH 25°52'34" EAST
ALONG THE AFORESAID WEST RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF INTERSTATE 95, A
JUNE 291998
-34-
ORDINANCE NO. 98-1 1
DISTANCE OF 349.23 FEET; THENCE RUN SOUTH 16°48'31" EAST, A DISTANCE
OF 441.98 FEET TO A CURVE CONCAVE TO THE RIGHT HAVING A RADIUS OF
5529.58 FEET WITH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 1205223", AN ARC LENGTH OF
1242.37 FEET TO INTERSECT WITH THE NORTH LINE OF AFORESAID SECTION
10, TOWNSHIP 33 SOUTH, RANGE 38 EAST, INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA;
THENCE RUN NORTH 88053'55" WEST AND LEAVING THE WEST RIGHT-OF-WAY
LINE OF INTERSTATE 95 AND RUN ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF SECTION 10,
A DISTANCE OF 182.06 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING, THENCE FROM THE
POINT OF BEGINNING RUN SOUTH 0200728" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 249.86 FEET;
THENCE RUN SOUTH 12058'12" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 226.19 FEET; THENCE
SOUTH 0202633" WEST, A DISTANCE OF 206.45 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 79°56'51"
WEST, A DISTANCE OF 257.00 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 79°56'51" WEST, A
DISTANCE OF 120.68 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 01 007'52" WEST, A DISTANCE OF
79.95 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 3802627" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 14.30 FEET TO A
CURVE CONCAVE TO THE RIGHT HAVING A RADIUS OF 60 FEET WITH A
CENTRAL ANGLE OF 115039'10", AN ARC LENGTH OF 121.11 FEET; THENCE
SOUTU 12047'18" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 88.60 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 15024'20"
EAST, A DISTANCE OF 70.13 FEET; THENCE NORTH 88°5355" WEST, A DISTANCE
OF 685.66 FEET; THENCE NORTH 13°38'11" WEST, A DISTANCE OF 286.38 FEET;
THENCE NORTH 07056'59" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 29.59 FEET; THENCE NORTH
24°29'39" WEST, A DISTANCE OF 15.13 FEET; THENCE NORTH 51 °2627" WEST, A
DISTANCE OF 24.55 FEET; THENCE NORTH 10°23'38" WEST, A DISTANCE OF
17.53 FEET; THENCE NORTH 25°4227" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 14.84 FEET;
THENCE NORTH 10030'59" WEST, A DISTANCE OF 44.19 FEET; THENCE NORTH
68048'56" WEST, A DISTANCE OF 17.24 FEET; THENCE NORTH 8403433" WEST, A
DISTANCE OF 39.97 FEET; THENCE NORTH 82053'52" WEST, A DISTANCE OF
28.78 FEET; THENCE NORTH 82032'02" WEST, A DISTANCE OF 32.46 FEET;
THENCE NORTH 14017135" WEST, A DISTANCE OF 34.04 FEET, THENCE NORTH
70048'37" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 33.35 FEET; THENCE NORTH 75055'57" EAST A
DISTANCE OF 20.66 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 89018'26" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 17.47
FEET; THENCE NORTH 49019'46" EAST A DISTANCE OF 25.59 FEET; THENCE
SOUTH 62°00'11" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 16.80 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 39°1648"
EAST, A DISTANCE OF 23.68 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 85004"09"EAST, A DISTANCE
OF 18.21 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 87003'44" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 16.64 FEET;
THENCE NORTH 4905334" WEST, A DISTANCE OF 20.09 FEET; THENCE NORTH
03029'20" WEST, A DISTANCE OF 28.50 FEET; THENCE NORTH 14°48'01" WEST, A
DISTANCE OF 18.47 FEET; THENCE NORTH 39039'10" WEST, A DISTANCE OF
30.12 FEET; THENCE NORTH 22009'46" WEST A DISTANCE OF 25.87 FEET;
THENCE NORTH 78041'27" WEST, A DISTANCE OF 19.06 FEET; THENCE NORTH
31°10'11" WEST, A DISTANCE OF 32.69 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 85040'43" WEST, A
DISTANCE OF 34.45 FEET; THENCE NORTH 80°54'43" WEST A DISTANCE OF 46.14
FEET; THENCE NORTH 89°2443" WEST A DISTANCE OF 18.03 FEET; THENCE
NORTH 00035'17" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 485.63 FEET TO THE NORTH LINE OF
THE AFORESAID SECTION 10, TOWNSHIP 33 SOUTH, RANGE 38 EAST, INDIAN
RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA; THENCE RUN SOUTH 88°53'55" EAST ALONG THE
NORTH LINE OF THE AFORESAID SECTION 10, A DISTANCE OF 1239.63 FEET TO
THE POINT OF BEGINNING.
CONTAINING 26.42 ACRES MORE OR LESS AND SUBJECT TO ALL EASEMENTS
OF RECORD.
Is changed from M-1, Medium -Density Residential -1 (up to 8 units/acre) to C/I, Commercial/
Industrial and the Future Land Use Map is hereby revised accordingly.
SECTION 3. Deal 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. Severability
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.
JUNE 291998
ORDINANCE NO. 98-11
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, 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 Department of Community Affairs, Bureau of Local
Planning, 2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard, Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100.
This ordinance was advertised in the Press-Joumal on the 26' day of May, 1998 for a public
hearing to be held on the second day of June, 1998 at which time it was moved for adoption by
Commissioner Eggert , seconded by Commissioner Ginn , and adopted by the
following vote:
Chairman John W. Tippin
Vice -Chairman Kenneth R. Macht
Commissioner Fran B. Adams
Commissioner Caroline D. Ginn
Commissioner Carolyn K. Eggert
Aye
Aye
Aye
Aye
Aye
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
BY:
ATTEST BY: �•A '�8�..�
_ K. Barton,
Acknowledgment''.
by the Department artment of State of the State of Florida this day of , 1998
Acknowledgment from the Department of State received on this day of , 1998, at
A.M./P.M. and filed in the office of the Clerk of the Board of County Commissioners of Indian
River County, Florida.
naan q„ a Ca :4i:4.
Aamin ►l�P'r—
w:\u\v\j\lu\hgi\cpaord.ord
Mgr.
JUNE 291998
0
-36-
•
ON MOTION by * Commissioner Eggert,
SECONDED by Commissioner Ginn, the Board
unanimously adopted Ordinance 98-012 amending
the Zoning Ordinance and the accompanying Zoning
Map for ±26.4 acres located between I-95 and The
Horizon Outlet Center from CG to CON -1; and by
amending the Zoning Ordinance and the
accompanying Zoning Map for ±26.4 acres located
approximately one half mile south of SR -60 and
approximately one eighth mile west of I-95 from
RM -6 to CG; and described herein, and providing
severability and effective date.
ORDINANCE NO. 98- 12
AN ORDINANCE OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, AMENDING THE ZONING
ORDINANCE AND THE ACCOMPANYING ZONING MAP FOR ±26.4 ACRES LOCATED
BETWEEN I-95 AND THE HORIZON OUTLET CENTER, FROM CG TO CON -1; AND BY
AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE AND THE ACCOMPANYING ZONING MAP FOR
±26.4 ACRES LOCATED APPROXIMATELY ONE HALF MILE SOUTH OF SR 60 AND
APPROXIMATELY ONE EIGHTH MILE WEST OF I-95, FROM RM -6 TO CG; AND
DESCRIBED HEREIN, AND PROVIDING SEVERABILITY AND EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission, sitting as the local planning agency on
such matters, has held a public hearing and subsequently made a recommendation regarding this
rezoning request; and
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, did
publish and send its Notice of Intent to rezone the hereinafter described property; and
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners has determined that this rezoning is in
conformance with the Comprehensive Plan of Indian River County;'and
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners has held a public hearing pursuant to this
rezoning request, at which parties in interest and citizens were heard;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED, by the Board of County Commissioners of Indian
River County, Florida, that the zoning of the following described property situated in Indian River
County, Florida, to -wit:
A PARCEL OF LAND BEING IN A PORTION OF TRACTS 10,15,16, SECTION
3, TOWNSHIP 33 SOUTH, RANGE 38 EAST, -INDIAN RIVER COUNTY,
FLORIDA. AS SHOWN ON THE PLAT OF INDIAN RIVER FARMS
COMPANY AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 2, PAGE 25 OF THE PUBLIC
RECORDS OF ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA NOW BEING IN INDIAN
RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA.
JUNE 291998
-37-
•
ORDINANCE NO. 98- 12
SAID PARCEL DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
COMMENCE AT THE INTERSECTION OF THE WEST LINE OF THE AFORESAID
TRACT 10 AND THE SOUTH LINE OF STATE ROAD 60. (A 200 -FOOT WIDE
RIGHT-OF-WAY): THENCE RUN SOUTH 00036'28" WEST ALONG THE WEST LINE
OF THE AFORESAID TRACT 10. A DISTANCE OF 600.00 FEET; THENCE RUN
SOUTH 89°16'32" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 870.36 FEET TO INTERSECT WITH THE
WEST RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF INTERSTATE 95; THENCE RUN SOUTH 25°52'34"
EAST ALONG THE AFORESAID WEST RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF INTERSTATE 95,
A DISTANCE OF 174.36 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE CONTINUE
ALONG THE AFORESAID WEST RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF INTERSTATE 95,
SOUTH 2505234" EAST A DISTANCE OF 174.87 FEET; THENCE RUN SOUTH
16°48'31" EAST A DISTANCE OF 441.98 FEET TO A CURVE CONCAVE TO THE
RIGHT HAVING A RADIUS OF 5529.58 FEET WITH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF
12052'23" AND AN ARC LENGTH OF 1242.37 FEET TO INTERSECT WITH THE
SOUTH LINE OF THE AFORESAID SECTION 3, TOWNSHIP 33 SOUTH, RANGE 38
EAST; THENCE LEAVING THE AFORESAID WEST RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF
INTERSTATE 95, RUN NORTH 88°53'55" WEST ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF
SECTION 3, A DISTANCE OF 463.07 FEET TO A CURVE CONCAVE TO THE RIGHT
AND LEAVING THE SOUTH LINE OF SECTION 3, HAVING A RADIUS OF 25.00
FEET WITH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 89025'40", AN ARC LENGTH OF 39.02 FEET;
THENCE RUN NORTH 00°31'46" EAST A DISTANCE OF 376.18 FEET; THENCE RUN
NORTH 88056'34" WEST, A DISTANCE OF 485.72 FEET; THENCE RUN NORTH
27030'32" WEST A DISTANCE OF 570.61 FEET; THENCE RUN NORTH 00031'46"
EAST A DISTANCE OF 239.97 FEET; THENCE RUN SOUTH 89°03'56" EAST A
DISTANCE OF 466.42 FEET; THENCE RUN NORTH 00043'28" EAST A DISTANCE
OF 391.19 FEET; THENCE RUN SOUTH 89016'32" EAST A DISTANCE OF 114.02
FEET TO A CURVE CONCAVE TO THE LEFT HAVING A RADIUS OF 107.00 FEET
WITH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 68016'46", AN ARC LENGTH OF 127.51 FEET;
THENCE RUN NORTH 22026'42" EAST A DISTANCE OF 186.29 FEET; THENCE RUN
NORTH 640OT46" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 20.00 FEET TO THE POINT OF
BEGINNING.
CONTAINING 26.42 ACRES MORE OR LESS AND SUBJECT TO ALL EASEMENTS
OF RECORD.
Be changed from CG to Con -1
ME
to -wit:
that the zoning of the following described property situated in Indian River County, Florida,
A PARCEL OF LAND BEING IN A PORTION OF TRACT 2, SECTION 10, TOWNSHIP
33 SOUTH, RANGE 38 EAST, INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA- AS SHOWN ON
THE PLAT OF INDIAN RIVER FARMS COMPANY AS RECORDEDIN PLAT BOOK
2, PAGE
FLORIDANOW
BEING IN IOF THE PUBLIC RECORDS FCOUNTY
C
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, F RIDA. SAID PARCEL DESCRIBED OCRIBED AS
FOLLOWS:
COMMENCE AT THE INTERSECTION OF THE WEST LINE OF THE TRACT 10,
SECTION 3, TOWNSHIP 33 SOUTH, RANGE 38 EAST, INDIAN RIVER COUNTY,
FLORIDA AND THE SOUTH LINE OF STATE ROAD 60, (A 200 -FOOT WIDE RIGHT-
OF-WAY); THENCE RUN SOUTH 0003628" WEST ALONG THE WEST LINE OF THE
AFORESAID TRACT 10, A DISTANCE OF 600.00 FEET; THENCE RUN SOUTH
89°16'32" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 870.36 FEET TO INTERSECT WITH THE WEST
RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF INTERSTATE 95; THENCE RUN SOUTH 25°52'34" EAST
ALONG THE AFORESAID WEST RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF INTERSTATE 95, A
DISTANCE OF 349.23 FEET; THENCE RUN SOUTH 16°48'31" EAST, A DISTANCE
OF 441.98 FEET TO A CURVE CONCAVE TO THE RIGHT HAVING A RADIUS OF
5529.58 FEET WITH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 12052'23", AN ARC LENGTH OF
1242.37 FEET TO INTERSECT WITH THE NORTH LINE OF AFORESAID SECTION
10, TOWNSHIP 33 SOUTH, RANGE 38 EAST, INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA;
THENCE RUN NORTH 88053'55" WEST AND LEAVING THE WEST RIGHT-OF-WAY
NORTH LINE OF
ON 10'
A D STTANCOF E INTERSTATE 182.06 FEET TO THE OINT OFBEGINNING; THENCE FROIM THE
JUNE 21,1998
0
-38- •
•
ORDINANCE NO. 98- 12
POINT OF BEGINNING RUN SOUTH 0200728" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 249.86 FEET;
THENCE RUN SOUTH 12058'12" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 226.19 FEET; THENCE
SOUTH 0202633" WEST, A DISTANCE OF 206.45 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 79°56'51"
WEST, A DISTANCE OF 257.00 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 7905651" WEST, A
DISTANCE OF 120.68 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 01 007'52" WEST, A DISTANCE OF
79.95 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 3802627" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 14.30 FEET TO A
CURVE CONCAVE TO THE RIGHT HAVING A RADIUS OF 60 FEET WITH A
CENTRAL ANGLE OF 115039'10", AN ARC LENGTH OF 121.11 FEET; THENCE
SOUTH 12°47'18" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 88.60 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 15024'20"
EAST, A DISTANCE OF 70.13 FEET; THENCE NORTH 88°53155" WEST, A DISTANCE
OF 685.66 FEET; THENCE NORTH 13°38'11" WEST, A DISTANCE OF 286.38 FEET;
THENCE NORTH 07056'59" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 29.59 FEET; THENCE NORTH
24°29'39" WEST, A DISTANCE OF 15.13 FEET; THENCE NORTH 5102627" WEST, A
DISTANCE OF 24.55 FEET; THENCE NORTH 10023'38" WEST, A DISTANCE OF
17.53 FEET; THENCE NORTH 25042'27" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 14.84 FEET;
THENCE NORTH 10030'59" WEST, A DISTANCE OF 44.19 FEET; THENCE NORTH
68048'56" WEST, A DISTANCE OF 17.24 FEET; THENCE NORTH 84°3433" WEST, A
DISTANCE OF 39.97 FEET; THENCE NORTH 82°53'52" WEST, A DISTANCE OF
28.78 FEET; THENCE NORTH 82032'02" WEST, A DISTANCE OF 32.46 FEET;
THENCE NORTH 14017'35" WEST, A DISTANCE OF 34.04 FEET, THENCE NORTH
70°48'37" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 33.35 FEET; THENCE NORTH 75°55'57" EAST A
DISTANCE OF 20.66 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 89018'26" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 17.47
FEET; THENCE NORTH 49019'46" EAST A DISTANCE OF 25.59 FEET; THENCE
SOUTH 62°00'11" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 16.80 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 39°1648"
EAST, A DISTANCE OF 23.68 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 85004"09"EAST, A DISTANCE
OF 18.21 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 8703'44" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 16.64 FEET;
THENCE NORTH 49°53'34" WEST, A DISTANCE OF 20.09 FEET; THENCE NORTH
03029'20" WEST, A DISTANCE OF 28.50 FEET; THENCE NORTH 14°48'01" WEST, A
DISTANCE OF 18.47 FEET; THENCE NORTH 39°39'10" WEST, A DISTANCE OF
30.12 FEET; THENCE NORTH 22°09'46" WEST A DISTANCE OF 25.87 FEET;
THENCE NORTH 78041'27" WEST, A DISTANCE OF 19.06 FEET; THENCE NORTH
31°10'11" WEST, A DISTANCE OF 32.69 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 85040'43" WEST, A
DISTANCE OF 34.45 FEET; THENCE NORTH 80°5443" WEST A DISTANCE OF 46.14
FEET; THENCE NORTH 8902443" WEST A DISTANCE OF 18.03 FEET; THENCE
NORTH 00°35'17" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 485.63 FEET TO THE NORTH LINE OF
THE AFORESAID SECTION 10, TOWNSHIP 33 SOUTH, RANGE 38 EAST, INDIAN
RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA; THENCE RUN SOUTH 88°53'55" EAST ALONG THE
NORTH LINE OF THE AFORESAID SECTION 10, A DISTANCE OF 1239.63 FEET TO
THE POINT OF BEGINNING.
CONTAINING 26.42 ACRES MORE OR LESS AND SUBJECT TO ALL EASEMENTS
OF RECORD.
JUNE 291998
•
6,a
ORDINANCE NO. 98- 12
Be changed from RM -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- in compliance in accordance with
x.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 second day of June, 1998.
This ordinance was advertised in the Press -Journal on the 2& day of May, 1998 for a public
hearing to be held on the second day of June, 1998 at which time it was moved for adoption by
Commissioner E g g e r t , seconded by Commissioner G i nn , 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
Aye
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
MW
ATTEST BY: 5�
Jeffrey K Barton, Clerk
This ordinance was filed with the Department of State on the following date:
u\v\j\lu\hgi\rzonord
Inem flea Ca Af9raved Date
Admin
Legal
Budget
Dept ,y
Risk Mgr.
JUNE 291998
0
-40-
9.A.2. PUBLIC HEARING - HORIZON OUTLET CENTER -
DEVELOPMENT ORDER (DO) AND DEVELOPMENT OF
REGIONAL IMPACT (DRIB
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
DATE CHANGE FOR
DEVELOPMENT OF
REGIONAL IMPACT (D.RJ.)
The Board of County Commission-
ers of Indian River County hereby
gives notice of a PUBLIC HEAR-
ING DATE CHANGE from May
26, 1998 (as originally advertised)
to lune 2, 1996. The rescheduled
PUBLIC HEARING is to be hold at
9.05 am. on lune 2, 1998 in the
County Commission Chambers of
We County Administration Building,
located at 1840 25th Street, Vero
Beach, Florida. The subject of the
hwty is a proposal. by the
Horizon/Glen Outlet Canters Lim -
Bed to expand the project known
as the Horizon Outlet Center. The
project proposes to expand the
existing 333,000 square feet of
retail building area by adding
approximately 320,000 square
feet of additional retail and restou-
rant building area, 280 hotel
rooms, a 12 screen cinerea, a 9
hale golf course and accessory
facilities, and 3 acres of
recreation/amusement uses. The
total D.R.I. site area, Including the
area of existing development, con-
sists of +.183 acres located on the
wrest sidp of 1-95, south of SR 60
($ee location map).
All documents pertaining to this
D.R.I. request are filed in the Indian
River County Planning Division,
2nd floor of the County Adminis-
tration Building, located at 1640
25th Street, Vero Beach, Florida.
Documents may be reviewed by
members of the public during nor-
mal business horn. All members of
the public aro invited to attend and
participate in the public hearing.
This official public notice is hereby
given by the Board of County
Commissioners of Indian River
County, Florida, that it* Board
Intends to eoduct a public hearing
pursuant to Chapter 380.06 Flor:
tido Statufas far the referenced
D.R.I. approval request.
JUNE 291998
Mss-JOURNPA
Published Dann
Vero Beach, Indian River County, Florida
COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER: STATE OF FLORIDA
Before the urhdrhed euttarity personally appeared Darryl K. Hicks who on
oath says that he is Preffiderrt of the Press,lournal, a dally newspaper pubesthed at Vero Beach
in Indian River County, Florida; that the attached copy of advertiser rant, being
a bL &-LC �
— a.
in the Cant. was pub-
of
ct
of
Affiant further says that the said Press,lohunal Is a newspaper published at Vero Beach, in
said hhdian River County, Florida, and list the said newspaper has heretofore bosh
cahtn�sly published In said Indian River County, Florida, each dally and has been entered as
second class mail math at the post office In Vero Beach, in said Indian Rim County, Florida,
for a=, of she year rhext preceding the first publication of the attached copy. of
t and affiant turthher says that he has neitror paid nor prarnised any person, firm
advererh�t foror
• or refund for Ute propose of securing the
Sworn to and stoscribed before me L11D.1
Zr
a L
JAY (O.."ISSiON EXFIAES : 'j
* ' 1RF'�"��.".r�P.t,',n.�1''.2001 4 c KIMBERLY ANN LAIS
' y fOl�es� i 01092 Notary Public, State of Florida
My Commission Exp. Jan. 01, 2001
4y9`�sIIC ST.. 4 J`e Comm. lly CC 811pgy
p Personally Known 67or Produced IC
�4•......o+° Type of ID Produced
This Is a courtesy revision notice to
o nota that was published at loot
sixty (60) days in advance of the
public (roaring by the Board of
County Commissioners of Indian
River County, Florida, and is In
addition Worry required public
notice(s) of local public hearings to
be conducted by the Board of
County Commissioners pursuant to
notice and pylic hearing provi-
sions of the Code of law and
Ordhnanoss of Indian River County,
Florida,where applicable.'
This courtesy revision notice is
being provided to do Department
of Community Affairs of the State
of Florida; the Treasure Coad
Reginal Planning Council, St.'
Johns River -Water Management
Dishki; Departmet of Environme►
t9l: P.ratedt", State of Florida
rDeparhtronh of Transportation;
City of Vero Beach; the Town of
Indian' llhow Shore; "the CBy of
Sebastian, the Town of Orchid, the
Tawe of Fellsmankland the Coun-
ties of Brevard and St hate.
If any person deddes to appeal"
any decision made on the above
mater, he/she will need ors,,- '
of the taoaedihgt. and for. such
purpose, he/she may need to
sown that a verbatim record of
the proceedings is made, w"
Includes testmany and edtlehce
upon which tiro appeal is based
The County dos not , prp" or
preparesuch record.'
Please direct planning -related
questions to the turret develop -
OW section at 5678000, wc.
ANYONE WHO NEEDS A SPE+
,CIAL ACCOMMODATION. FOR
$THIS MEETiNG'MUST CONTACT
JHE COUNTY'S AMERICANS
WITH DISABILITIES ACT ,(ADA),
COORDINATOR AT 5674=0:)l
MAT LEAST 48 HOURS:,IN'
ADVANCE OF MEETING.
May.7t 1998 .;4 . • _ 1. ���47r�
MSS -JOURNAL
Published Dally
Vero Beach, Indian River County, Florida
COUNTY OF MAN RIVER: STATE OF FLORIDA
oath saBW&9tys tha he he President at the��ty P�neht appeared Darryl K Now who an
In Indian River County. Florida, that the atta a � newspaper pub et veru Beach
SPY of art, being
a �/; j
�[i��ru�i�II1
In the Caet was Pub -
fished in said newspaper in the Issues of /9v
Affiant further says that the said Prese,laiunal is a newspaper published at Vero Beach, in
said Indian River County, Florida, and that the said newspaper has heretofore been
swooentered as
ma0pu bn� at the post office Bsaid Indlani Rim County, each. �dIndlancthas l County Haft
for a period of ane year next preceding the first publication of the attached copy of
advertisement and affiant further says that he has neitivir paid nor promised any person, firm
���for or refund for the purpose of securing this
ublication In said newspaper
aPpaoL4pr,
S!IMOTfhytQ dw0soCJ,bed before me tuts
sa
air.•' '• .�.
a A t!Y COMlUS510N EXPI(FS
• Jktli!aY 6:.202]
� � CDMA. N0. Ctb 11991 '
� ►i 1 1090"L S
NotaMy Commission Exp j Florida
01, 2001
a a` IC, SiP ;aa° Comm. No. CC 611
•••a Personally Known Ivor produced ID O
Type of ID Produced
JUNE 291998
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
The tndian River County Board of
County - Commissioners hereby
gives notice of a public hearing to
be held at 9:05 a.m. on June 2,
1998 in the County Commission
Chambers of the County Adminis-
tratlon Building located at 1840
25th Street, Vero Beach, Florida.
The subject of the hearing is to
consider approval of .a develop.
ment order (D.O.) for an expansion
to the Horizon Outlet Center devel-
opment of regional impact (DRI).
The subject 183 acre property
includes the existing Horizon Out-
let Center site and lands west and
south of the existing site, all
located west of. 1-95 and south of
SR 60. The proposed development
consists of the following:
Existing Uses:
Outlet retail 333,089 SF
Proposed Uses:
Outlet retail 200,000 SF
Specialty retail 105,000 SF
Restaurants (3) 15,000 SF
Resort hotel 200 rooms
Economy hotel 80 rooms
Cinremn 12 screens
Golf course 9 holes
Recreation/amusement 3 cares
All members of the public are
invited to attend and participate at
the public hearing. Please direct
planning -related questions to the
current development planning sec-
tion at 567-8000, ext. 242.
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 pro-
ceedings is made, which includes
testimony and evidence upon which
the appeal is based.
Anyone who needs a special
accommodation for this meeting
must contact the county's Ameri-
cans with Disabilities Ad (ADA)
coordinator at 567-8000, ext. 223
at least 48 hours In advance of the
meeting.
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
BOARD OF
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
BY -s -John W. Tippin, Chairman
May 20,1998 11347039r
0 -41- (a) 0
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of May 26, 1998:
TO: James E. Chandler
County Administrator
D ION HEAD CONCURRENCE:
Robert M. Keating, AIC
Community Developme t D' or
FROM: — Stan Boling, AICP
Planning Director
DATE: May 26, 1998
SUBJECT: PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT ORDER (D.0) AND DRI APPROVAL FOR THE
HORIZON OUTLET CENTER
It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal consideration by the Board of County
Commissioners at its regular meeting of June 2, 1998.
On March 24, 1994, the Planning and Zoning Commission granted site plan approval for the Horizon
Outlet Center located in the southwest quadrant of the I-95/S.R. 60 interchange. Subsequently, the
existing outlet center was developed, consisting of 333,089 square feet of retail building area on
44.11 acres. That amount of development was determined by the State not to constitute a
development of regional impact (DRI). Therefore, no DRI review was required for the existing
development.
In December 1996, the developer filed an application for development approval (ADA) with the
Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council for an expansion of the outlet center to double the
existing development intensity and expand the total project acreage to 182.82 acres. The proposed
expansion exceeds the DRI threshold, and requires DRI review and approval of the total project
(existing plus proposed development). In January 1997, the developer entered into a predevelopment
agreement (PDA) with the state and county, allowing preliminary development of 39.53 acres for
golf course and related improvements (driving range, chipping practice area, temporary clubhouse,
Permanent maintenance facility, parking areas, and roadways) prior to approval of the DRI
application. At that time, the county granted the developer special exception use and conceptual site
plan approval for a 9 -hole golf course that includes the PDA area plus additional acreage, all of
which is within the area encompassed by the DRI application. To date, the PDA site has been
cleared but the approved site plan has not been released for actual construction. If and when DRI
approval is granted, such approval and any associated D.O. conditions will supercede the PDA.
On February 20, 1998, the Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council, pursuant to its required DRI
review fimction, considered the proposed DRI project application. The Regional Planning Council
recommended that the county approve with conditions the DRI request and corresponding
development order (D.O.). State DRI rules require that the Board of County Commissioners
consider the request and D.O. at a public hearing. Such a public hearing before the Board was
originally scheduled for May 26, 1998, but was re -advertised and postponed to the June 2, 1998
meeting at the applicant's request. Under county LDR requirements, the Planning and Zoning
Commission reviewed the request and voted 7-0 to recommend that the Board of County
Commissioners approve the development order with conditions (see attachment #8).
ANALYSIS•
The existing and proposed development is depicted on a master development conceptual plan that
is part of the DRI application. That plan shows the following:
JUNE 291998
-42- }'� r, ,
11
F�,vr
_I
Existing Uses on 44.11 acres
Outlet retail 333,089 SF
Proposed Uses on 138.73 acres
Outlet retail
200,000 SF
General retail
120,000 SF
Resort hotel
200 rooms
Economy hotel
80 rooms
Cinema
12 screens
Golf course
9 holes
Recreation/amusement
3 acres
Total acreage:
182.84 acres
The DRI application proposes new commercial development along S.R. 60, east and west
of 90 Drive (the existing S.R. 60 access road for the project). Also, new commercial
development is proposed south of the existing outlet stores. Between the existing lake and
the southern boundary of the site, a golf course and environmentally sensitive area preserves
(wetlands and uplands) are proposed.
1. Comprehensive Plan/Rezoning Issue: The DRI proposal is dependent on a comprehensive
plan amendment to "swap -out" commercially designated land for residentially designated
land and vice versa in the southern portion of the site. The proposed redesignations would
result in no net increase in commercially designated acreage. The amendment has already
been considered by the Planning and Zoning Commission and the Board of County
Commissioners, and has been transmitted to the State. The comprehensive plan request is
scheduled to be heard by the Board at its June 2, 1998 meeting, just prior to the hearing on
this DRI request.
2. Environmental Impacts: The total 182.84 acre site consists of various types of uplands and
wetlands, and developed land. The proposal addresses uplands and wetlands impacts
through design and preservation measures. In terms of design, environmentally sensitive
wetland and upland area along I-95 and the southern 1/3 of the site will be retained and
enhanced. Also, existing hardwood wetlands (characterized by stands of maples) located on
both sides of 940 Drive at S.R. 60 will be retained. In terms of preservation, the developer
already contributed to the county's upland set-aside fund for the initial (existing) outlet
center development, and proposes preservation areas as follows: 15.66 acres of scrubby
flatwoods, 7.67 acres of pine flatwoods, 2.94 acres of sand pine scrub, and 36.24 acres of
mixed wetland hardwoods.
3. Transportation Impacts: Outlet center expansion is proposed to be completed by the end
of 2002. Thus, the traffic impact analysis performed by the developer and accepted by the
TCRPC, FDOT, and county traffic engineering staff analyzed estimated traffic impacts for
a 2002 project completion date. Given the type of retail proposed and the project's proximity
to the I-95/S.R. 60 interchange, it is estimated that a high percentage of traffic will be from
I-95. In accordance with the findings of the accepted traffic impact analysis, signalization
of the S.R. 60/1-95 on and off ramps will be required. This requirement is reflected in the
recommended D.O. Signalization of the project's SR 60/94th Drive entrance is anticipated
and is addressed in the recommended D.O. The traffic analysis indicates that acceptable
levels of service will be maintained for roadways and intersections impacted by the project
with the conditions contained in the recommended D.O.
A second access point to S.R. 60 is proposed west of the outlet center's existing 94th Drive
access. Secondary accesslemergency access will use the new S.R. 60 connection and will
provide driveway "by-passes" west and south of the existing outlet center (see attachment
#6). This secondary access system will interconnect with the existing and proposed
development. It should be noted that. due to the existence of the New Hibiscus Airport west
of the project, there is no opportunity at this time for access from the outlet center to 98th
avenue.
During its December 1996 review of the golf course conceptual plan, the Board of County
Commissioners heard from owners of residentially designated property located south of the
proposed golf course area which comprises the southern 1/3 of the project Property owners
asked that Horizon be required to grant access from S.R. 60 through its site to their
properties. At the Board hearing, staff pointed out that providing access through the golf
course area would negatively impact environmentally sensitive preserve areas and would
provide only a lengthy, circuitous access through commercial development for future
residents. In its approval of the special exception request, the Board agreed with staff that
the DRI "...shall address potential S.R. 60 access to properties south of the overall DRI
project area. However, no such access shall be required through the golf course -area..'.
JUNE 2,1998
• -43-
•
The proposed DRI provides secondary access from S.R. 60 south to the proposed new
commercial area (see attachment #6). That access is via an easement from an adjacent
property owner to Horizon. In staffs opinion, construction of the secondary access will
provide potential access to S.R. 60 while avoiding negative impacts to preserve areas. Via
the recommended D.O. conditions, Horizon will agree to not object to or obstruct
connections to the secondary access driveway(s) from adjacent properties. It should be noted
that private arrangements among adjacent property owners would be needed to effectively
extend the proposed new access as far south as desired by area property owners.
4. Human Resource Impacts: Sheriff's Office operations and emergency services have been
evaluated and are addressed in the recommended D.O. conditions. Sheriffs Office impacts
are addressed in the D.O. as a result of meetings between the developer, planning staff, and
the Sheriff's Office. As has been done with the Indian River Mall DRI project, the outlet
center is currently providing office space for Sheriffs Office field operations. The D.O. will
require the developer to continue to provide such space free of charge and provides for the
Sheriffs Office and developer to mutually agree upon office space upgrades and future
relocation, if desired. In addition, special safety design features and on-going tenant
management crime prevention training will be required via the D.O.
Emergency access provisions have been devised based upon agreement between the
developer, emergency services staff, and planning staff.
5. S.R. 60 Corridor Plan: The recommended D.O. contains an explicit condition that the
project is subject to the S.R. 60 Corridor Plan.
6. . Recommended Development Order (D.O.): The recommended D.O. resolution (see
attachment #7) is the "heart" of the DRI approval and is based upon the conditions
recommended by the Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council. Modifications to the
council's conditions have been made to tie the conditions to specific county development and
approval processes and to address local concerns. The format of the proposed conditions
indicate modifications to the council's recommended wording. Highlights of D.O.
conditions are as follows:
-Condition 4: Sets the D.O. expiration date at December 31, 2009.
Condition 16: Requires a conservation easement over 26.27 acres of scrubby pine
flatwoods, pine flatwoods, and sand pine scrub located along I-95 and in the southern portion
of the overall project site.
Condition 20: Requires a conservation easement over 36.24 acres of mixed hardwood
swamp and 7.61 acres of freshwater marsh in various locations within the overall project site.
-Condition 40: Requires installation of traffic signals at the I-95/SR 60 off ramps, when
warranted.
-Condition 41: Requires the developer to monitor the SR 60/94th Drive project entrance for
the need for signalization and to provide signalization when warranted.
-Condition 43: Requires the developer to update the project traffic analysis if project
development is proposed beyond December 31, 2002. No building permits will be issued
after 2002 unless adequate roadway levels of service can be maintained.
7. Post -DRI Approval: If the DRI is approved, the project may not be developed without site
plan approval. Any project site plan will be subject to the appropriate D.O. conditions and
the county's LDRs, and will require review and approval by the Planning and Zoning
Commission.
Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners grant DRI approval and adopt the
attached development order resolution, with the conditions contained therein.
JUNE 291998
.I.
•
�'
E'_,.. ___��i irjUC
0
00
9
0
T :X)
ON
C') 0
m z
0 0
0
z m
cn
m
0
z X
3)
z
G)
%.0
=W"E
1f
IASEMENI
I_
- - - .-
-I
Planning Director Stan Boling, with the aid of the ELMO, reviewed the project and
stated that over 40% of the site will be preserved wetlands with an environmentally sensitive
land corridor along SR -60. A site plan will be required for each different phase of the
project and no traffic will come from I-95. There will be no permits issued after 2002 unless
another traffic analysis is done. The SR -60 Corridor Plan will be looked at in detail during
any site plan reviews.
The . Chairman opened the public hearing and asked if anyone wished to be heard
regarding this matter.
Glenn Legwen, 5900 5' Street SW, expressed his objection to the project and stated
that he felt the Board would be setting a dangerous precedent, encouraging more growth in
that area, should they approve the project.
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 Adams,
SECONDED by Commissioner Eggert, the Board
unanimously adopted Resolution 98-061 making
findings of fact and conclusions of law pertaining to
the Horizon Outlet Center, a Development of
Regional Impact, and constituting this Resolution as
a Development Order by Indian River County in
compliance with law; providing an effective date;
and providing a termination date.
RESOLUTION NO. 98- 61
A Resolution of the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County,
Florida, making findings of fact and conclusions of law pertaining to the
Horizon Outlet Center, a Development of Regional Impact, and constituting this
Resolution as a Development Order by Indian River County in compliance with
law; providing an effective date; and providing a termination date.
WHEREAS, Horizon/Glen Outlet Centers Limited Partnerships has filed a Development of
Regional Impact Application for Development Approval with Indian River County, Florida, in
accordance with Section 380.06, Florida Statutes; and
WHEREAS, the authorized agents of the Developer are David S. Knight, P.E., and Ralph
L. Evans, Trustee.
JUNE 291998
RESOLUTION NO. 98- 61
WHEREAS, said Applicant proposes to construct in addition to 333,089 square feet of
existing retail building area, the following: 200,000 square feet of outlet retail; 120,000 square feet
of general retail, 200 room resort hotel; 80 room economy hotel, 12 screen cinema, 9 hole golf
course and 3 acres of recreation/amusement; together constituting a Development of Regional
Impact on the real property legally described in Exhibit "A" attached hereto and located in Indian
River County, Florida; and
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners as the governing body of Indian River
County having jurisdiction, pursuant to Chapter 380, Florida Statutes, is authorized and empowered
to consider Applications for Development Approval for Developments of Regional Impact; and
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners on the 2nd day of June, 1998, held a duly
noticed public hearing on the Development of Regional Impact Application for Development
Approval and has heard and considered the testimony taken thereat; and
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners has received and considered the
assessment report and recommendations of the Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council; and
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners has made the following FINDINGS OF
FACT and CONCLUSIONS OF LAW with regard to the Application for Development Approval:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. The proposed Development is not in an area of critical state concern designated
pursuant to the provisions of Section 380.06, Florida Statutes;
2. The proposed development is consistent with the State Land Development Plan and
the State Comprehensive Plan;
3. The proposed development is consistent with the report and recommendations of the
Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council submitted pursuant to Section 380.06(12)(a), Florida
Statutes;
4. The proposed Development is consistent with the local comprehensive plan, zoning,
and land development laws and regulations of the County; and
5. The conditional concurrency requirements for drainage, solid waste, water,
wastewater, recreation, and transportation have been met under the Indian River County
Concurrency Management System, subject to the conditions set forth in this development order and
subject to the county's land development regulations.
NOW, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY CON DUSSIONERS OF
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, in a public meeting, duly constituted and assembled this
2m day of June, 1998, that the Horizon Outlet Center Development of Regional Impact Application
for Development Approval submitted by Horizon/Glen Outlet Centers Limited Partnerships is
hereby APPROVED, subject to the following conditions, restrictions, and limitations:
Application for Development Approval
The Horizon Outlet Center Application for Development Approval is incorporated herein by
reference. It is relied upon, but not to the exclusion of other available information, by the
parties in discharging their statutory duties under Chapter 380, Florida Statutes. Substantial
compliance with the representations contained in the Application for Development Approval,
as modified by Development Order conditions, is a condition for approval.
For the purpose of this condition, the Application for Development Approval shall include
the following items:
Application for Development Approval dated December 17, 1996; and
b. Supplemental information dated August 15, 1997 and December 1, 1997.
JUNE 2,1998
0
-47-
• - 0
RESOLUTION NO. 98-__U
Commencement and Progress of Development
2. In the event the developer fails, within three years from the effective date of the
Development Order, to commence significant physical development beyond the
development in existence on the approval date of the Development Order, development
approval shall terminate and the development shall be subject to further development -of -
regional -impact review by the Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council, Department of
Community Affairs, and Indian River County pursuant to Section 380.06, Florida Statutes.
For the purposes of this paragraph, construction shall be deemed to have been initiated after
placement of permanent evidence of a structure (other than a mobile home) on a site, such
as the pouring of slabs or footings or any work beyond the stage of excavation or land
clearing, or construction of a permanent access road.
3. The phasing of the development is approved as follows:
Phase I consists of the +/-333,089 square feet of retail building area and associated
development existing as of the approval date of this development order. Phase II consists
of all remaining development, with build -out by December 31, 2002, unless otherwise
amended pursuant to the conditions of this development order and Florida statutes 380.06.
4. This Development Order shall expire on December 31, 2009.
Transfer of ApFroval
5. Notice of transfer of all or a portion of the subject property shall be filed with the Indian
River County Board of County Commissioners. Prior to transfer, the transferee shall assume
in writing on a form acceptable to the County Attorney, any and all applicable commitments,
responsibilities, and obligations pursuant to the Development Order. The intent of this
provision is to ensure that subsequent property transfers do not jeopardize the unified control,
responsibilities, and obligations required of the project as a whole.
Annual Report
6. The annual report required by subsection 380.06(18), Florida Statutes, shall be submitted
each year to Indian River County, the Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council, the Florida
Department of Environmental Protection, the Florida Department of Transportation, the St.
Johns River Water Management District and such additional parties as may be appropriate
or required by law. The contents of the report shall include those items required by this D.O.
and Rule 9J-2.024, Florida Administrative Code. The Indian River County community
development director shall be the local official assigned the responsibility for monitoring the
development and enforcing the terms of the D.O.
7. The annual report shall be submitted each year on the anniversary date of the adoption of the
D.O.
W= H
8. Any modification or deviation from the approved plans or requirements of this D.O. shall
be made according to and processed in compliance with the requirements of Section
380.06(19), Florida Statutes and Rule 9J-2, Florida Administrative Code.
9. The definitions found in Chapter 380, Florida Statutes shall apply to this D.O.
10. Reference herein to any governmental agency shall be construed to mean any future
instrumentality that may be created or designated as a successor in interest to, or which
otherwise possesses the powers and duties to any referenced governmental agency in
existence on the effective date of this D.O.
11. This D.O. shall be binding upon the developer and its assignees or successors in interest.
JUNE 291998
-48-
RESOLUTION N0.98- 61
12. Transit vehicle boarding and unloading space at outlet center entrances shall be designated
on project site plans and constructed as part of the project. Upon implementation of
regularly scheduled transit service the following facilities, at a minimum, shall be provided:
1) covered bus shelters with seating, lighting, trash receptacles, 2) transit stop signs; and 3)
bus schedules conspicuously available within the outlet center or bus shelter. In addition,
the outlet center shall consider programs that offer shopper bonuses to those patrons who use
transit to get to the outlet center. At the end of the first full year of regularly scheduled
transit service to the outlet center, the developer shall provide a written summary in the next
annual report, and in all subsequent annual reports required by Section 380.06, Florida
Statutes, regarding the extent to which these requirements and recommendations are being
implemented.
13. The developer shall consider establishing and actively supporting through the provision of
information and incentives to employees, a ridesharing program. At the end of the first full
year of the opening of the expanded outlet center, the developer shall provide written
summary in the next annual report, and in all subsequent annual reports required by Section
380.06, Florida Statutes, regarding the structure of any such program and an evaluation of
any such program's effectiveness.
14. The developer shall cooperate with and provide available information on the general location
of employee and shopper residences, regarding the establishment or expansion of transit
routes to serve the Horizon Outlet Center, to the transit planning agency or transit provider
designated in the future to serve Indian River County.
15. During land clearing and site preparation, soil treatment techniques appropriate for
controlling unconfined particulate emissions shall be undertaken. If construction on a parcel
will not begin within thirty days of clearing, the soil shall be stabilized until construction of
the parcel begins. Cleared areas may be sodded, seeded, landscaped or mulched to stabilize
the soil. Minimal clearing for access roads, survey lines, fence installation, or construction
trailers and equipment staging areas is allowed without the need for soil stabilization. The
purpose of this condition is to minimize dust and dirt production during land clearing and
to prevent soil from becoming airborne between the time of clearing and construction. These
provisions shall be addressed in any land clearing permit(s) issued by Indian River County
for the project.
16. The developer shall preserve 26.27 acres of scrubby pine flatwoods, pine flatwoods, and sand
pine scrub on the project site as described in Map F2 of the DRI ADA for the Horizon Outlet
Center. The intent of this development -condition is to provide protection of upland natural
communities, to provide habitat for wildlife, and to assist in improving water quality by
buffering wetlands and water bodies. The continued viability and maintenance of the
preserve area shall be assured through a Conservation Easement with the St. Johns River
Water Management District as part of the Development Plan. Said easement shall be
properly executed and recorded prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy for any future
portion of the project beyond development approved under the PDA (preliminary
development agreement).
17. Temporary fencing of all preserve areas shall be installed by the developer and inspected and
approved by Indian River County prior to commencement of site clearing adjacent to the
preserve area The fencing shall be of a type that will clearly identify and designate the
boundaries of the preserve areas and minimize the potential disturbance of these features
during land clearing and construction. The temporary fencing shall be established at least
30 feet outside the actual boundary of the preserve areas. Temporary fencing shall stay in
place until it is necessary to remove it for finish grading, planting required buffers, and
constructing any required permanent fencing. These provisions shall be addressed in any
land clearing permit(s) issued by Indian River County for the project.
18. The developer shall prepare a Preserve Area Management Plan for the preserve area. As a
minimum, the plan shall identify methods to maintain suitable habitat conditions for the
gopher tortoise and other listed species which exist in the preserve. The plan should include
methods to: 1) relocate gopher tortoises into the preserve area; 2) provide a schedule for roll -
o -chopping the preserve area to simulate a fire management program; 3) remove exotic
vegetation including Brazilian pepper, Australian pine, meWeuca, and other species that are
determined by Indian River County to threaten the natural communities; and 4) permanently
fence the preserve and allow only limited access for nature appreciation, education, or
scientific study. Permanent fencing should be attractive. The management plan shall be
approved by Indian River County in consultation with Treasure Coast Regional Planning
Council prior to the initiation of site clearing activities or issuance of an Indian River County
land clearing permit for the project
JUNE 291998
0
-49- .
•
RESOLUTION NO. 98- 61
19. In the event that it is determined that any additional representative of a state or federally
listed plant or animal species is resident on, or otherwise is significantly dependent upon the
project site,. the developer shall cease all activities which might negatively affect that
individual population and immediately notify Indian River County and Treasure Coast
Regional Planning Council. Proper protection, to the satisfaction of the Indian River County
and Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council, in consultation with the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service and the Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission, shall be provided
by the developer. These provisions shall be addressed in any land clearing permit(s) issued
by Indian River County for the project.
20. The developer shall preserve and create at least 36.24 acres of mixed hardwood swamp and
7.61 acres of freshwater marsh identified on Map F3, Master Wetland Creation Plan, in the
Application for Development Approval for the Horizon Outlet Center DRI. The mitigation
areas shall be managed according to procedures provided in a Preserve Area Management
Plan for the Horizon Outlet Center DRI. The preserved and created wetlands shall be
protected within a Conservation Easement establishment with the St. Johns River Water
Management District. Said easement shall be properly executed and recorded prior to
issuance of a certificate of occupancy for any future portion of the project beyond
development approved under the PDA.
21. All wetland mitigation shall be completed prior to or simultaneous with the elimination of
existing wetlands on the site. The detailed plans for mitigation shall be approved by the St.
Johns River Water Management District and Indian River County in consultation with
Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council prior to the initiation of the mitigation plan and
prior to the release of any site plan for all or a portion of the project. Reasonable assurance
of financial ability to carry out the commitments in the approved mitigation plan shall be
provided in a method agreed to and approved by Indian River County. Said assurances and
commitments shall be approved by Indian River County planning staff prior to release of any
site plan for all or a portion of the project.
22. The developer shall preserve or create a buffer zone of native upland edge vegetation around
all wetlands preserved, restored, or created on site. The buffer zone shall include canopy,
understory, and ground cover of native upland species. The upland buffers shall be restored
to a natural condition if invaded by exotic vegetation or impacted by agricultural activities.
The upland buffers shall be a minimum width of 15 feet and shall average 25 feet around the
entire wetland. The buffer shall be shown on all appropriate project site plans and shall be
designed to be consistent with the buffer requirements of St. Johns River Water Management
District and Indian River County. During construction, the upland buffers adjacent to
preserved or created wetlands shall be clearly marked prior to the commencement of
construction activities to ensure those areas are protected. These provisions shall be
addressed in any land clearing permit(s) issued by Indian River County for the project. The
upland buffers shall be maintained according to the details provided in a Preserve Area
Management Plan to be approved by Indian River County.
23. Prior to obtaining a certificate of occupancy for any future structure located on any
development parcel, the developer shall remove from that parcel all melaleuca, Brazilian
pepper, Old World climbing fern, Australian pine, and any other nuisance and invasive
exotic vegetation listed by the Florida exotic Pest Plant Council. Removal shall be in a
manner that avoids seed dispersal by any of these species. These provisions shall be
addressed in any land clearing permit(s) issued by Indian River County for the project. There
shall be no planting of these species on site. Methods for the removal of exotic and nuisance
species should be described in the Preserve Area Management Plan. The entire site,
including conservation areas, shall be maintained free of these species in perpetuity.
24. The developer shall design and construct a stormwater management system to retain the
maximum volumes of water consistent with St. Johns River Water Management District
criteria for flood control. Post -development runoff volumes and rates shall not exceed
predevelopment runoff volumes and rates consistent with Water Management District
criteria. The system shall be designed and constructed consistent with the criteria and
requirements of St. Johns River Water Management District and Indian River County.
Required retention volumes may be accommodated in a combination of vegetated swales,
dry retention areas, lakes with vegetated littoral zones, or other suitable detention/retention
structures. All discharges from the surface water management system shall meet the water
quality standards of Florida Administrative Code Rule 17-3. These provisions shall be
addressed in project site plans.
25. The developer shall design and construct the surface water management system so that
maintenance of normal hydroperiods within preserved wetlands can be guaranteed against
the negative impacts of activities within the project boundaries, and so that the functions and
JUNE 291998
•�:J r�1Ut d �+
RESOLUTION NO. 98- 61
values provided by these preserve areas will be maintained. Via the site plan project
development review and permitting process, the developer shall submit a plan establishing
wetland control elevations and post -development drainage sub -areas for each wetland to St.
Johns River Water Management District and Indian River County for approval. This plan
may be included in the Preserve Area Management Plan. The plan shall demonstrate how
sufficient quantities of surface runoff from portions of the developed areas will be conveyed
to wetland areas in order to maintain or improve their exiting hydroperiod.
26. All elements of the stormwater management system shall be designed to prevent impacts to
adjacent areas and to the receiving bodies of water. The developer shall prepare plans that
reasonably demonstrate that these waterbodies and adjacent properties will not be negatively
impacted by water quality, water quantity or timing of delivery. These plans shall be
approved by St. Johns Water Management District and Indian River County prior to the
construction of the surface water management system and prior to release of any project site
plan.
27. To improve the quality of stormwater on-site, the streets and paved parking lots within the
commercial areas shall be swept as necessary, but in no case less frequently than once per
week. Sweeping shall be accomplished by vacuum type or vacuum regenerative type
sweepers. Parking stops or bumps which may collect and concentrate contaminants, or
which would interfere with efficient sweeping of paved parking areas, shall not be used
outside the existing phase of the project.
28. During the site plan review process, the developer and Indian River County shall work
together to minimize the amount of impervious surface constructed for the purposes of
automobile parking on the Horizon Outlet Center site. The developer and the County shall
consider the use of pervious parking lot materials where feasible and, in cooperation with the
developer implementing an incremental parking lot construction program that initially
reduces parking space/retail space ratios to a minimum with any increases tied to actual
demonstrated demand.
29. Golf course management shall be addressed within the Preserve Area Management Plan
(reference condition #18) prior to the construction of the golf course on the project site. The
Preserve Area Management Plan shall provide details concerning the application of
fertilizers, herbicides and pesticides on the golf course. The plan shall include methods for
minimizing the impact of chemical runoff associated with golf course maintenance.
30. A vegetated littoral zone shall be established in the lake constructed on site. Prior to the
expansion of the existing lake system, the developer shall prepare a design and management
plan for the wetland/littoral zone that will be developed as part of that system. The plan may
be incorporated into the Preserve Area Management Plan and shall be subject to approval by
the St Johns River Water Management District, and Indian River County prior to beginning
any excavation activity. Littoral zones shall be constructed concurrent with lake excavation
and final grading. Operational permits for the surface water management system shall not
be issued nor shall a certificate of occupancy for any firture portion of the project be issued
until such time as littoral zones have been found to be constructed in conformance with
approved plans.
31. Maintenance and management efforts required to assure the continued viability of preserved
wetland habitats and the proper operation of all components of the surface water
management system shall be the financial and physical responsibility of the developer. Any
entities subsequently approved by Indian River County to replace the developer shall be
required, at a minimum, to assume the responsibilities outlined above.
32. No building permits shall be issued for any subphase or phase of the Horizon Outlet Center
development outside the existing development and the development approved under the
PDA, until the developer has provided written confirmation from the St John's River Water
Management District and the providing utility that adequate capacity of treated potable water
and serviceldistribution infrastructure will exist by development of that subphase or phase.
33. The preferred source of irrigation water shall be treated wastewater effluent at such time as
this source is made available at the site. Should treated wastewater be unavailable or a
supplemental source of irrigate be needed , existing or created surface water (i.e. lakes or
canals) shall be used to the maximum extent available. Project site plans shall show that the
project's irrigation systems will be designed and installed in a manner that will allow
utilization of reuse water, and connected to reuse water when it becomes available.
34. In order to reduce irrigation water demand, xeriscape landscaping shall be implemented
throughout the project At a minimum, 50 percent of all areas requiring landscaping material
shall be landscaped with native drought -tolerant adapted to soil and climatic conditions
existing on site. Project site plans shall show compliance with this provision.
JUNE 291998
0
-51—
RESOLUTION NO. 98- 61
35. The project shall use water -saving plumbing fixtures and other water conserving devices as
specified in the Water Conservation Act, Section 553.14, Florida Statutes, to reduce water
use in future project development.
36. No additional building permits shall be issued for the Horizon Outlet Center development
until the developer provides evidence from the Indian River County Department of Utility
Services to Indian River County Planning Department that adequate capacity, service
infrastructure, and adequate provisions for the effluent disposal, will be available to collect
and treat and dispose of the wastewater generated by the portion of the development for
which permits are required. This provision shall be addressed via Indian River County's
concurrency management system.
37. Development shall only occur concurrently with the provision of adequate solid waste
disposal services and facilities. Prior to _issuing site plan approvals for any phase of
development, the developer shall provide to Indian River County planning staff written
evidence from the Indian River County Waste Management Disposal District that adequate
facilities will be available when needed.
.111TAZ_'•t. y•
38. No building permits for Horizon Outlet Center Development of Regional Impact shall be
issued until right-of-way within the project along SR 60 and all intersections thereof, has
been dedicated free and clear of all liens and encumbrances to the Florida Department of
Transportation or Indian River County as necessary and consistent with the Indian River
County Comprehensive plan.
39. As a minimum, the developer shall pay a fair share contribution consistent with the road
impact fee ordinance of Indian River County in effect at the time of issuance of building
permits. Chapter 380, Florida Statutes, also requires that any DRI Development Order
exaction or fee required shall be credited toward an impact fee or exaction unposed by local
ordinances for the same need Any exaction receiving credit for impact fees must be in
accordance with agreements between the developer and Indian River County.
40. Once the traffic signals at the east and west intersections of I-95 and SR 60 are warranted,
no building permits for additional development at Horizon Outlet Development of Regional
Impact beyond the existing development and that allowed by the PDA shall be issued until
the installation of traffic signals at the east and west intersection of I-95 with SR 60 have
been let for construction and no certificates of occupancy shall be issued until the installation
of these traffic signals is completed. The developer shall be eligible for appropriate impact
fee credit for any contributions for the signalization.
41. Beginning in 1999, and until such time as a signal is installed at the project entrance on SR
60, the Horizon Outlet Center shall undertake an annual monitoring program for the entrance
of Horizon Outlet Center on SR 60. This monitoring program shall be conducted by a traffic
engineering firm that is qualified by the Florida Department of Transportation in F(3.05),
Traffic Operation Studies, and G(3.06), Traffic Operation Design, or equivalent. Turning
movement counts will be conducted in the peak season period (January 1 -March 31), during
the two P.M. peak hours (4:00 to 6:00). The turning movement volumes will be compared
to the volume thresholds for signal warrants 1 and 2 in the Manual of Uniform Traffic
Control Devices (MUTCD). At such time as the actual P.M. turning movements exceed both
the major street and minor street volume signal warrant criteria, it will constitute an
indication of a possible signal warrant and a complete signal warrant analysis shall be
conducted. The complete signal warrant study shall be completed within four months after
the study that indicated a possible signal wan -ant. The results of the monitoring program
shall be submitted to the Indian River County Traffic Engineer, the Treasure Coast Regional
Planning Council, and the Florida Department of Transportation. The issuance of building
permits for the project shall cease if signalization is not installed within one year of the date
that:
a the signal warrant study that concluded the signal was warranted, and
b. the date the necessary FDOT permit or permission for signalization is granted.
42. Beginning in 1999, and until such time as a signal is installed at the project entrance on SR
60, the Horizon Outlet Center shall undertake an annual monitoring program for the east
intersection of I-95 and SR 60. This monitoring program shall be conducted by a traffic
JUNE 291998
-52- E'r: �t FAt;k e7
RESOLUTION NO. 98-_ 61
engineer firm that is qualified by the Florida Department of Transportation in F(3.05),
Traffic Operation Studies, and G(3.06), Traffic Operation Design, or equivalent. Turning
movement counts will be conducted in the peak season period (January 1 -March 31), during
the two P.M. peak hours (4:00 to 6:00). An intersection analysis will be performed, using
the latest version of the Highway Capacity Software and the turning movement volumes
collected. At such time that the level of service of the intersection is determined to be below
level of service D, no further building permits shall be issued to Horizon Outlet Center, until
the construction of the second northbound left turn lane is funded and programmed for
construction. The results of the monitoring program shall be submitted to the Indian River
County Traffic Engineer, the Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council, and the Florida
Department of Transportation. The issue of building permits for the project shall cease if the
second northbound left turn lane is not constructed within one year of the date of the
intersection capacity analysis showing a level of service lower than D.
43. No building permits shall be issued after December 31, 2002, unless a traffic study has been
updated by the developer, and submitted to and approved by Indian River County, Florida
Department of Transportation and Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council which
demonstrate that the regional roadway network can accommodate the remaining (yet to be
generated) Horizons Outlet Center generated traffic and growth in background traffic beyond
2002 and still be maintained at Level of Service D during peak-hour/peak-season conditions.
The traffic Study shall:
a. be conducted in 2002, and
b. identify the roadway expansions and timing of these expansions necessary to provide
Level of Service D during peak-hour/peak season conditions for the subject
transportation network during the projected buildout of the project including project
impacts and growth in background traffic.
Additional building permits shall not be issued until: a) a new project phasing program and
roadway expansion program necessary to maintain acceptable levels of service for the
remainder of the developer has been approved by Indian River County, Florida Department
of Transportation, and Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council; and b) the Development
Order has been amended to reflect the new phasing program and set of additional roadway
expansions.
44. Commencing in 1999 and continuing every year thereafter, the developer shall submit, as
part of its Annual Status Report the status (schedule) of guaranteed improvements. This
Annual Status Report shall be submitted to Indian River County, the Florida Department of
Transportation, Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council, and the Department of
Community Affairs.
The Annual Status Report shall identify those roadway improvements which are needed to
maintain the applicable adopted level of service, the projected date of completion of the
improvement, the party responsible for the guaranteed construction of each improvement,
and the form of the binding commitment that guarantees construction of each improvement.
No further permits for Horizon Outlet Center shall be issued if the Annual Status Report
indicates that an identified road improvement included in the Development Order is no
longer scheduled or guaranteed, or has been delayed in schedule such that it is not guaranteed
to be completed or under construction consistent with the timing criteria established by the
Development Order.
HUMAN RESOURCE IMPACTS -
45. The developer shall develop and implement, in coordination with the Sheriffs Office,
comprehensive crime prevention through environmental design (CPTED) and security plan
to help minimize/manage the impact of law enforcement. This plan shall be coordinated
during the architectural design phase of the project (beyond the existing development and
the development approved under the PDA) and approved by the designated Crime Prevention
Practitioner with the Sheriff s Office prior to any additional building permits being issued
for the project.
46. The developer, through mall management, will continue to provide free of all charges the
present location of the Sheriffs Office substation within the Horizon Outlet Center, with
mutually agreed upon improvements and upgrades. Said substation location may be changed
upon mutual agreement between the Sheriffs Office and the developer, with notice of any
said change provided to the county planning division.
JUNE 291998
0
-53-
0
RESOLUTION NO. 98-__6 t
47. Mall management will continue to provide semi-annual crone Prevention management
training for existing and new tenants in the project; the status of conducting this training will
be reflected in the annual report that management provides to the Indian River Community
Development Department each year.
48. Prior to issuance of any building permits for the proposed expansion to the existing Horizon
Outlet Center, a secondary emergency access drive will be constructed to provide Indian
River County Emergency Services access to new construction areal and the existing Horizon
Outlet Center. Said drive may be constructed in segments (Phases) but such segments shall
provide access to construction areas during construction and shall provide on-going
secondary access to the project. Prior to approval of any project site plan, the developer sball
obtain the approval of the Emergency Services Director and the County Traffic Engineer for
the timing, location, length, and design (e.g. width, construction, surface type) of the drive.
The developer agrees to not object to or obstruct connection of driveways and roadways from
adjacent properties to the project's secondary access driveway(s).
49. In the -event of discovery of any archaeological artifacts during project construction,
construction shall stop in the area of discovery and immediate notification provided to Indian
River County and the Division of Historical Resources in the Florida Department of State.
Proper protection shall be provided to the satisfaction of the Division.
50. The final site and building designs shall comply with the Florida Thermal Efficiency Code
Part VII, Chapter 553, Florida Statutes. To the maximum extent feasible the project shall
also incorporate measures identified in the Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council's
Regional Energy Plan dated May 1979, and the Strategic Regional Policy Plan.
51. The developer shall incorporate each of the 17 energy saving methods outlined in the
ENERGY section discussion of the Treasure Coast Regional Planning Councils Assessment
Report for the Horizon Outlet Center unless it can be demonstrated to the satisfaction of
Indian River County that individually each method is not cost effective.
52. SR 60 CORRIDOR PLAN
The project is subject to the requirements of the SR 60 Corridor Plan and related land
development regulations as adopted by the Indian River County Board of County
Commissioners.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, AS FOLLOWS:
1. Any modification or deviations from the approved plans or requirements of this
Development Order shall be submitted to the Community Development Director for a
determination by the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County and
Department of Community Affairs as to whether the change constitutes a substantial
deviation as provided in section 380.06(19), Florida Statutes. The Board of County
Commissioners of Indian River County shall make its determination of substantial deviation
at a public hearing after notice to the developer.
2. Indian River County shall monitor the development of the project to ensure compliance with
this Development Order. The Indian River County Community Development Director shall
be the local official assigned the responsibility for monitoring the development and enforcing
the terms of the Development Order. The Community Development Director may require
periodic reports of the developer with regard to any item set forth in this Development Order.
3. The developer shall make an annual report as required by Section 380.06(18), Florida
Statutes. The annual report shall be submitted each year on the anniversary date of the
adoption of the Development Order and shall include the following:
a. Any changes in the plan of development, or in the representations contained in the
Application for Development Approval, or in the phasing for the reporting Year and
for the next year,
b. A summary comparison of development activity proposed and actually conducted for
the year;
C. Unde%-eloped tracts of land that have been sold, transferred, or leased to a successor
developer;
d. Identification and intended use of lands purchased, leased, or optioned by the
developer adjacent to the original site since the Development Order was issued;
JUNE 291998
-54-
•
RESOLUTION NO. 98- 61
e. An assessment, listing the developer's and local government's compliance with each
of the conditions of approval contained in this Development Order and the
commitments specified in the Application for Development Approval and
summarized in the Regional Planning Council Assessment for the development
undertaken; This assessment shall include a list of each Development Order
condition number and a corresponding statement regarding the status of compliance
with that condition.
f. Any request for a substantial deviation determination that was filed in the reporting
year or is anticipated to be filed during the next year,
g. An indication of a change, if any, in local government jurisdiction for any portion of
the development since the Development Order was issued;
h. A list of significant local, state, and federal permits which have been obtained or
which are pending by agency, type of permit, permit number, and purpose of each;
i. The annual report shall be transmitted to Indian River County, the Treasure Coast
Regional Planning Council, the Florida Department of Community Affairs, the
Florida Department of Environmental Protection, the South Florida Water
Management District, and such additional parties as may be appropriate or required
by law;
j. A copy of any recorded notice of the adoption of a Development Order or the
subsequent modification of an adopted Development Order that was recorded by the
developer pursuant to Subsection 380.06(15), Florida Statutes; and,
k. Any other information requested by the Board of County Commissioners of Indian
River County or the Indian River Community Development Director to be included
in the annual report.
4. The definitions found in Chapter 380, Florida Statutes, shall apply to this Development
Order.
5. Indian River County hereby agrees that prior to December 31, 2009 the Horizon Outlet
Center Development of Regional Impact shall not be subject to down zoning, unit density
reduction, or intensity reduction, unless the County demonstrates that substantial changes in
the conditions underlying the approval of the Development Order have occurred, or that the
Development Order was based on substantially inaccurate information provided by the
developer, or that the change is clearly established by Indian River County to be essential to
the public health, safety, or welfare.
6. This Development Order shall be binding upon the developer and its assignees or successors
in interest. It is understood that any reference herein to any governmental agency shall be
construed to mean any future instrumentality which may be created and designated as
successor in interest to, or which otherwise possesses any of the powers and duties of any
referenced government agency in existence on the effective date of this Development Order.
7. The approval granted by this Development Order is conditional and shall not be construed
to obviate the duty of the developer to comply with all other applicable local, state, and
federal permitting requirements. —
8. In the event that any portion or section of this Development Order is deemed to be invalid,
illegal, or unconstitutional by a court ofcompetent jurisdiction, then this development shall
be required to obtain a substantial deviation determination.
9. This Development Order shall become effective upon final approval of the comprehensive
plan amendment associated with the project.
10. Certified copies of this Development Order shall be transmitted immediately by certified
mail to the Department of Community Affairs, the Treasure Coast Regional Planning
Council, and Horizon/Glen Outlet Centers Limited Partnerships.
JUNE 291998
0
-55- •
•
RESOLUTION NO. 98- 61
PASSED AND ADOPTED in a public hearing held on this the 2 day of_j u n e
1998.
The foregoing resolution was offered by Commissioner Adams who moved its
adoption. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Eggert , and upon being put to
a vote, the vote was as follows:
Chairman John W. Tippin Aye
Vice Chairman Kenneth R. Macht A y e
Commissioner Fran B. Adams Aye
Commissioner Carolyn K. Eggert Aye
Commissioner Caroline D. Ginn A y e
The Chairman thereupon declared the resolution duly passed and adopted this 2 day of
June ,1998.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF IND,4N RIVER COUNTY�
BY
John W. TiePin,
Board of County Commissioners
Z;�ATTEST
ffr Barton, Cler'
2 J
State of Florida
County of Indian River
I HEREBY CERTIFY that on this day, before me, and officer duly authorized in this State
and County to take acknowledgments, personally appeared JOHN W. TIPPIN, and
` as DEPUTY CLERK TO JEFFREY K. BARTON, as Chairman of the
Board of County Cohuniksioners and Clerk, respectively, to me known to be the persons described
in and who executed the foregoing instrument and they acknowledged before me that they executed
the same.
WITNESS my hand and official seal in the County and State as aforesaid this --? day of
. , Q A.D., 1998.
APPROVED AS TO LEGAL SUFFICIENCY
'C V C �
William G. Collins, 11
Deputy County Attorney
APWVED AS TO PLANNING MATTERS
obertM. ea ' g, AI
Community Development Direct
u\c\s\hoc2.res
JUNE 291998
-56-
az"1
Notary Public
jJ!!!!llNlJlJ)!)%)))l1NllII!!lJlJJl1!!JHlIpJY// .
<• Nott' %blic. Ste ofFWrW& ,
Comma=No.CCd 6M +:
aa0 *Cammi=MFa4xM13l1000
< �-�oasa�arNty. atatva,�saeeasoeapce.;:
1101-1'k
C.
C70
EXHIBIT 'A'
HORIZON OUTLET CENTER D.R.I.
00
O�
N
•
v'1
0
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
A PARCEL OF LAND LYING AND BEING IN TRACTS 10, 11, 14. 15, 16, SECTION 3, TOWNSHIP 33 SOUTH, RANGE 38 EAST, AND TRACTS 1, 2, 7, S. SECTION 10,
TOWNSHIP 33, RANGE 38 EAST, INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, ACCORDING TO THE LAST GENERAL PLAT OF LANDS OF INDIAN RIVER FARMS COMPANY AS
ca
RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 2, PAGE 25, PUBLIC RECORDS OF ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA AND NOW LYING AND BEING IN INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA SAID
PARCEL BEING DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
BEGIN AT A POINT WHERE THE EAST UNE OF THE AFORESAID TRACT 11 INTERSECTS WITH THE SOUTH RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF FLORIDA STATE ROAD 60; THENCE
RUN N8996'32"W ALONG THE SOUTH RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF STATE ROAD 60 A DISTANCE OF 375.00 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. THENCE FROM THE
POINT OF BEGINNING RUN S00'36'28'W A DISTANCE OF 200.00 FEET. THENCE RUN N89'16'32"W A DISTANCE OF 283.10 FEET; THENCE RUN S00'36'28"W A
DISTANCE OF 460.00 FEET; THENCE RUN S89 -16.32"E A DISTANCE OF 1,530.47 FEET TO INTERSECT WITH THE WESTERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY OF INTERSTATE 95;
THENCE RUN S25'52'34"E ALONG THE WESTERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY UNE OF INTERSTATE 95 A DISTANCE OF 349.23 FEET; THENCE RUN S16.48-31 "E A DISTANCE
OF 441.98 FEET TO A CURVE CONCAVE TO THE RIGHT HAVING A RADIUS OF 5,529.58 FEET THRU A CENTRAL ANGEL OF 18'42'57" AND AN ARC LENGTH OF
1,806.26 FEET, THENCE RUN S00'27'58"W A DISTANCE OF 2091.10 FEET. THENCE RUN N89'00'31"W AND LEAVING THE WESTERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY UNE OF
INTERSTATE 95 A DISTANCE OF 1,456.05 FEET; THENCE RUN NOO'35'17"E A DISTANCE OF 2,656.42 FEET, THENCE RUN N88'53'55"W A DISTANCE OF
147.58 FEET; THENCE RUN N88'56'19"W A DISTANCE OF 285.23 FEET, THENCE RUN N00'31'46"E A DISTANCE OF 139.73 FEET; THENCE RUN N64'42'28"E
A DISTANCE OF 317.28 FEET; THENCE RUN N00'36'28"E A DISTANCE OF 194.79 FEET; THENCE RUN N87'17'44"W A DISTANCE OF 286.07 FEET, THENCE
NOO'31'46"E A DISTANCE OF 281.43 FEET; THENCE RUN N89'28'IeW A DISTANCE OF 445.45 FEET, THENCE NOO'34'34"E A DISTANCE OF 1,168.98
FEET; THENCE N89'16'32"W A DISTANCE OF 441.97 FEET; THENCE RUN N00'36'28"E A DISTANCE OF 600.00 FEET TO INTERSECT WITH THE SOUTH RIGHT-
OF-WAY LINE OF STATE ROAD 60; THENCE S89'16'32"E ALONG THE SOUTH RIGHT-OF-WAY UNE OF STATE ROAD 60 A DISTANCE OF 943.10 FEET TO THE
POINT OF
oS
BEGINNING. SUBJECT TO ALL EASEMENTS OF RECORD. SAID PARCEL CONTAINING 182.841 ACRES.
t�
TOGETHER WITH AN ACCESS EASEMENT #30 BEING IN TRACT 11, SECTION 3, TOWNSHIP 33 SOUTH, RANGE 38 EAST, INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA,
•
O
ACCORDING TO THE LAST GENERAL PLAT OF LANDS OF INDIAN RIVER FARMS COMPANY AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 2, PAGE 25, PUBLIC RECORDS OF ST. LUCIE
Z
COUNTY, FLORIDA AND NOW LYING AND BEING IN INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA; BEGIN AT THE INTERSECTION OF THE EAST LINE OF TRACT 11 AND THE
SOUTH RIGHT-OF-WAY
UNE OF STATE ROAD 60; THENCE RUN N89'16'32W ALONG THE SOUTH RIGHT-OF-WAY UNE OF STATE ROAD 60 A DISTANCE OF 375.00
Z
FEET; THENCE LEAVING THE AFORESAID SOUTH RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF STATE ROAD 60 RUN S00'36'28"W A DISTANCE OF 200.00 FEET, THENCE RUN S8996'32"E
A DISTANCE OF 283.10 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING; FROM THE POINT OF BEGINNING RUN SOO'36'28"W A DISTANCE OF 460.00 FEET; THENCE RUN S8996'32"E
A DISTANCE OF 100.00 FEET; THENCE RUN NDO'36'28"W A DISTANCE OF 460.00 FEET; THENCE RUN N8916'32"W A DISTANCE OF 100.00 FEET TO THE
POINT OF BEGINNING.
TOGETHER WITH AN ACCESS EASEMENT #31 BEING IN TRACT 11, SECTION 3, TOWNSHIP 33 SOUTH, RANGE 38 EAST, INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA,
a
ACCORDING TO THE LAST GENERAL PLAT OF LANDS OF INDIAN RIVER FARMS COMPANY AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 2, PAGE 25, PUBLIC RECORDS OF ST. LUCIE
O
COUNTY, FLORIDA AND NOW LYING AND BEING IN INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA; BEGIN AT THE INTERSECTION OF THE EAST LINE OF TRACT 11 AND THE
SOUTH RIGHT-OF-WAY UNE OF STATE ROAD 60; THENCE RUN N89'16'32"W A DISTANCE OF 1,318.10 FEET, THENCE RUN S00'36'28"W AND LEAVING THE
SOUTH RIGHT-OF-WAY UNE OF STATE ROAD 60 A DISTANCE OF 660.00 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING.
FROM THE POINT OF BEGINNING OF AN ACCESS
EASEMENT CONTINUE S00'36'28"W A DISTANCE OF 415.16 FEET, THENCE RUN S89'23 -32"E A DISTANCE OF 442.19 FEET TO A POINT ON THE BOUNDARY OF
THE AFORE SAID 182.84 ACRE PARCEL; THENCE RUN N0034.34"E ALONG SAID PARCEL BOUNDARY FOR A DISTANCE OF 30.00 FEET, THENCE RUN
N89'23'32"W LEAVING SAID PARCEL BOUNDARY A DISTANCE OF 292.18 FEET TO A CURVE CONCAVE TO THE LEFT HAVING A RADIUS OF 70.00 FEET THRU A
CENTRAL ANGLE OF 90'00'00" AND AN ARC LENGTH OF 109.96' FEET ; THENCE RUN NOO'36'28"E A DISTANCE OF 315.00 FEET TO A POINT ON THE
BOUNDARY OF THE AFORE SAID 182.84 ACRE PARCEL; THENCE RUN N89'16'32"W ALONG SAID PARCEL BOUNDARY A DISTANCE OF 80.00 FEET TO THE POINT OF
BEGINNING. SAID EASEMENT CONTAINING 1.041 ACRES.
TOGETHER WITH AN ACCESS EASEMENT #32 BEING IN TRACTS 11, 14, SECTION 3, TOWNSHIP 33 SOUTH, RANGE 38 EAST, INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA.
ACCORDING TO THE LAST GENERAL PLAT OF LANDS OF INDIAN RIVER FARMS COMPANY AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 2, PAGE 25, PUBLIC RECORDS OF ST.
LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA AND NOW LYING AND BEING IN INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA; BEGIN AT THE INTERSECTION OF THE EAST UNE OF TRACT 11 AND
THE SOUTH RIGHT-OF-WAY UNE OF STATE ROAD 60; THENCE RUN N89'16'32"W A DISTANCE OF 1,318.10 FEET. THENCE RUN S0036'28"W AND LEAVING
THE SOUTH RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF STATE ROAD 60 A DISTANCE OF 1075.16 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. FROM THE POINT OF BEGINNING OF A 80 -FOOT
WIDE ACCESS EASEMENT OF WHICH THE WESTERLY AND SOUTHERLY LINES ARE DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS; CONTINUE S0036'28"W A DISTANCE OF 1511.26 FEET;
THENCE RUN S89'56'19"E A DISTANCE OF 889.14 FEET TO THE END. SAID EASEMENT CONTAINING 4.26* ACRES.
EXHIBIT 'A'
HORIZON OUTLET CENTER D.R.I.
00
O�
N
•
v'1
0
•
C
LEVE TABLE
oG DISTAN
L 525.5 34 349.23
S1648 31 E 441.98
L3 N8998 32 W 100.00
L4 S8916 32 100.00
L5 NW36 28 480.00
L8 A00'38480.00
7 N89 8 W MAO-,
L9 N00' 1 48 281.43
L10 N87'1 44 W 288.07
L11 N89'2814 W 445.46
L12 N8998 5
32 W 441.9
L13 '38 28 W 200.00
L14 N88'53 W 147.
L15 N00'3148 139.73
L18 N8833 55 W 215.23
L17 N84'42 28 317.28
L18NIW38 28 194.79
L19 N89'18 32 W 375.00
[211= VC TAA/ C
No.1 RADIUS LENGTH TAN. CHORD BEARING ELTA
C1 5529.58 1808.28 911.5 1798.24 N08'S3 30 W 18 42 5
C2 5529.58 1242.3T 823.81 1239.76' N11'48 4 W 12"52 23
3 5529.58 563.88' 282.19 553,647 N027 19 W 0530 34
1511.26'
80 -FOOT WIDE
ACCESS EASEMEP
--CA _1415_16'
r T_
ACC AS
I �EAS Ni
N00'34'34"E I �68.98'
PDA
i�
#31 � l_
00'36'28"E 660.00'
idful
I III
gni
CfII
I L -30 -FOOT WIDE
I ACCESS EASEMENT # r
I F m of
o1
L9 TRACT u I TRACT 11 LS v
`L. � EASEMENT ESS L13
I o. l o g0 p
FOUND #11 2 g I L18 I
O� t0
NOO'35'17*EE I � 56.42' nPN #3 09 I
I — — 4x4
-- —�—EAST LINE OF TRACT 11 --
I FOUND 4x4 i — — — — — —
CONCRETE
MONUMENT I '
I I
aZo I I I w
�C I I o
I �
TRACT 7 TRACT 2 TRACT 15 I TRACT 10
i I ELAAKEG I
--
IN--
I
FOUND I R.
CARM CAP -
IRON ROD de 7"5 — — • — — • — . — — IRON Roo — . — — .IRON -
CAP $39 9 S '2 8"W 2 91.10 CAP /39 C CAP i % — ' — — — -
------------------------------------------------------ r -_
-------------------------------------- Tffir►II�Li =___ ---------
------------------------------------- 117 ERSTATE = �3a - --------L-----------'
EXHIBIT 'A'
HORIZON OUTLET CENTER D.R.I.
rW,
P
z
vl
.off eooanunr / / olamamr
��..
-At= VaEmm
Poo -A
NorthWMW AM
WAM t• . 4W PHASE H
� �
EXHIBIT A �DN�yAn
HORIZON OUTLET CENTER D.R.I."04T
l o
vo 0 0 0 0
Z---------- ` I o 00 0
O ovumj aem+�os Bs -0 �.P 7HAs� a .. ,J Q 0 0 0 0
o 00 0
ue.>m. °a o
CA QW /� 0 �0 0
I I I l7.112 Ar.
m 6 d 6 a
a�
,sumo >II III 9 II PHASE II ( L mmuma a '0 0
0 0 '
P I /10 SII
PHASEH 1
I II I
EwsnNG °'.
ON a
EASEMENT
.,, mwm. rh� �AB�FA a.4r�
o,
KNIGHT, McGUIRE & ASSOCIATES, INC. cV
CONSULTING ENGINEERS AND PLANNERS
2901 CARDINAL DRIVE. VERO BEACH. FLORIDA 32963 (561) 231-2533
•
•
•
9.A.3. PUBLIC HEARING - ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER
306 OF THE CODE, MISCELLANEOUS OFFENSES AND
PROGRAMS, BY ADOPTING SECTION 306.12 "USE OF
AIRBOATS IN THE ST. SEBASTIAN RIVER"
PRESS -JOURNAL
Published Daily
Vero Beach, Indian River County, Florida
COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER: STATE OF FLORIDA
Before the undersigned personally appeared D" K Hicks who an
oath � that he Isis Presof � rpm B�
in Irxlian River County, Florida; that the attached copy of � being
a 1'tN 1 C I
In the Court, was pub-
•i /. i f '
1
Afflant further says that the said Press-Joumai is a newsrpaper ppm at Vero Beach, in
� published n Rim County,
aid Ri er Ca tty�Florid�a, each daUy�and has has heretofore
edemas
second dace mail matter at the post office in Vero Beach, In said Indian River Courdy, Florida,
fora period of year rvect preceding the first publication of the attached copy of
an and affiant further says that he has neiMer paid nor promised any person, firm
advert t f pttbnrebate, commission or refund for the purpose of searing this
°Swomlop and subscribed before me day 1g a ('
FAY .Q:y,.�,aas„y /t��
r- (President)
*: mrco.NraisstoHrxreses
�aaoaar of ss11 €
CGM�A. KIMBERLY ANNE SLAIS
Notary Public. State of Florida
My Commission Exp. JJaan.11, 2001
Comm. No
cc i V” a ' Personal) Knownl�ooY r Produced ID D
C. STF,'1. Y
Type of 10 Produced
JUNE 291998
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
A public hearing will be held by
the Board of County Commission-
ers of Indian River Count' to con-
sider the adoption of an ordinance
prohibiting the use of airboots on
the St. Sebastian River. • The public
hearing will be held at' 9:05 am.
on Tuesday, June 2, 1996 in the
County Commission Chambers at
1840 25th Street, Vero Beach,
Florida 32960. The title of the
proposed ordinance is
*AN ORDINANCE OF INDIAN
RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA,
AMENDING CHAPTER 306 OF
THE CODE, MISCELLANEOUS
OFFENSES AND PROGRAMS, BY
ADOPTING SECTION 306.121
'USE OF AIRBOATS IN THE ST.
SEBASTIAN RIVER:"
The proposed ordinance may be.
inspected by the public during reg-
ular business hours at the Office of
the Clerk to .the Board of County
Commissioners, 1840 25th Street,
Vero Beach, Florida.
Interested parties may appear at
that meeting and be heard with
respect to the proposed ordinance.
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 pro•
ceedings is made, which includes
testimony and evidence upon which
the appeal is based.
Anyone who needs a special
accommodation for this meeting
may contact the County's Amerl-
cons with -Disabilities Act (ADA)
Coordinator at 567-8000, Ext. 223
at Ieast'48 hours in advance of the
meeting.
" John W. Tippin, Chairman
Indian River County
Board of
Corny Commissionersr
May 14,1998 1341456
A
The Board reviewed Memoranda of May 25, 1998 and June 1, 1998:
TO: James E. Chandler
County Administrator
DEPARTMENT BEAD CONCURRENCE:
Robert M. 19, AI PZ7
Community Developmen Dir
FROM: - Roland M. DeB1oCP
Chief, Environmental Planning
DATE: May 25, 1998
RE: PROPOSED ORDINANCE RESTRICTING AIRBOATS
IN TBE ST. SEBASTIAN RIVER
It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal consideration by the Board of County
Commissioners at its meeting of June 2, 1998.
Overview
Over the past several months, county staff has received complaints from residents in the Roseland area about
a recently established business, Airboat Wilderness Tours, that gives airboat tours of the St. Sebastian River.
The business, consisting of two airboats, is owned by Mr. Robert Taylor. One of the airboats is ± 33 feet long
and is designed to hold up to 35 passengers. Mr. Taylor reportedly operates his business out of two locations:
"Skidmore Marina" in the City of Sebastian and "Sand Pointe Marina" in Micco (in Brevard County).
Complaints received by county staff relate largely to noise nuisance. Other concerns raised by complainants
include: speed zone violations (the St. Sebastian River is designated a slow speed zone); boating safety (e.g.,
compatibility with canoeists and other boaters); and impacts on wildlife.
The matter was considered by the County Marine Advisory/Narrows Watershed Action Committee
(MANWAC) at its meetings in March and April, 1998 (minutes attached). At those meetings, MANWAC
discussed what actions, if any, the County should take to address the referenced issues. The meetings were
attended by approximately 30 of the complainants. The auboat business owner, Mr. Taylor, attended and
provided input at the April, 1998 MANWAC meeting, as well. As a result of those meetings, MANWAC
voted 8 to 3 to recommend that the Board adopt the attached proposed ordinance, which would prohibit
airboats in the Indian River County portion of the St. Sebastian River. MANWAC also recommended that
the County coordinate with Brevard County and request that Brevard consider adopting similar auboat
restrictions on portions of the river in Brevard County. (The Brevard County Commission recently held a
public meeting to discuss the issue, but postponed action pending Indian River County's consideration of
the matter).
As such, this matter is now being presented to the Board of County Commissioners for its consideration
regarding adoption of the attached proposed ordinance.
Proposed Ordinance
The proposed ordinance is based on a City of Melbourne ordinance that restricts the use of personal
watercraft (PWC) and airboats within the municipal limits of the City of Melbourne. The proposed
ordinance for Indian River County prohibits the mooring, as well as the operation, of an airboat within the
St. Sebastian River. As drafted, the ordinance is proposed to be an addition to Section 306.12 of the County
Code, and reads as follows:
The operation or mooring of an airboat in any open water, tidal water, or riverine wetland area along
the portion of the St. Sebastian River lying within Indian River County is hereby prohibited. For the
purpose of this section, an airboat shall be defined as a watercraft propelled by an engine, motor or other
propulsion system which atiUzes a propeller, fan or blade which is not normally submerged below the
water surface upon which the craft operates and which is commonly known as an "airboat."
JUNE 291998
-58-
•
Issues
A number of issues were raised and discussed at the MANWAC meetings concerning airboat use of the St.
Sebastian River, and whether or not it is appropriate for the County to adopt an ordinance restricting airboats
in the river. A summary of the issues is as follows:
• Is enforcement of existing regulations (i.e., slow speed zones, noise regulations) sufficient
to address the concerns of airboat use on the St. Sebastian River?
• Is there empirical evidence that airboats adversely affect wildlife, are a noise nuisance, and
are a safety concern on the St. Sebastian River, distinguished from other types of boats, such
that it justifies a specific prohibition of airboats vs. other types of boats on the river?
• Does the County have the authority to regulate airboats (or other boats) on the St Sebastian
River?
• Should the County consider other alternatives, such as prohibiting all types of motor driven
boats on portions of (or all of) the river, or prohibit all boats over a certain size or with
motors over a certain horsepower on portions of the river.
These issues are discussed and explored in the analysis section of this memorandum.
Legal Authority
According to Sections 327.22 and 327.60, Florida Statutes, local governments have the authority to regulate
vessels in accordance with specific conditions (see the attached memorandum dated April 30, 1998, from
Deputy County Attorney Will Collins). Existing speed zone regulations are enforced by the Sheriffs -Office,
Florida Marine Patrol TMP) and the Florida Game and Freshwater Fish Commission (GFC). The U.S. Coast
Guard is responsible for certifying watercraft, and enforcing federal safety and operating regulations.
Florida Statutes restrict noise associated with vessels to 90 decibels, measured 50 feet from the source.
According to county attorney staff Florida Statutes preempt local governments from adopting stricter decibel
level prolubitions. County staff the Florida Marine Patrol, and the County Sheriff's Department have
attempted to monitor the Wilderness AkWat Tours business to determine if violations of the 90 decibel level
have occurred. However, no violations of the 90 decibel threshold have been documented by these agencies
to date.
According to county attorney staff~ for local government restrictions to be defensible in court, the restrictions
must serve a legitimate public purpose, and must be structured as narrowly as possible to serve the intended
purpose. Therefore, if the County is to adopt restrictions affecting use of the St Sebastian River, the scope
of the restrictions must be justified as the minimum necessary to serve the specific public purpose.
Noise Nuisance
The main complaints received by county staff relate to noise associated with airboat usage of the St
Sebastian River. As discussed at the MANWAC meetings, noise complaints arose when tour business
airboats operated at higher than slow speed, or when the airboats' engines were gunned for the vessels to
negotiate tums, particularly in windy conditions. It was discussed at the MANWAC meetings that the main
source of the noise, rather than the engine itself, is the propeller cutting the air at high speed.
According to airboat manufacturers, an airboat is capable of producing noise up to 120 decibels (a sound
similar to a siren at 10 feet) when operated at full throttle, as heard by the airboat operator. Most airboat
noise is attributed to the fan or blade. According to the Florida Marine Patrol, when an airboat is operated
at slow speed and with the proper sound reducing equipment installed, it makes noise similar to that of a boat
with an outboard marine engine.
Indian River County's Noise Ordinance (Chapter 974 of the County Code) limits peak noise levels in
residential zoning districts to 80 dBA (A -Scale decibels), and to 75 dBA in conservation zoning districts
(which applies to the St Sebastian River Buffer Preserve, on the west side of the river). Sound of a longer
duration (i.e., 7'/z minutes at a time) is limited to 60 dBA and 55 dBA, respectively. However, because the
State preempts local governments from setting noise limits lower than 90 dBA, the County ordinance levels
are unenforceable with regard to airboats (and other boats) on the river. Therefore, although the county may
receive complaints of noise nuisance associated with airboats on the river, the County is legally constrained
from taking enforcement action, unless the 90 dBA threshold is breeched, which has yet to be documented
Wildlife Impacts
Residents who live along the St. Sebastian River have expressed concems that the airboat tour business is
having a detrimental effect on wildlife associated with the river. The concerns relate to noise and "prop
wash" impacts to wildlife. However, these claims has not been substantiated County staff has searched the
Internet for information on noise impacts to wildlife. Most studies found related to aircraft noise as it affects
wildlife at national parks. The general conclusion is that noise impacts vary among wildlife species
depending upon such factors as temperament, sex, age and prior experience with noise; time of year (e.g.,
nesting season); and whether other physical stressors (e.g., drought, habitat depletion) are present Other
variables include the level and duration of the noise in question. Concerning impacts to manatees, which
frequent the St Sebastian River, there is no justification to distinguish airboats from other types of boats
regarding potential impacts to manatees.
JUNE 211998
Due to the complexity of the issue, there are insufficient data to support a finding that wildlife is being
adversely affected by airboats on the river. Moreover, airboats are allowed to operate in other environmental
sensitive areas, such as the SL Johns Upper River Basin, and it would be difficult to justify prohibiting
airboats on the St. Sebastian River due to wildlife impacts while at the same time allowing airboats to use
the upper basin.
Boating Safety
Another issue raised concerning airboats on the SL Sebastian Riva is boating safety. The SL Sebastian River
is a popular canoeing and kayaking area, and the issue is the compatibility of airboats and canoes,
particularly in the narrow sections of the river. Airboats do not have `reverse," and the prop wash from an
airboat attempting to tum or negotiate a narrow turn of the river could adversely affect someone in a canoe.
This is a particular concern if the canoeist is a novice and is not an accomplished swimmer. Staff's position
is that this is a legitimate concern, particulary relating to large boats with limited maneuverability in narrow
portions of the river.
A review of blueprint aerials of the south prong of the SL Sebastian River reveals that the river is relatively
wide (±250 feet or wider) north of Dale Wimbrow Park (off Roseland Road). South of Dale Wimbrow Park,
the river ranges from 100 to 250 feet wide for approximately 1 S (linear) miles, to the vicinity of Shiloh
Youth Ranch and Boy Scout Camp Oklawaha. South of that point, the river narrows to approximately 50
feet It is staff's position that, from a boat safety stand point, prohibiting all boats over a certain length (i.e.,
25 feet) in the portion of the river ± 50 feet wide is justifiable.
Enforcement
In response to numerous complaints about the subject airboats violating speed zone regulations, the Florida
Marine Patrol (FMP) and Sheriff's Office have increased on -water patrols of the St Sebastian River. On
April 1, 1998, the FMP issued a citation (#U183387), fining one of the Wilderness Tour airboat operators
S50 for operating on a plane (watercraft are not allowed to plane in slow speed zones). However, since only
two FMP officers are assigned to a combined area of South Brevard County and Indian River County, and
the Sheriffs Office has only two officers dedicated to on -water patrols, there is not adequate personnel to
patrol the SL Sebastian River on a regular basis. Staff contacted FMP staff for an estimate of what it would
cost to fund an additional marine patrol unit, and it was estimated that it would cost approximately $100,000
for start-up costs (staff and equipment), and approximately $75,000 per year thereafter (staff, equipment
maintenance, and fuel).
Prohibition of Airboats vs. Other Boats
If the County is to consider prohibiting airboats from using the SL Sebastian River, while allowing other
types of boats to remain, the County needs to justify adverse impacts specific to airboats vs. other types of
boats. In researching the matter, staff did not find any empirical data to conclude that an airboat has any
more adverse impact on wildlife than other boats. Regarding noise, an anboat, traveling at the required slow
speed, does not violate the noise limit of 90 -decibels measured at 50 feet Concerning large boats in the
narrow section of the river, all large boats (not just airboats) are a safety issue from the stand point of
compatibility with canoes and kayaks.
Alternatives
There are a number of action alternatives that the County can consider, including the following:
No action (status quo)
• '. Adopt the attached draft ordinance prohibiting the operation of all airboats in the SL
Sebastian River.
• Adopt a modified version of the ordinance to restrict all watercraft that exceed a designated
size within the narrow portions of the St Sebastian River (i.e., prohibit all vessels 25 feet
long or longer in portions of the river ±50 feet wide, south of Shiloh Youth Ranch and Boy
Scout Camp Oklawaha).
• Cooperate with Brevard County, the FMP and GFC to increase enforcement of existing
regulations, including budgeting for additional Sheriffs marine patrol units.
Staff s position is that there are insufficient data to justify prohibiting airboats (only) from the St Sebastian
River, notwithstanding auboat size and speed zone compliance. Based on safety factors, however, it appears
justifiable to prohibit all vessels over a certain length (25 feet) in the narrow (50 foot wide) portion of the
river. Moreover, an increased enforcement presence is needed in the river to enforce existing slow speed
zones, which will in tuna abate noise nuisance.
Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners not adopt the attached proposed airboat
ordinance. Instead, staff recommends that the Board adopt an ordinance prohibiting all vessels 25 feet or
more in length on the portion of the river ±50 feet wide or less (south of Boy Scout Camp Oklawaha).
Moreover, staff recommends that the Board direct staff to coordinate with the Sheriffs Department, to
determine the cost of funding an additional marine patrol unit for the SL Sebastian River area, and report
back to the Board.
JUNE 2,1998
-60-
0 0
•
MEMORANDUM
To: Board of County Commissioners
From: Alice White
Date: June 1, 1998
Subject: Airboat tours on Sebastian River
We have received 16 letters asking that the Board of County Commissioners
ban airboats on the Sebastian River.
Chief of Environmental Planning Roland DeBlois noted that staff has received a
number of complaints about the speed zones being violated, boating safety, the impact on
wildlife, and the main complaint has been about the noise. MANWAC voted 8 to 3 to
recommend the Board consider adopting an ordinance prohibiting airboats. They also
recommended coordination of efforts with Brevard County. Brevard County held a public
meeting but postponed any action to await this Board's action. The proposed ordinance
would prohibit all airboats.
Mr. DeBlois reviewed staff s memorandum and noted that staff has not found that
airboats have significantly more impact on the wildlife m the area than other vessels. With
the aid of the ELMO, Mr. DeBlois went over the description of the area involved and noted
the various widths of the river at differing points. Airboats cannot go into reverse and the
narrow river is a concern, particularly as to canoes and kayaks. Staff has met with the
Department of Environmental Protection, Fish & Game Department, the Sheriffs
Department and Marine Patrol, and all enforcement agencies have stepped up enforcement.
Commissioner Ginn noted that the City of Melbourne has an ordinance prohibiting
airboats on tributaries of the river.
County Attorney Vitunac advised he had talked to Melbourne's City Attorney who
had no knowledge of the ordinance but checked and advised it was passed in 1984 and never
had been an issue.
Commissioner Ginn stated she had been on an airboat and things really do not get
interesting until you get very close to the banks. She also noted that they are very noisy.
The Chairman opened the public hearing and asked if anyone wished to be heard
regarding this matter.
JUNE 291998
-61-�''' iSGt.
E
n`IK l5 �✓?�C. V l9
Newell Ridenahour, 271 Edwards Road, Melbourne, read the following letter from
Leroy Wright, Regional Director of the Florida Wildlife Federation and President of
S.A.V.E. the St. Johns River, Inc.:
.�; SOL File St. Johns River, Inc.
4045 Edgewood Place
Cocoa, Florida 32926
414
31 May 1998
Boas o6 County Commi6sionm RECEIVED
Bttevaui County, Floaida JUN - 2 1998
CLERK TO THE BOARD
Dealt mem4evs o6 the Commis,t n:
An issue 06 agnifcant importance to the membem o6 S.A.V.E. the St. Johns
Rivett, Inc. and the Ftotida WitdQe Fedettation (FWF) i6 upcoming bor. de6axe 4y
the commission.
The i66ue bs avi4oatueg on the Se4astian Rive:. My in depth lrnowiedge 06
how this 466ue came a4ma is timited. howeved.. the matted, is moot W iiou6. I
undedstand Indian Rived. County WM 6e discussing the matt" on 2 June.
The eonCe4n 06 ow. organizations deab quiet simply with the use 06 any
otdinance fly a county gove4nment to 4an 4"oating on pu4Ue waterwayb slowing
tMttough county 40und44iei6. Regulations attteady exist that add%m noise pot(ution.
16 citizens have complained that aWoats ettode the dwreline, the aWoat6 dispe4se
te6s tuatett than oth" float, (such as my 20 -boot, 1,800 pound, 200 HP 4a66 float).
Please. do not 64vie out die ar4oateA _6&t any flan 06 We on the Sabastian Rivett.
The 42.000 plus ouppoaters o6 ou4 two gwupo could not accept such a pteeedent
netting ordinance.
I #navel much over the 20 -county area o6 central Florida in pe%6orining my
duties bot the Flotilla WUdUk Fed"ation and S.A.V.E. I have fust netuRned Wm a
two-day con6ownce in Ocala with the Board 06 Directors o6 the FWF, wh4ke outt
60cus was on "Use o6 PuUic Lands and Wates o6 the State". I wU4 6e out-06-6tate
until 10 June and cannot mend the heaWW in Veto Beach. Mem4eh6 o6 ou4 am4
"Oat dAA6 wild &e in attendance and voice WA o6lection to any additi.onat
ordinancers, and in paUicatft any e65ort W single out the aiUoateu.
Pt¢ase, do not 6uppo4t any ordinance that Jars 04 ttestuc S ak4oating on the
Sa"gian Riven. I trust the 40attd will act properly to ensutte the 6%eedom 06 aU
citizens to enjoy thein, own type 06 6oating in F1(04ida Ovate%.
As I uM 4e traveling tomorttow. and do not have the nameis and addles 06
the Indian Rived, County comm456ioned6. a copy o6 " ietteti wM 6e pwAented to
the 4oatd on 2 June.
Reis
ey: Indian Rivett County
Commission
LeA yMtight. Regional Diteet&%. FWF/
Phz6ident, S.A.V.i=. the St. Johns Rivett. Inc.
SAVE - Sportsmen A&st Violatine the Fnvir mrnt
JUNE 291998
0
-62- •
and advised that he also represents the Florida Airboat Association. He was against any
ordinance prohibiting airboats but felt a restriction where the river is narrow would be
acceptable. You can see a lot more from airboats and adequate laws are already in place.
Robert Taylor, 1140 US#1, the owner and operator of the airboat operation being
discussed, clarified some of the complaints received. He noted that in the wide part of the
river one of the captains received a citation for speeding but did not know that was a
restricted area. He felt the objections to the noise were unjustified as the airboats make less
than 40 decibels. Also, airboats can be turned in a space equal to their length and do not
make a wake in excess of that made by a powerboat. Also, there is no propeller in the water
to endanger manatees. He believed that Fish & Wildlife had done a study that showed that
airboats in no way harm wildlife unless they go into a rookery in mating season. Mr. Taylor
enumerated several threats he has received and noted that he has been in business for 49
years and has received several environmental awards. After some discussion regarding the
various economic and political theories, he noted that morality cannot be legislated and felt
it was unfair to single out his business to try to stop without justification.
Joel Keen, 685 4' Street, did not believe the business should be condemned because
of a few complaints.
Ian Cunnningham, Secretary of Micco Homeowners Association, requested that the
Board assist the residents because of the noise which threatens the tranquility of the natural
setting. The Association strongly opposes the airboat operation.
William Meyers, 126 South Pine Street, Fellsmere, a member of the Indian River
County Boat Association, opposed any new regulations. He believed the Sheriff should be
given whatever he needs to enforce these problems. He asked the Board not to take away
any more rights and to be cognizant of the fact that any decision they make will affect the
entire Florida east coast.
Commissioner Ginn asked whether Mr. Meyers had ever taken an airboat into a
tributary in the Melbourne area, and Mr. Meyers responded that he had never been stopped
for anything in Brevard County.
JUNE 291998
h ,; M• ii .,., r I d��pJ
Li
Lee Skinner,12800 82 d Court; Roseland, just moved to the area from California and
believed that responsibility is inherent in freedom. She felt that one man is destroying other
people's ability to operate airboats and other people's peace and quiet. The airboats start
next door to her and she believed that Mr. Taylor is operating his business out of his home.
She asked the Board to please protect one of few remaining quiet areas in the world.
Frank Wegel, 8060 142 Street, of Friends of St. Sebastian River, presented the
following Memorandum of May 18, 1998:
4vDso� RECEIVED
JUN - 3 1998
friend,s of St. Sebastian Diver
CLERK TO THE 80ffi%1e1mt)m
P. O. Box 284 . Roseland, Florida 32957 Com. ; bnnrs
RECEIV ��n'su"'-
�9 A� MAY 2 2 1998 Rfts c ne rks
May 18, 1998
BOARD OF COUNTY ��Community DCI.
�
TO: Indian River Conary Commissioners COMMISSION Rnance
FROM: Board of Directors, Friends of St. Sebastian River OMB
RE: Proposed ordinance regarding airboats on the St. Sebastian River Emsf& SM.
R!Wr ; gt
OiliGl _
The Board of Directors of the Friends of St. Sebastian River have passed the folio
resolution, by unanimous vote on April 14, 1998:
Resolve, the FWends of St Sebastian River oppose and request the banning of
the operation of any and all airboau on the St Sebastian River, as a totally
inappropriate use of the river.
The Friends are in full support of an ordinance to prohibit the use of airboats on the
St. Sebastian River, except for the purpose of law enforcement.
The operation of airboats on the St. Sebastian River is contrary to the established
character of its riverfront communities, as a tributary to the Indian River Lagoon
National Estuary system, as a State of Florida Aquatic Preserve, and as a designated
year-round manatee slow speed zone. Considering the proximity of the surrounding
communities and wildlife preserves, and the significance of the St. Sebastian River to
the aquatic ecosystems, we feel that appropriate usage of the river requires minimal
impact.
We view the negative impacts of the operation of an airboat on the St. Sebastian as 1)
excessive noise level, 2) speed inappropriate to the manatee slow speed zone, 3) speed
and lack of maneuverability that could endanger the use of small and unpowered boats
on the river, such as canoes, 4) speed that produces a wake resulting in excessive
erosion, and 5) disturbance and harassment of wildlife on the adjoining Buffer
Preserve.
The use of airboats on the St. Sebastian River for wildlife viewing seems especially
inappropriate. The Friends certainly encourage the use of the St. Sebastian for passive
recreational activities and the appreciation of the riverine ecosystems and its wildlife.
Therefore, we strongly oppose the use of 2.irboats and encourage the use of watercraft
more compatible with wildlife habitats.
JUNE 211998
C:
•
Mr. Wegel then presented a Petition bearing 202 signatures
PETITION RECEIVED
JUN - 2 1998
CLERK TO THE BOARD
AS RESIDENTS AND CONCERNED CITIZENS OF THE ST. SEBASTIAN
RIVER AREA WE WISH TO PROTEST THE OPERATION OF A 35 PASS-
ENGER AIRBOAT IN THE SOUTH AND NORTH PRONGS OF THE ST.
SEBASTIAN RIVER, A CONSERVATION AREA AND AQUATIC PRESERVE.
WE ALSO BELIEVE THIS AIRBOAT IS NOT IN COMPLIANCE WITH
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY'S NOISE ORDINANCE NO.90 16 1 9/11/90.
NAME ADDRESS TEL,
C. a �.�•S_ >/
C �GSC(Qnd JCd. � DS I:2 Y] 1 �L aS �--�SL.aZ
r
ORIGINAL PETITIONS ARE ON FILE IN THE OFFICE
OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD
Mr. Wegel asked the Board to consider that the zoning along the river is residential
and the river is a back street to the people who live there. He questioned whether the Board
would allow trucks making that amount of noise in that neighborhood.
George Koraly, 986 Riverview Drive, Micco, noted there is no question the airboats
have an affect on the environment. The prop blast blows into the underbrush where
songbirds are nesting and he believed the airboats should be banned.
Pat Beega, 10895 Roseland Road, believed everyone -has rights but when one
improperly uses the waterway, it creates hazardous conditions for others. Cautions should
be posted for the small boats using the area as well as the Boy Scouts in 6 man canoes.
These airboats have no reverse and no way to stop. He believed if the wilderness tours are
allowed to continue, there will be accidents. The majority of people in his community see
this as a safety problem and believe if airboats were operating in the vicinity of Johns Island
we would not be here discussing this. He urged the Board to ban the airboats.
JUNE 211998
-65- �,r .1 •fid
Frank DeJoia, 11625 Roseland Road, of Friends of the St. Sebastian River,
commented that they were very proud of the lobbying they did to get 20,000 acres set aside
as a buffer preserve, including a lot of shoreline on the North and South Prongs of the river.
There have never been complaints about airboats until 2 months ago when Mr. Taylor began
his operation. They are not against boats and applaud the County in its efforts to develop
a canoe launch site. The river is a great resource and he pleaded with the Board not to
abandon the residents.
Jean Limbrick,13325 Bay Street, works as a waitress and has a very small old house
which she has come close to losing several times. She believed she could sell the property
and make a tidy profit but this is their piece of heaven on earth. They go down on their dock
everyday to observe the wildlife. She believed it is very unlikely that Mr. Taylor's guests
can see, much less hear, any wildlife, and felt that if the Board does not act to appreciate and
protect the area, more airboats will come.
Maggie Bowman, former County Commissioner, member of MANWAC and the
Audubon Society, pointed out that this public nuisance deflates property values. She asked
the Board to support the ban.
Joan Reed, 12875 Bay Street, President of Association of Roseland Property Owners,
presented the following letter dated April 21, 1998:
RECEIVED Association of Roseland
Property Owners
JP.U. bux J01
UN - 31998
Roseland, Florida 32957
CLERK TO THE BOARD April 21, 1998
Indian River Coanty RECEIVED
Board of County Commissioners
1840 25th Street
Vero Beach, Florida MAY 2 7 1998
Att'n: Mrs. Caroline Ginn
BOARD OF COUNTY
Dear Mrs. Ginn, COMMISSION
At the March meeting of the Association of Roseland Property
Owners, there was a lengthy discussion concerning the use of airboats
on the St. Sebastian River. It was resolved by the membership to
support any ordinance prohibiting the use of these craft on the
river, and to go on public record as opposed to their use there.
JUNE 291998
-66-
0 0
I
We feel that the impact on the sensitive environment of the St.
Sebastian River is tremendous. From close residents' and other
members' accounts the noise will drive out every living thing if
airboat traffic is permitted there. The noise can conservatively
be heard for a half -mile. As the river narrows, the sound becomes
horrendous.
It was agreed unanimously to stand up and protect an ecosystem
that is priceless and non-renewable. We hope you will do all
you can to help us preserve it.
Very Sincerely,
Joan Reed, President
Association of Roseland
Property Owners
Ms. Reed stated that the Association of Roseland Property Owners has resolved to
support the ordinance banning use of the airboats and hoped the Board will do all within its
power to help them preserve their neighborhood.
Lynn Stieglitz, Riverview Drive, Micco, property owner and on the Board of
Directors of Friends of the St. Sebastian River, asked that all airboats be banned. These
boats do not belong in the St. Sebastian River. There are not many places where canoes and
kayaks can go except in this area and airboats create great damage, along with the noise. He
emphasized the quality of life in the area and the birds being chased away by the noise.
Warren Dill, Attorney and property owner on Roseland Road, asked for regulation
of watercraft. He believed that sufficient time has not been spent on the other alternatives
to banning all airboats and requested that the Board instruct staff to look further into the
matter and develop a responsible plan to regulate all watercraft. The County recently
purchased about 90 acres from Dr. Fischer as a measure to preserve and protect the river in
its natural state. Airboats create noise, wind thrust, and have a distinct lack of
maneuverability. They are not compatible with the area.
Sharon Tyson, 169 Platt Avenue, is considered a manatee expert for the state and
federal governments, and believed that the Board will have far more commercial traffic
unless the issue is addressed now. She is employed at the buffer preserve and has conducted
research for the last 10 years. She believed the river widths are even narrower because the
heavy concentration of manatees have only about 35 feet to maneuver. The manatees have
JUNE 291998
s-
E�O:'t
to run ahead of the boats to get out of the way. She asked the Board to think of the noise
from an underwater perspective. Manatees have the ability to hear boats from 100 meters
away. 120 horsepower boats put out 100 kilobytes of noise and the manatees do react. In
confined waters, they willreact even more as sound travels through water better than through
air. She asked the Board to consider restricting larger vessels and certain horsepower sizes.
Sharon Anderson, 1933 126' Avenue, a private airboat owner, felt the picture
presented of the airboat impact on the wildlife is not true. She believed that manatees are
endangered by propellers, not by airboats. She asked that the Board not penalize everyone
because of one man's actions and asked that they consider having a workshop, preferably in
the evening.
Walt Stieglitz, 9847 Riverside Drive, represented the Pelican Island Preservation
Society and strongly supported the ordinance. He believed this is a real safety hazard which
needs to be eliminated. He also believed the operation has created a significant wildlife
problem.
Holly Dill, 11675 Roseland Road, spoke about conservation and protection issues
saying that the St. Sebastian River is a peaceful gem whose residents are now being subjected
to the loud powerful noise of the airboat motors. She also spoke on enforcement issues,
asking whether the Board would be funding a boat and deputy to enforce the laws. She
asked the Board to do the right thing and get the large airboat off the river.
Wallace Kramer, 960 Mockingbird Lane, noted various incidents which had
occurred as the result of Mr. Taylor's airboat operation on the river. One complaint was that
of a woman whose house interior had been soaked by the backwash of the airboat. He had
made a video illustrating the wake and noise and nuisance generated by the airboat and had
presented it to staff previously.
Bruce Jacobs, 9630 Riverview Drive, a resident of the wide part of the river, told of
eagles which used to sit atop tall pine trees near his home, using them as observation posts
for fishing in the river. Since the large airboat began its tours, the eagles have gone.
JUNE 291998
-68-
• 0
Kathryn Wegel, 8060142" d Street, Sebastian, stated that injuries to manatees are not
just caused by propellers, but also by impact. She lives in the wide section of the river and
had never seen an airboat until Mr. Taylor started his operation. The noise is great. She
emphasized that she is not trying to take away Mr. Taylor's living but felt the St. Sebastian
River is inappropriate for airboats.
Katherine Henderson, 11120 CR -507, Fellsmere, had canoed on the river. She
favored enforcing the laws already in place and not passage of new laws.
Mr. Taylor asked to respond and took issue with several statements made by the
people. He did not believe his boat makes that much noise. He did admit that one of his
captains did violate the law and paid his ticket; however, high speed is not necessary for
turns by the airboats. He called it ridiculous that one of his boats could have flooded
someone's house. He commented that earmuffs are supplied to his passengers for protection
from the whining noise of the motors but many do not wear them. He did not believe that
his airboats impact wildlife and stated that when an airboat goes over a manatee, it does not
injure it. He also would like to see strict enforcement of the laws.
Commissioner Ginn asked Mr. Taylor about the horsepower of his airboats, and he
replied they are 475 horsepower.
Commissioner Ginn reported that she had gone incognito on one of Mr. Taylor's
ecotours and found the airboat to be operated in a cautious manner. She did see a threat to
the river banks and did not see much wildlife. She inquired about the storage of Mr. Taylor's
airboats, and he advised that he keeps them on the river by his home when they are not in
use.
Commissioner Adams asked to hear from Ruth Stanbridge who was in the audience
and is with the Freshwater Fish and Game Commission.
Ruth Stanbridge advised that the Fish and Game Commission has never made a
specific study of effects of boating on the wildlife on the St. Sebastian River.
The Chairman asked if anyone else wished to be heard regarding this matter. There
being none, the Chairman closed the public hearing.
JUNE 291998
Commissioner Ginn believed that there will be a problem if the Board does not
proceed with caution and warned that ecotours are on the rise.
Vice Chairman Macht agreed with Commissioner Ginn's concerns and was not in
favor of restricting anything until there has been an opportunity to research the matter from
all standpoints.
Commissioner Adams did not agree. She felt this is a compatibility issue that Mr.
Taylor's operation brought to the forefront and did not believe the County would be out of
line to guard the buffer preserve. She suggest prohibiting anything over 5 horsepower (e.g.
trolling motor).
Vice Chairman Macht believed something should be done to control the problem but
felt more information is needed.
Mr. DeBlois interjected that prohibition of anything over 5 horsepower would impact
many of the riverside residents with pleasure boats docked at their property.
County Attorney Vitunac suggested the Board could pass the ordinance as presented
and modify it later if they wished.
MOTION was made by Commissioner Adams to
adopt the proposed ordinance with a modification
that only airboats above 400 horsepower be banned
in the St. Sebastian River, bringing the item back for
further restrictions in the future.
MOTION FAILED FOR LACK OF A SECOND.
Director Keating assured the Board that staff had tried to find all the studies that had
been done. He suggested the Board direct staff to come back with an ordinance adopting the
State's criteria of 90 decibels and authorize them to meet with the Sheriff's offices of both
Indian River and Brevard Counties in an effort to get more enforcement of the current law.
Chairman Tippin felt that ecotourism is growing and is not going to go away.
Commissioner Adams stated that the concerns about personal watercraft use on lakes
is just beginning.
Mr. Taylor asked if the ordinance would mean that he cannot dock his airboats at his
property on the river, and Chairman Tippin informed him that the public part of the meeting
had been closed and he could ask this question of the County Attorney after the meeting.
JUNE 291998
-70-
ON MOTION by Commissioner Macht,
SECONDED by Commissioner Ginn, the Board
unanimously adopted Ordinance 98-013 amending
Chapter 306 of the Code, Miscellaneous Offenses
and Programs, by Adopting Section 306.12 "Use of
Airboats in the St. Sebastian River".
ORDINANCE NO. 98- 13
AN ORDINANCE OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY,
FLORIDA, AMENDING CHAPTER 306 OF THE
CODE, MISCELLANEOUS OFFENSES AND
PROGRAMS, BY ADOPTING SECTION 306.12
"USE OF AIRBOATS IN THE ST. SEBASTIAN
RIVER".
WHEREAS, Section 327.60 and Section 327.22 of Florida Statutes allow
the adoption of ordinances relating to the operation of vessels; and
WHEREAS, Indian River County expends money for the patrol,
regulation, and maintenance of lakes, rivers, or waters and for other boating
related activities in this County; and
WHEREAS, the operation of airboats on the St. Sebastian River has
resulted in the damaging of property and the erosion of the shoreline; and
WHEREAS, the St. Sebastian River will be properly marked as a
restricted area in accordance with Section 327.40, Florida Statutes,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that:
SECTION 1. ADOPTION OF SECTION 306.12.
Section 306.12 of the Indian River County Code is hereby adopted as
follows:
Section 306.12. Use of airboats in the St Sebastian River.
(1) Purpose and intent.
It shall be the purpose of this section:
(a) to protect the terrestrial and aquatic resources of the St.
Sebastian River, including the Florida manatee and nesting
birds, from unnecessary harassment and impacts attributed
to noise;
(b) to preserve the tranquillity of the St. Sebastian River for the
enjoyment by the citizens of Indian River County; and
(c) to protect smaller watercraft from the thrust generated by
airboat propulsion.
(2) Airboats prohibited in the St. Sebastian River.
The operation or mooring of an airboat in any open water, tidal
water or riverine wetland area along the portion of the St.
Sebastian River lying within Indian River County is hereby
prohibited. For the purpose of this section, an airboat shall be
JUNE 291998
ORDINANCE NO. 98-1 —3
defined as a watercraft propelled by an engine, motor or other
propulsion system which utilizes a propeller, fan or blade which is
not normally submerged below the water surface upon which the
craft operates and which is commonly known as an airboat.
(3) Penalties and enforcement.
Violations of this section shall be enforced and penalized as
provided for in Sections 327.70, 327.72, and 327.73, Florida
Statutes.
SECTION 2. SEVERABILITY.
- If any section, or any sentence, paragraph, phrase, or word of this
ordinance is for any reason held to be unconstitutional, inoperative, or void,
such holding shall not affect the remaining portions of this ordinance, and it shall
be construed to have been the legislative intent to pass the ordinance without
such unconstitutional, invalid or inoperative part.
SECTION 3. EFFECTIVE DATE.
A certified copy of this ordinance, as enacted, shall be filed by the Clerk
with the Office of the Secretary of State of the State of Florida within ten days
after enactment, and this ordinance shall take effect upon filing with the
Secretary of State.
Approved and adopted by the Board of County Commissioners of Indian
River County, Florida, on this 2 day of ,, n,. .1998.
This ordinance was advertised in the Vero Beach Press -Journal on the
14 day of May , 1998, for a public hearing to be held on the 2_ day
W— J u n e , 1998, at which time it was moved for adoption by Commissioner
M a c h t , seconded by Commissioner G inn , and adopted
by the following vote:
Chairman John W. Tippin
A e
Vice Chairman Kenneth R. Macht
y�
Commissioner Carolyn K Eggert
AXP
Commissioner Fran B. Adams
Aye
Commissioner Caroline D. Ginn
Aye
The Chairman thereupon declared the ordinance duly passed and
adopted this 2 day of June . 1998.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSION
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
BY olfn W. Tippin, Chidlir-dribn
Jeffre arton, CI
Effective Date: This ordinance became effective upon filing with the
Department of State which took place on day of , 1998.
rmvn Riva C,AQproved Date—j
Admin SCS S ! Q fr
Legal
Budget
DeQt
Risk Mgr.
JUNE 291998
-72-
0
0
17-�
9.B. PUBLIC DISCUSSION ITEM -KEEP. INDIAN RIVER
BEAUTIFUL BEAUTIFICATION COMMITTEE - "TREES
FOR PUBLIC SPACES"
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of May 13, 1998:
FAX COVER SHEET
KEEP INDIAN RIVER BEAUTIFUL
1302 U.S. HWY. 1
Sebastian, F132958
Phone Number. (561) 388-9969
Fax Number: (561)388-1648
DATE: May 13, 1998
TO: James Chandler
FAX NUMBER: 770.5095
NUMBER OF PAGES INCLUDING COVER SHEET: 1
FROM: Pat Harris
RE: KIRB Beautification Committee
NOTES:
Keep Indian River Beaut f d's Beautification Committee has initiated a new county -wide
program, "Trees for Public Spaces". We are looking for the county's blessing and the
support of the county staff in this county wide program.
The committee chairman, Mr. Bob Swift, will be presenting the committees mission
Statement and an outlive to the City Councils of the five municipalities and the County
Conanissioners. Please let me know if this is an agenda item for the County
Commissioners under public discussion. If so could we be on for agenda June 2, 1998.
IyUMON STATh MM
The memorial tree progrcm - TREES FOR PUBLIC SPAM - is ao initiative by Keep Indian River
Beautifitl to encourage the planting and care of tries througbout Indian River Couny. Through private
ftmding, Aad with support iiom public agencies. the Pmgnmt will foots on planting Uvas in public spans,
Trees, or the funding for tree pig and care, may be made in tubers to or in memory of itufividuds,
poem wants at eras ideals Ow goal is fuaua an appreciation for the heron of ora community and
provide a direct and tangible way for individuals to participate in that beatification effat
As a committee of =B, Tree for Public Spaces will do the following:
• Promote the planting of native, drought tolerant trees an public lands
• Coordh"'o Ila fivizies with the Vero Beach Tree C.oammission, Sebastian ad Fell==
Beuti$cadon Committees„ Indian River Parks and Reamation Depart, Indian River School
VuftlM and other orgaaimtions involved with the eve and landscape of public spaces,
• Raise and maintain fiords for tree planting.
• Establish and maintain a directory for those contributing to the program.
• Develop - in crx> coati m with nnmieW and ea amu Staff . and promote guidelines for appropriate
plant material and its plaiting and ere.
JUNE 2J998
�71
-73- E r; F,iGt
We ane asking Indian nicer County and all other municipal goveramems to do the following:
• Endorse and encourage, as a matter of public policy, the planting of trees wherever appropriate on
public rands.
• Direct Sta$to cooperm with The Committee in establishing guidelines for the planting of teres on
public property and public rights of way.
• Direct Staff m inc qm ate landscape and tree planting in all capital improvement budget
• Accept the trees planted in accordance with the guidelines established and provide reasonable can
and taaim—noe for thox u=&
Bob Swift, 6450 Glendale Road, KIRB Beautification Committee Chairman, advised
that Richard Conte and Pat Harris were also present as a part of KIRB. They are present to
make an offer to the County and will be making the same offer to the municipalities as well.
In order to start a tree planting program, individuals would donate trees and would be able
to tell where they wanted their tree(s) planted and would be able to donate them in honor or
in memoriam of others. This program will be coordinated with other groups in the area with
similar projects who strongly support this program. Identification of appropriate locations
and species would be coordinated with staff. He asked that KERB have the strong support
of the Board of County Commissioners and asked that they direct staff to facilitate permits
and find locations in an effort to expedite this program. For each two dollars donated, the
first would be spent on trees, with the second dollar going toward the maintenance of the
trees. They plan a celebration for Arbor Day (January) 1999.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Adams,
SECONDED by Commissioner Eggert, the Board
unanimously gave their strong support to the Keep
Indian River Beautiful Tree Planting Program.
11.A. (1) I-95/SR-60 INTERCHANGE - MODIFY CONCEPTUAL
MASTER LANDSCAPE PLAN - (2) HORIZON/GLEN
OUTLET CENTERS LIMITED PARTNERSHIP
(HORIZON) - MODIFICATION TO CASH DEPOSIT AND
ESCROW AGREEMENT
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of May 26, 1998:
JUNE 291998
-74-
• 0
•
TO: James E. Chandler
County Administrator
D ION HEAD CONCURRENCE:
o^ rt . K C
Community Developmen D'
FROM: Stan Boling, AICP
Planning Director
DATE: May 26, 1998
SUBJECT: Request to Modify the Conceptual Master Landscape Plan for the I-95/SR 60
— Interchange and the County/Horizon Cash Deposit & Escrow Agreement
It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal consideration by the Board of County
Commissioners at its regular meeting of June 2, 1998.
For over a year, county staff has worked with representatives of the Horizon outlet
I 5/S 60
and
FDOT staff and consultants to plan for and implement special landscaping e
interchange area On January 13,1998)the Board reviewed a conceptual master landscape plan for
the interchange and approved that plan with some revisions, stated its intention to enter into a
maintenance agreement with FDOT for future county maintenance responsibility of specially
landscaped areas, and authorized staff to coordinate with Horizon to prepare a highway
beautification grant to fund landscape installation. On February 24, 1998.,the Board approved a
revised mer landscape plan, granted final authorization for staff to apply for a beautification grant
for the next landscape plan phase (Phase 2 only), and executed a cash deposit and escrow agreement
with Horizon. Said funds from Horizon were to cover the county's match for the beautification
grant. Subsequently, Horizon deposited $125,000 with the county under the terms of the agreement
and staff submitted the grant application to FDOT.
After reviewing the county's grant application for Phase 2 and master landscape plans for Phases 2
and 3. FDOT notified county staff that FDOT had determined the following:
1. During its I-95 resurfacing Project through Indian River County during 1999, FDOT will
completely fund and install the Phase 2 and Phase 3 landscaping with additional
improvements. The normal arrangement for county maintenance of specifically landscaped
areas would be required.
2. The county's grant application for Phase 2 is now superfluous and is no longer being
considered.
3. FDOT's landscape design consultant for the project, Thomas Lucido & Associates, was
directed to work with the county on a landscape design based upon the county's grant
application.
County staffs response to FDOT and Horizon was that FDOT had presented a great opportunity and
that Horizon's $125,000 would be needed by the county to cover costs for fimrre maintenance, and
any material landscaping upgrades or future material replacement.
County planning, public works, and attorney's office staff have coordinated with Thomas Lucido &
Associates and with Horizon. Landscaping professionals who participated in SR 60 Task Force
efforts and Task Force Chairman Gene Waddell participated in brainstorming and design review
meetings. All parties have agreed upon a modified conceptual landscape plan for the interchange,
and staff and Horizon have agreed upon changes to the cash deposit and escrow agreement that will
give the county more flexibility to use the $125,000 in various ways to implement and maintain the
special landscaping.
The Board is now to consider approving the revised landscape plan and the revised cash deposit and
escrow agreement with Horizon. As already agreed to with the grant application, at a later date, the
Board will be presented a formal maintenance agreement whereby the county will take over
maintenance of specially landscaped areas after the new landscaping is established.
JUNE 211998
CJ
-75- 600.K
--- � ir:6C
I
*Revised Landscape Plan
The revised landscape plan does not significantly differ from the previously approved plan (all
phases). Like the approved plan, the revised plan: accents and ties into the pattern of existing natural
and planted vegetation, lines the interchange ramps with trees, provides mass plantings within the
I-95 median, and provides sod for roadway edges to provide a clean look along roadway shoulders.
However, the revised plan goes further than the approved plan, by providing the following additions:
1. Expanding the original project area along SR 60 625' farther east and 30V farther west.
2. Providing special landscaping and irrigation within the SR 60 median (a curbed median is
now proposed) throughout the interchange area, approximately 1,000 feet east and 1,000 feet
_ west of the I-95 overpass.
3. Providing stamped, colored concrete hardscape features (in lieu of regular concrete) within
SR 60 median areas.
4. Providing simulated stone wall (made from pour concrete) planter terraces in lieu of regular
concrete slopes on the north and south sides of the overpass. Each terrace (three on each
slope) will be landscaped with low maintenance plantings such as jasmine, firecracker plant,
and bougainvillea.
5. Providing asphalt or stamped concrete shoulders underneath the overpass. Such
improvements would clean-up the sandy "no man's land" where trucks and vehicles now tend
to pull off and tear up the existing shoulder area.
As of the date of this report, staff is working with MOT on finalizing an installation budget, which
will range from $600,000 to a little over $800,000. Some changes in sod type (Bahia vs. St
Augustine) and corresponding irrigation coverage, and tree size at the time of planting, may be
adjusted to make FDOT's budget An itemized initial budget of $811,900 (Scenario "A") and a
revised budget of $632,900 (Scenario "B") can be found in attachment Q. It is likely that Scenario
"B" is what MOT will accept In that instance, irrigation and St Augustine sod will be used within
the SR 60 median only.
FDOT's consultants have provided maintenance estimate information that does not include annual
tree trimming, or factoring in replacement costs on an annualized basis. Based upon the consultant's
experience with and knowledge of other publically maintained landscape areas and interchanges, the
consultant agrees with county staff that an estimate of $24,000 per year should cover all maintenance
and annualized replacement costs associated with the proposed plan. Staff estimated that
maintenance of the previously approved landscape plan improvements would also be about $24,000
per yam -
Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners:
1. Approve the revised conceptual landscape plan, and
2. Authorize the chairman to execute the modified cash deposit and escrow agreement
JUNE 2,1998
0 -76-
•
SR 60
EXPANDED LANDSCAPE
in ARFA
JUNE 291998
-77-
L-
M4 P.A.
hange
00
ON
ON
Wt
3n
'Umaiai
0
C]
•
.%�,'•�t {.iii.: �\ � `` _
o 0 0 0'o o •o o o o o o o o o o eRMED ,
Yfllfo'Yns -
tz
\,�•` �� ,,11,1,
Y\
_ y
f�
4
'P
'./
MatChline Sheet 4
Landscape Leaend
i
.%�,'•�t {.iii.: �\ � `` _
o 0 0 0'o o •o o o o o o o o o o eRMED ,
Yfllfo'Yns -
\,�•` �� ,,11,1,
Y\
f�
u�
'./
MatChline Sheet 4
Landscape Leaend
oa'aa.•r'o+ImYrN
IW14nal.rY
I_:l!°i'�.,a"�a...,..lo.lra•
�j
[.
- wr[fl•..'rN
(�IIYl�•f•�..NN
° Ifw•• ...loK 1r•a
laiel�.w.N.. /Mira•
iw
[, ,�
[�IN�/YY
_
1A�N�'R...a101ff•.
yWj
�A II�i�N41.4 q'•s
Y•-
��
Mf.14M
('14t•+.alllr..MM
.... M, aft wMf•P Maf.fY
I•a
�Ir N.YIIK N'..
IIBI....i...O....f.,.lY lr••
!moi
`"
'`�.'�IylllaMal NiN
rn'J f►Naa•r��a.lYaraa
Ii�'111r.�f•OYII�/.IY41T.s
.V
1}:::•911�.IN.,,lY
r.�wrr.IMr
ry]�.�,
M
�' IyMr�YMiaflYfM
•.•!wf•4..MM
I t
I,,I rrrlwrf...aoa NN
I' :,� w.lY flea
' <r Nfinf. '
�
.%�,'•�t {.iii.: �\ � `` _
o 0 0 0'o o •o o o o o o o o o o eRMED ,
Yfllfo'Yns -
0
•.ora. /J "'
r: / 0000000 E) (D -'(D-(DQO O-� DIOL
tr, iN ! •; "i.%' 1 / I �� y�✓. iTMWS 41K71!Q Au4.V"7AT&I PA.
i � ' � I � v�V iw ue*o•w.w'.ii x,w[iui
r+ r 1-95/S. R. 60 Interchange
� o�
Indian River coun �
•+ `'i,}4 11 + ► Conceptual Landscape Plan N
'•,_.J �� '; 1 , t Matchline Sheet 3�ae
\,�•` �� ,,11,1,
Y\
0
•.ora. /J "'
r: / 0000000 E) (D -'(D-(DQO O-� DIOL
tr, iN ! •; "i.%' 1 / I �� y�✓. iTMWS 41K71!Q Au4.V"7AT&I PA.
i � ' � I � v�V iw ue*o•w.w'.ii x,w[iui
r+ r 1-95/S. R. 60 Interchange
� o�
Indian River coun �
•+ `'i,}4 11 + ► Conceptual Landscape Plan N
'•,_.J �� '; 1 , t Matchline Sheet 3�ae
L((ag�ndscape Legend
t'TyO�..ItMY�lIt04KN
�� Y•b.ltiitW t01
(�
61111 �I..iYtt11{K••
�YYI ✓�(�IWN'�IM..KN
��M�MY.tOi 1IY
W1•+Pd-W
• tMYId-W k**KW-
ayamIy��OKI�N•.�..MRIOtRu
Qifl'IINt�1�N1104Ku
O' ftmY P.k-.NOMNN
t�tttt.p.Yt•111{Q4
Opq.tlt.N
I�rNYt/NNN
a0.0 WwOnttM
TY
IIlIDt�t•t.t•.11•KOW.tY
'IYt/nYwY•K NitN
�YIp.K•.t.�.I,tr.•/.•.
rru
I�Ii•r1•�.ptl t6r/.ltllT.6
�MtPNltk t►.KN
OR\M•M
�1d0
®M�.twr
Q Np.-ft6Nt6 w"
yr�ata
;_�• tw1YMY1
ft'btad -t
C'�JfriY�tNY NN
I.IiNIttM/Y
i�pI11.�uKt
��
•�.*
I6M.It�iY,K041N
�9�r
m1 aft" s -mc—
Matcnline Sheet 4
:moi.. ,-_ - .....,�/��•~
aar .�..... .....----•ww�Jwi►iiai►r Jai' �—•'�.��'
'-- --- - ----'----
�_— . - ---�
--------------- - ------ ------------ -- --.------ _----
�•-o
.. _-------- - --
oc
...........
------------------------ ----- ---- --- - _
-'
.
..... =-----'----
marcnnne sneer J
�✓ 7l .MAS LEMP( R ASSO[:AM% 1!A.
1-95/S. R. 60 Interchange
Indian River County
Conceptual Landscape Plan, "` Saar.
0
0
T,
Landscape Lemd Matchline Sheet 2
Qa�.+ll.. r.alrr " M.°�"r.rr.rw �a-�i �.+�.aloa!•..
O•nYq•w4lY7I•• ®I ii: ~� • Ir•YNrpr•a rN __ anan•..Idl!•N
t�Y•�•.plh�.IYt.IrOIMN '� TM••-•�4Ma104!•N �IMMr•.4/Y tr•a FYI-• '�
,Nr�aYY l
(aararr ..... 1-a�r"a1rM�.l�I ®IYYi�.Y^IM RN •'.I
•�I lrla•aW lira MN ®O YYY.• ,
MN�•Ir• ll f•a i•/NIfr.Iyr'Y �.•
IYf o�irp�.lW •IN �IArar-•raltlril.lY r'Y 42:'
I`�Wr�••NIRON (�c� rrrn! ja'-.
IrMiM •>Dn I1i•araal�a ®aM..lr! i
r}}
.. -
\✓fYYM1•Mn.la{NNIIMW
.. lr.�alilrY ^•' •'i.
aa•ara.•Grrr I..•.• W Wn�a .. ..... ..... .......... Il-!rf — -- .. '' %.' L �.
.....
........ ... -..... • _-
-....�-
�4gfD ------:__- - --- v
��l -•: ___v -_ . - - -. ._' @� A_ .��•_1s__sa—a =e_ ara:�_ -„_- -: �- '-
_ - .•a•:'-L�iY”�,a-?.ir.:':• %: ��!. }I -t� •'!:� ) .-. ••1 .h:=:I��•L%��*Isli:.•t7=y •.J-�'�:sa4'r.•.• a•�t cil!• '�.L •I'.1 .__ �.�1N-��• .i•:-�• - -__ _ I1l'_
_4);�
------- ------ ----
r,:_
-------------�b sA------------------ :
yy.
- l
-OF
---------------------------- ._-.__- _ CC
G
IHO.�lA �1(9A0A_ZSSI(�1---WA Pl - ------------------ _�--`_ -s16yr
LrIr IYNrn YNr,IN#NNIT+O
-------------- �-`Z -
�/ w�.•r••w rrr �_ w,t
-.r.w...wrwr rrr Uwo.lw-'- --- - _ �� - b - _
1-95/S.R. 60 Interchange - - -•-[
Indlan RhwCounry 0.
Conceptual Landscape Plan `'Q 0001
Matchline Sheet 1�'
-;
-=
eq
-- - 011- -
r:
C_3
17)
1
u_a
Matc_hlin_e _Sheet 2
ori.......................... ---•-----...... LeOdst�aae Leoend i
,V' V ; �-• N re_ 11 �• •` :J Q�'-���YWIIM �.'�..Illr_ {�•p�._
'r `..f t . �� �••,`� •
.I �, i.�, �. ^J ,i ' � , �, ���' �\ �•Irrw M►Yf.W04NN ��W.�„r.iiN--.'�j0'�lrM
Aj' ,ii �' '\ ° rr+.trw
Natural RestoraHonArea ; ;� � ij �-'••.', .;. � ° �.,W,..tl.. ® r-�r..a
,� ' ,, �, '� .�'-`�-�`\ ..\�.�F4J O:` •.�r°'w.+r"."ww�e..t.w �o'."",.��....w.�o..,r..
Natural fRestoration Area
fid' '-�• - t. e ' �.J \� I= e� ^-tea.?---------
_ __- - ---
-- ---------------
----_- ----------------------- ....---
j -_
-----
- ---------------
-
--- -_- ---' r• -..-.I ---------------------
.1r¢•�1,�•:I'il til :?',1T+i•;-YS ';•1rY8j^• 5 i- -• .�.{�w -{r-/�-" y- y-. -; _ - �y�•,.�� 1-._� __- __= f =____ __ _-. _ -------
- - --
- --
_ -_-
�7i,
•,c•,�`` f: T• •.�� '+j.: .�:�i':�,wyS• ��•, ��I� •S>�i.J?i�t.•1:frW' , w �• }y.�. '}.�.__ '� r.- �. - - -- - -..
- ---- - ----==p=__ - 3--
.,,�• '. __ - .•.-.n_r-rl --f ll�lJIISAEIJ�/'`J—_
L►
a
0 0 0 0 0
1 O O O
O
O
O
v�dv
7NOMA8 LlH7D0 R ASSOf7A.TFS�. �_
Zur NJ NMOi u,.r.w ...rw,�
1-95/S. R. 60 Interchange
I ndlan Rhw county
Conceptual Landscape plan
cV
t•
"fill _
1
N
00
I
0
r �
PLANTER AREA -
TOP OF BRIDGE +16.25m
Planter Wall, Section N.T.S.
r�
LJ
EXIST. WALL
'LOPE
URED CONCRETE
TAINING WALL, TYP.
PTH OF FOOTERS & THICKNESS
WALL TO BE DETERMINED BY
2UCTURAL ENGINEER
00
CN
ON
N
M
00
Firecracker Plant
Downy Jasmine
Bougainvillea
Bougainvillea
Firecracker Plant
Downy Jasmine
Firecracker Plant
Carolina Jasmine
Downy Jasmine
— Barberry
I
-- Downy Jasmine
- Bougainvillea
- Barberry -
Firecracker Plant
Downy Jasmine
Barberry
Carolina Jasmine
Planter Wall; N.T.S
Plan View °°
.
N
0?
0
•
Landscape Le end
Live Oak,
Quercus Wrglnlana, 100 Ga1,18' Ht
Weeping Podocarpus
Podocarpue gradiior, 18' Ht
O'East Palatka' Holly
Ilex attenuato'East Palatka', 100 Gal, 14' Ht
Crepe Myrtle
+ Legerstromia Indica, 14' Ht
Washington Palm
Washingtonla robusta, 24'-30' Ht
Cabbage Palm
Sabal palmetto, 25'-30' Ht
Wax Myrtle
Myrica cerifera, 30 Gal, V Ht
+ Purple Tabebuia
Tababula Impetiginosa, 85 Gal, 14' Ht
MColored, Stamped Concrete
0
O Oleander,
Nerium oleander, 7 Gal
Firecracker Plant
Russells equlseilfannis, 3 Gal, 38" o.c.
o Fakahatchee Grass
Tripsacum dactyloides, 3 Gal, 38" o.c.
Dwarf Yaupon Holly
Ilex vomitorla'Schellings Dwarf, 3 Gal
2" o.c.
SlIverthom
Eleagnus pungens, 3 Gal, 48" o.c.
Wax Myrtle
Myrica cerifers, 3 Gal
-�� Sevednla bwdfblla
Boxtlwm, 3 Gal, 2' o.c.
® Bougainvillea
Bougainvillea, 3 Gal, 38" o.c.
Downy Jasmine
1�11�1 Jasminum multitlonim, 3 Gal, 38" o.m
Carolina Jasmine
Gelsemium sempervirens, 1 Gal, 38" o.c.
ZIUdope
Udope muscad, 1 Gal, 12" o.c.
Beach Sunflower
Helianthus debilis, 1 Gal, 12" o.c.
Mexican Bluebell
u u it Ruellia brittoniana'Compact Katie', 1 Gal, 12" o.c.
Dwarf Lantana
®
Lantana camera 'Gold Mound', 1 Gal, 12" o.c.
ExIsL Vegetation
�- Exist Vegetation
00
O\
ON
7-4
N
o0
JUNE 2,1998
Estimate of Probable Construction Costs
S -R. 60/1-95 Interchange
SCENARIO A
-86-
EgWTALMATED CONSTRUCTION COST
Sell.800.82
ED CONSTRUCnoN COST
�� � a
JUNE 2,1998
Estimate of Probable Construction Costs
S -R. 60/1-95 Interchange
SCENARIO A
-86-
N
00
t
�O
r
p�
O O
7
1'
m
m
a
a
1
Alai A���
N S 1-10
N5��8$N��8�8t83888 995999 log 8
9+
rqaasg Bass sLj
!sS1g9+till 8'll
•
8�
�O
r
p�
O O
7
1'
m
m
a
a
1
Alai A���
N S 1-10
N5��8$N��8�8t83888 995999 log 8
9+
rqaasg Bass sLj
!sS1g9+till 8'll
•
r
S. R.60/ I-95 INTERCHANGE
MAINTENANCE SCHEDULE PER CALENDAR YEAR
Plant Material
=M11111111
W
Live Oak
Fertilizer
Application'
Twice
Pruning
M1111111 111MM
Once, to retain shape
Herbicide/
Pesticide
None
Mulch
-1
None
Weeping Podocarpus
Twice
Once, to retain 8' Clear
trunk
None
Once
East Palatka Holly
Twice
Once, to retain 8' Clear
trunk
None
Once
Crepe Myrtle
Twice
Once, to retain 8' Clear
Trunk after flowerin
None
Once
Washington Palm
Only as directed
None
-7
-Twice
None
Cabbage Palm
None
Only as directed
None
None
Purple Tabebuia
Twice
Once, to retain 8' Clear
Trunk
None
Once
Standard Oleander
Twice
Once, to retain shape
Twice, against
caterpillars
Once
Wax Myrtle (tree form)
Twice
Once, to retain shape
None
Once
00
O\
ON
V-4
ei
00
00
I
0
•
S.R.60/I-95 INTERCHANGE
MAINTENANCE SCHEDULE PER CALENDAR YEAR
Plant Material
Fertilizer
Pruning
Herbicide/
Mulch
Application
Pesticide
111191
Wax Myrtle (shrubs)
Twice
Once every two years
None
None
Silverthorn
Twice
None
None
None
Oleander(shrubs)
( shrubs
Twice
None
Twice, against
None
Fakahatchee Grass
Twice
None
-caterpillars
None
Once
Dwarf Yaupon Holly
Twice
If necessary, to retain
None
Once
Clear sight window
1
Liriope
Twice
None
!
None
Once
Beach Sunflower
Twice
If necessary, to retain
None
Once
clear sight window
Mexican Bluebell
Twice
None
None
Once
Dwarf Lantana
Twice
Once every two years
None
Once
Wildflower
None
Mow once, after seeding
If necessary
NoneON
0
00
*A
7-4
el
C�
00
7
MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Adams,
SECONDED by Commissioner Eggert, that the
Board approve the revised conceptual landscape plan
and approve and authorize the Chairman to execute
the Modified Cash Deposit and Escrow Agreement
with Horizon/Glen Outlet Centers Limited
Partnership (Horizon), as recommended by staff.
Looking at page 156 of the backup, Chairman Tippin found some of the prices were
not realistic although he thought it was an excellent plan.
Director Boling advised that staff was taking notes on the Board's observations and
would pass them along to the consultant.
THE CHARIMAN CALLED THE QUESTION and
the Motion passed unanimously.
AGREEMENT IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE
OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD
11.G.1. WABASSO AREA CDBG PROJECT - ASSIGNMENT OF
CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT FROM MARTIN PAVING
CO. TO RANGER CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRIES, INC.
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of May 26, 1998:
TO: James Chandler
County Administrator
FROM:
James W. Davis, P.E.
Public Works Director
SUBJECT:
Assignment of Wabasso Area CDBG Project Construction
Contract From Martin Paving Co. to
Ranger Construction Industries, Inc.
RE:
Letter from Richard K. Martin to Terrence O'Brien
Dated May 18, 1998
DATE:
May 26, 1998
JUNE 291998
-90-
• 0
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
Since the County awarded the construction contract for the Wabasso CDBG Improvement,
Project to Martin Paving Company, Ranger Construction Industries, Inc. purchased Martin
Paving Co.. At this time, Martin Paving Co. wishes to assign the contract to Ranger
Construction Industries, Inc.
ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS
The County Attorney's office and CRA, Inc. (administrator for the Wabasso CDBG Project)
requires the attached executed forms to provide for assignment:
1. Assignment and Assumption of Martin Paving Company Contract
2. Change Rider
Martin has transmitted the attached executed forms.
Since all forms have been received and approved by Terrance O'Brien, Assistant County
Attorney and Robert Johnson of CRA, staff recommends approval for the Chairman to
execute the Assignment and Rider. _
ON MOTION by Commissioner Ginn, SECONDED
by Commissioner Eggert, the Board unanimously
approved the Change Rider and the Assignment and
Assumption of Martin Paving Company Contract
and Ranger Construction Industries, Inc., and
authorized the Chairman to execute same, as
recommended by staff.
DOCUMENTS ARE ON FILE IN THE
OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD
11.G.2. WABASSO CAUSEWAY PARK IMPROVEMENTS
PROJECT - BRAD SMITH ASSOCIATES
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of May 19, 1998:
JUNE 291998
TO:
James Chandler
County Administrator r--
THROUGH:
James W. Davis, P.E.
Public Works Director ``_
Terry B. Thompson, P.E
Capital Projects Manage
FROM:
G. Sean McGuire, P.E.
Project Engineer 144
SUBJECT:
Wabasso Causeway Park
Improvements Project
DATE:
May 19, 1998
Brad Smith Associates has been selected to provide Professional
Architectural Services for improvements to Wabasso Causeway Park.
A previous Agreement was executed on January 13, 1998 for the
Master Plan and Beautification elements of the Project. This
Agreement encompasses shoreline armoring and other erosion control
measures, a bathroom building, outdoor shower, parking lot
expansion and stabilization, security lighting, and associated site
amenities.
The Scope of Services to be provided by Brad Smith Associates is
the design and production of construction contract documents for
the improvements project, presentations of the design concept at a
public workshop and to the Florida Inland Navigation District,
permitting through local, state and federal agencies, assistance
during bidding and construction phases, and final certification
upon completion. Total compensation for these services is
$54,072.50.
Staff recommends that the Board authorize the Chairman to sign the
attached Professional Services Agreement.
Funding will be from Account #315-210-572-068.09.
JUNE 291998
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert,
SECONDED by Commissioner Adams, the Board
unanimously approved the Professional Services
Agreement for Wabasso Causeway Park
Improvements Project with Brad Smith Associates,
Inc. and authorized the Chairman to execute same,
as recommended by staff.
AGREEMENT WILL BE ON FILE IN THE
OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD
-92-
0
LZ
There being no further business, on Motion duly made, seconded and carried, the
Board adjourned at 12:50 p.m.
kwW*w
J. I . on, Clerk
Minutes Approved . '� 3 m
JUNE 291998
o W. Tippin, C
-93-