HomeMy WebLinkAbout3/9/1999•
MINUTES ATTACHED
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
A G E N D A
TUESDAY, MARCH 9,1999 - 9:00 A.M.
County Commission Chamber
County Administration Building
1840 25th Street, Vero Beach, Florida 32960
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Kenneth R. Macht, Chairman (District 3)
Fran B. Adams, Vice Chairman (District 1)
Caroline D. Ginn, (District 5)
Ruth Stanbridge (District 2
John W. Tippin, (District 4)
•
James E. Chandler, County Administrator
Charles P. Vitunac, County Attorney
Jeffxey K. Barton, Clerk to the Board
9:00 a.m. 1. CALL TO ORDER BACKUP
PAGES
2. INVOCATION
3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - Comm. Caroline D. Ginn
4. ADDITIONS to the AGENDA/EMERGENCY ITEMS
D.A. COMMENT ON Y2K PHENOMENON
5. PROCLAMATION and PRESENTATIONS
None
6. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
None
7. CONSENT AGENDA
A. Received & Placed on File in Office of Clerk to
the Board: St. Johns River Water Management
District - Annual Financial Audit and Annual
Local Government Financial Report for FY
1997-98
B. Approval of Wan -ants
(memorandum dated February 25, 1999)
C. Request to Revise Contract with Native Habitat,
Inc. to Waive Performance Bond Requirement
(memorandum dated March 3, 1999)
D. Request for Approval of Progress Report & Reim-
bursement Invoice #4 for the 1998 Transportation
Disadvantaged Planning Grant
(memorandum dated February 25, 1999)
1-10
11-13
14-26
BOOK 108 FADE 515
BOOK 108 FADE 516
BACKUP
7. CONSENT AGENDA tcont'd.: PAGES
E. Approval of Amendment to the Oslo Riverfront
Conservation Area Intergovernmental Management
Agreement to Include the Flinn Tract LAAC Site
(memorandum dated March 3, 1999) 27-40
F. Bid Waiver
(memorandum dated March 1, 1999) 41-43
G. Bid Award: IRC #9044 / Painting of County Admini-
stration & Health Buildings (Bldgs. & Grds. Div.)
(memorandum dated March 3,1999) 44-51
H. Assignment of Concession License in Administration
Building
(memorandum dated February 26, 1999) 52-62
I. Taxpayers Assoc. of IRC v Indian River County
(memorandum dated March 2, 1999) 63-65
J. Fire Alarms Responded to by Law Enforcement
(memorandum dated March 3, 1999) 66-80
K. Annual County Tax Deed Applications
(memorandum dated February 25, 1999) 81-94
L. Payments to Vendors of Court Related Costs
(memorandum dated February 26, 1999) 95
M. Acceptance of Linda Pell Nagy's Resignation
from Economic Development Council
(letter dated February 25, 1999) 96
N. Miscellaneous Budget Amendment 010
(memorandum dated March 3, 1999) 97-98
8. CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS and
GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES
None
9:05 A.M. 9. PUBLIC ITEMS
A. PUBLIC HEARINGS
1. AN ORDINANCE OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY,
FLORIDA, AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE
AND THE ACCOMPANYING ZONING MAP FROM
RM -8 AND A-1 TO PDTND FOR APPROX. 602.99
ACRES OF LAND GENERALLY LOCATED SOUTH
OF SR 60, NORTH OF 8TH STREET, BETWEEN 66TH
AVE. AND 82ND AVE.; AND DESCRIBED HEREIN,
AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE
(Quasi -Judicial)
(memorandum dated March 3, 1999) 99-138
BACKUP
9. PUBLIC ITEMS (cont'd.): AGES
A. PUBLIC HEARINGS (cont'd.Z
2. AN ORDINANCE OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY,
FLORIDA, AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE
AND THE ACCOMPANYING ZONING MAP FROM
RS -6 AND RM -6 TO RM -8, FOR PROPERTY
LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF 41 sr ST.
AND THE WEST SIDE OF INDIAN RIVER
BLVD., AND DESCRIBED HEREIN, AND PRO-
VIDING FOR EFFECTIVE DATE
_ (Quasi -Judicial)
(memorandum dated February 19, 1999) 139-154
B. PUBLIC DISCUSSION ITEMS
None
C. PUBLIC NOTICE ITEMS
Public Hearings Scheduled for March 16,1999:
1. County initiated request to amend the compre-
hensive plan to redesignate the following
publicly owned properties to C-1, Publicly
Owned Conservation -1, and rezone those
properties to Con -1, Public Lands Conserva-
tion District:
a. f8 acres located on the east side of
SR AIA, just north of the town of
Indian River Shores;
b. ±37 acres located at the northeast
comer of 8' St. & I.R. Blvd.; and
C. f 15.8 acres located west of St.
Christopher's Harbor S/D (Legislative)
2. County -initiated request to amend the Future
Land Use and Intergovernmental Coordination
Elements of the Comprehensive Plan (Legislative)
Public Hearing Scheduled for 4/6/99:
1. John W. Mitchell and others' request to rezone t2
acres located at the northwest comer of 77`h Street
(Hobart Rd.) and US 1 from CH, Heavy Commer-
cial District to CL, Limited Commercial District
(Quasi -Judicial)
(memorandum dated March 3, 1999) 155
10. COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S MATTERS
None
11. DEPARTMENTAL MATTERS
A. Community Development
None
B. Emergency Services
None
C. General Services
None
D. Leisure Services
None
E. Office of Management and Budget
None
BOOK IU FAGE ai I
11. DEPARTMENTAL MATTERS (cont'd):
F. Personnel
None
BOOK .11.08 PAGE 51
BACKUP
PAGES
G. Public Works
1. Phase II Kings Highway Improvement
Developer's Agreement between IRC and
First Church of God, Inc.
(memorandum dated March 3, 1999) 156-161
2. Joint Indian River County/School Board
District of Indian River County Fleet
Management Complex / Fueling Depot /
Bus Storage and Related Facilities Land
Acquisition
(memorandum dated March 3, 1999) 162-181
H. Utilities
1. Request to Purchase Watercadd Hydraulic
Modeling Software
(memorandum dated March 2, 1999) 182-185
2. Utility Chlorination System Improvements
(memorandum dated February 24, 1999) 186-196
3. Lift Station Rehabilitation - Final Change
Order and Pay Request
(memorandum dated February 24, 1999) 197-205
I. Human Services
None
12. COUNTY ATTORNEY
None
13. COMMISSIONERS ITEMS
A. Chairman Kenneth R. Macht
B. Vice Chairman Fran B. Adams
C. Commissioner Caroline D. Ginn
D. CommissionerRuth Stanbridge
E. Commissioner John W. Tippin
0
0
•
BACKUP
14. SPECIAL DISTRICTS/BOARDS PAGES
A. Emergency Services District
None
B. Solid Waste Disposal District
Request for Proposals #9030
Solid Waste Master Plan
(memorandum dated March 1, 1999) 206-207
C. Environmental Control Board
None
15. ADJOURNMENT
Anyone who may wish to appeal any decision which may be made at -this meeting will need
to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made which includes the testimony and
evidence upon which the appeal will be based.
Anyone who needs a special accommodation for this meeting may contact the county's
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) coordinator at 567-8000 x408 at least 48 hours in advance
of meeting.
Meeting may be broadcast live on TCI Cable Channel 13 - rebroadcast various times
throughout the week
Falcon Cable Channel 35 - rebroadcast Friday evening
BOOK 103 PAGE 519
•
C.
INDEX TO MINUTES
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
MEETING OF MARCH 9. 1999
1. CALL TO ORDER ............................................... 1
2. INVOCATION .................................................. 1
3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ....................................... 1
4. ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA ................................... 1
5. PROCLAMATIONS AND PRESENTATIONS ......................... 1
6. APPROVAL OF MINUTES ........................................ 1
7. CONSENT AGENDA ............................................ 2
7.A.
Reports ..................................................
2
7.B.
Approval of Warrants .......................................
2
7.C.
Native Habitat, Inc./Prange Islands - Contract Revision and Waiver of
Performance Bond Requirement ..............................
10
7.D.
1998 Transportation Disadvantaged Planning Grant - Progress Report and
Reimbursement Invoice #4 Approval ...........................
11
7.E.
Oslo Riverfront Conservation Area - Intergovernmental Management
Agreement with Florida Inland Navigation District and St. Johns River
Water Management District to Include the Flinn Tract LAAC Site ....
13
7.17.
Purchase of Lawnmower from Vero Lawnmower - Bid Waived ......
15
7.G.
Bid #9044 - Exterior Painting of County Administration Building and
Health Building - Lucas Waterproofing Company .................
17
7.11.
Assignment of Food Service Concession License for County Administration
Building from Allyn Withee to Robin Trogdon ...................
18
7.I.
Taxpayers Association of Indian River County v. Indian River County
(Acquisition of 50 Lots from Atlantic Gulf Communities - Sebastian
Highlands) ...............................................
19
7.J.
False Alarms Responded to by Law Enforcement - Proposed Ordinance
Scheduled for March 2311999 Public Hearing ....................
20
7.K.
Annual County Tax Deed Applications -13 Parcels ...............
21
7.L.
Payments to Vendors of Court Related Costs .....................
21
7.M.
Economic Development Council - Accept Resignation of Linda Pell Nagy
7.N.
.......................................................
Miscellaneous Budget Amendment 010 .........................
23
24
9.A.1. ORDINANCE 99-05 - ON SITE MANAGEMENT GROUP, INC. - REZONING
FOR POINTE WEST DEVELOPMENT (APPROXIMATELY 602.99 ACRES
FROM RM -8 AND A-1 TO PDTND) AND CONCEPTUAL PLANNED
DEVELOPMENT PLAN APPROVAL (GENERAL LOCATION: SOUTH OF
SR -60, NORTH OF 8TH STREET, BETWEEN 66TH AVENUE AND 82ND
AVENUE) .................................................... 26
1
BOOK 108 PAGE 520
BOOK 108 PGE1
9.A.2. ORDINANCE NO. 99-006 - AMENDMENT TO ZONING ORDINANCE AND
ZONING MAP FROM RS -6 AND RM -6 TO RM -8 FOR PROPERTY
LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF 41ST STREET AND WEST SIDE OF
INDIAN RIVER BOULEVARD - SCHWERIN REALTY COMPANY - ±29.5
ACRES (Quasi -Judicial) .......................................... 64
9.C. PUBLIC NOTICE ITEMS -ITEMS SCHEDULED FOR MARCH 16, 1999 AND
APRIL 6, 1999 .................................................
73
March 16, 1999 ...........................................
73
1. County- initiated request to amend the comprehensive plan to
redesignate the following publicly owned properties to C-1, Publicly
Owned Conservation- 1 (zero density) and rezone those properties to Con 1,
Public Lands Conservation District (zero density): ................
73
A. ±8 Acres located on the east side of SR AIA, just north of the town
of Indian River Shores; .....................................
73
B. ±37 Acres located at the northeast corner of 8th Street and Indian
River Boulevard; and ......................................
73
C. ±15.8 Acres located west of St. Christopher's Harbor Subdivision
(Legislative) . .............................................
73
2. County -initiated request to amend the Future Land Use and
Intergovernmental Coordination Elements of the Comprehensive Plan
(Legislative) ..............................................
73
April 6, 1999: ............................................
73
1. John W. Mitchell and others' request to rezone ±2 acres located at
the northwest comer of 77th Street (Hobart Road) and US -1 from CH,
Heavy Commercial District to CL, Limited Commercial District (Quasi-
Judicial).................................................
73
11.G.1. FIRST CHURCH OF GOD, INC. - DEVELOPER'S AGREEMENT -
RIGHT-OF-WAY KINGS HIGHWAY PHASE 11 ................. 74
11.G.2. OPTION AGREEMENT FOR PURCHASE OF PARCEL FOR COUNTY
FLEET MANAGEMENT COMPLEX (JOINT WITH INDIAN RIVER
COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT) FROM ANNETTE R. ROBERTS,
TRUSTEE............................................... 76
l l.H.1. PURCHASE WATERCADD HYDRAULIC MODELING SOFTWARE
....................................................... 79
11.H.2. UTILITY CHLORINATION SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS - CAMP
DRESSER AND McKEE, INC. - WORK AUTHORIZATION NO.9 . 81
11.H.3. LIFT STATION REHABILITATION - TREASURE COAST
CONTRACTING - FINAL CHANGE ORDER AND PAY REQUEST . 83
13.A. CHAIRMAN MACHT - Y2K PHENOMENON CON04ENT -
APPOINTED TO WORK WITH STAFF ON Y2K COMPLIANCE ... 84
14.B. SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL DISTRICT ........................ 85
2
March 9, 1999
The Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, met in Regular
Session at the County Commission Chambers, 1840 25" Street, Vero Beach, Florida, on
Tuesday, March 9,1999. Present were: Kenneth R Macht, Chairman; Fran B. Adams, Vice
Chairman; Caroline D. Ginn; Ruth Stanbridge; and John W. Tippin. Also present were
James E. Chandler, CountyAdministrator; Charles P. Vitunac, CountyAttormy; andPatricia
Ridgely, Deputy Clerk.
1. CALL TO ORDER
The Chairman called the meeting to order at 9:00 a.m.
2. INVOCATION
Commissioner Tippin delivered the invocation.
3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Commissioner Ginn led the Pledge to the Flag.
4. ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA
Chairman Macht requested the addition of 13.A., Comment on Y2K phenomenon.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Adams, SECONDED BY
Commissioner Stanbridge, the Board unanimously added the
item to their agenda.
5. PROCLAMATIONS AND PRESENTATIONS
None.
6. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
None.
MARCH 9,1999
1
BOOK 108 FA.GE 522
BOOK 108 PAGE 523
7. CONSENT AGENDA
Commissioner Ginn requested that item 7.G. be separated for discussion from the
Consent Agenda.
7.A. Reports
The following report has been received and placed on file in the office of the Clerk
to the Board:
St. Johns River Water Management District - Annual Financial
Audit and Annual Local Government Financial Report for FY
1997-98
7.B. Aoroval of Warrants
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of February 25, 1999:
TO: HONORABLE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
DATE: FEBRUARY 25, 1999
SUBJECT: APPROVAL OF WARRANTS
FROM: EDWIN M. FRY, JR., FINANCE DIRECTOR
In compliance with Chapter 136.06, Florida Statutes, all warrants issued
by the Board of County Commissioners are to be recorded in the Board minutes.
Approval is requested for the attached list of warrants, issued by the Clerk
to the Board, for the time period of February 18 to February 25, 1999.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Adams, SECONDED BY
Commissioner Stanbridge, the Board unanimously approved the
list of warrants issued by the Clerk to the Board for the period
February 18-25, 1999, as requested.
MARCH 9, 1999
2
•
L-
CHECK
NAME
CHECK
CHECK
NUMBER
DATE
AMOUNT
0019852
FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF
1999-02-18
120,000.00
0019853
TEAMSTERS LOCAL UNION NO 769
1999-02-19
4,090.71
0019854
FLORIDA COMBINED LIFE
1999-02-19
2,224.74
0257719
ANDERSON, FRED
1999-02-19
148.00
0257720
ATKINSON, RICHARD F
1999-02-19
238.00
0257721
BECHT, TONYA AND CITY OF VERO
1999-02-19
92.00
0257722
BROBTON, LYDIA
1999-02-19
219.00
0257723
BREVCO PROPERTIES, INC
1999-02-19
471.00
0257724
BEUTTELL, PETER M
1999-02-19
270.00
0257725
SILKEN GROUP
1999-02-19
1,605.00
0257726
BEANS, ROBERT
1999-02-19
226.00
0257727
BROOKS, DONNA AND CITY OF VERO
1999-02-19
59.00
0257728
BELL PROPERTY MANAGEMENT
1999-02-19
1,331.00
0257729
BOUYSSOU, STEPHANE H
1999-02-19
397.00
0257730
BLAHNIK, CHRIS OR MILDRED
1999-02-19
364.00
0257731
BUCKNER, SHEILA & CITY OF VERO
1999-02-19
84.00
0257732
BISHOP, SUSAN D
1999-02-19
256.00
0257733
BROOKHAVEN, TOWN OF
1999-02-19
558.97
0257734
BREVARD COUNTY HOUSING AUTHRTY
1999-02-19
479.97
0257735
BLUE, YOLANDA
1999-02-19
248.00
0257736
BACON, CHARISMA AND CITY OF
1999-02-19
26.00
0257737
CARTWRIGHT, WILLIAM AND/
1999-02-19
197.00
0257738
CORR, RHODA L
1999-02-19
292.00
0257739
COLLINS, THOMAS H
1999-02-19
276.00
0257740
COSCO, KEN
1999-02-19
478.00
0257741
CENTURY 21 SEATREK REALTY, INC
1999-02-19
245.00
0257742
CARLTON, ALLAN R
1999-02-19
306.00
0257743
C P E ASSOCIATES
1999-02-19
759.00
0257744
CAPAK, GERALD T
1999-02-19
350.00
0257745
CUMMINGS, JERRY
1999-02-19
438.00
0257746
COLDWELL BANKER
1999-02-19
426.00
0257747
CLUNK, JEFFREY
1999-02-19
314.00
0257748
CARONE, PAUL
1999-02-19
230.00
0257749
CARLUCCI, LEONARD A
1999-02-19
404.00
0257750
DAN PREUSS REALTY, INC
1999-02-19
274.00
0257751
DOOLITTLE JAMES A & ASSOCIATES
1999-02-19
2,589.00
0257752
DENNISON, WANDA
1999-02-19
926.00
0257753
DOVE, E WILSON
1999-02-19
267.00
0257754
DOYLE, DON
1999-02-19
305.00
0257755
DIXON, LATONIA AND CITY OF
1999-02-19
8.00
0257756
ELWELL, JACQUELINE & F P & L
1999-02-19
4.00
0257757
EDGEWOOD PLACE (305-113)
1999-02-19
187.00
0257758
EDWARD, FRANKLIN
1999-02-19
328.00
0257759
FOGERTY, GEORGE A
1999-02-19
315.00
0257760
FRESH, DANIEL J
1999-02-19
228.00
0257761
FT PIERCE, CITY OF
1999-02-19
1,543.91
0257762
FOGARTY ENTERPRISES, INC
1999-02-19
45.00
0257763
GASKILL, ROBERT
1999-02-19
251.00
0257764
GRIMM, FLOYD OR HELEN
1999-02-19
149.00
0257765
GIFFORD GROVES, LTD
1999-02-19
10,057.00
0257766
GEORGE, MARY KIM
1999-02-19
579.00
0257767
GRACE'S LANDING LTD
1999-02-19
_
2,893.00
0257768
GLOVERSVILLE HOUSING AUTHORITY
1999-02-19
270.97
0257769
HAWKINS, WANDA
1999-02-19
220.00
0257770
HOLM, LEO
1999-02-19
445.00
0257771
INDIAN RIVER INVESTMENT
1999-02-19
270.00
0257772
IMBRIANI, VINCENT
1999-02-19
279.00
0257773
JAMES A DOOLITTLE & ASSOCIATES
1999-02-19
6,434.00
0257774
JENSEN, PETER C
1999-02-19
526.00
0257775
JAHOLKOWSKI, PAUL
1999-02-19
278.00
0257776
JENNINGS, LESSIE
1999-02-19
261.00
0257777
JAHOLKOWSKI, MIKE
1999-02-19
210.00
MARCH 9,1999
3
•
BOOK 108 FAGEZ
F.m y 7i
BOOK 0 FAGE 51210
CHECK
NAME
CHECK
CHECK
NUMBER
DATE
AMOUNT
0257778
JULIN, PAUL
1999-02-19
210.00
0257779
JONES, CECILIA AND CITY OF
1999-02-19
40.00
0257780
JONES, WILLIAM C
1999-02-19
335.00
0257781
JACOBS, CARRIE AND FLORIDA
1999-02-19
85.00
0257782
JONES, ALPHONSO
1999-02-19
258.00
0257783
KOLB, GREGORY L
1999-02-19
443.00
0257784
KUBILUS, DEBRA AND CITY OF
1999-02-19
75.00
0257785
LAWRENCE, TERRY A
1999-02-19
191.00
0257786
LLERENA, E D
1999-02-19
472.00
0257787
LANGLEY, PHILIP G
1999-02-19
230.00
0257788
LAWRENCE, CHARLENE FRANCES
1999-02-19
455.00
0257789
LINDSEY GARDEN'S APARTMENTS
1999-02-19
4,008.00
0257790
MIXELL, LLONALD AND/OR
1999-02-19
410.00
0257791
M 0 D INVESTMENTS
1999-02-19
794.00
0257792
MONTGOMERY, WILLIAM
1999-02-19
210.00
0257793
MANN, ROBERT OR WANDA ARMA
1999-02-19
217.00
0257794
MORRILL, TINA AND CITY OF
1999-02-19
31.00
0257795
MCINTOSH, SYLVESTER B JR
1999-02-19
426.00
0257796
MULLINS, B FRANK
1999-02-19
501.00
0257797
MC CLAY, ROBIN
1999-02-19
312.00
0257798
NELSON, DONALD J & VALENTINE R
1999-02-19
500.00
0257799
NEUHAUSER, ERNEST
1999-02-19
273.00
0257800
NIRMIKA LIVING STONES, INC
1999-02-19
337.00
0257801
OLIVER, DOROTHY
1999-02-19
400.00
0257802
ORANGE COUNTY HOUSING AND
1999-02-19
604.97
0257803
PARKER, RALPH & CITY OF VERO
1999-02-19
91.00
0257804
PALMER TRAILER PARK
1999-02-19
449.00
0257805
PITTMAN, CATHERINE & CITY OF
1999-02-19
96.00
0257806
POLLY, EMMA
1999-02-19
345.00
0257807
PIERSON, JOHN H DBA
1999-02-19
324.00
0257808
POSADO, LORI
1999-02-19
375.00
0257809
PINKNEY, RACHEL J
1999-02-19
151.00
0257810
PALUMBO, LOUIS
1999-02-19
294.00
0257811
PIUMELLI, MICHAEL
1999-02-19
327.00
0257812
REAGAN, WILLIE C
1999-02-19
722.00
0257813
RENNICK, RONALD
1999-02-19
313.00
0257814
RAUDENBUSH, ERNEST
1999-02-19
155.00
0257815
REALTY CONNECTIONS OF VERO,INC
1999-02-19
921.00
0257816
REARDANZ, MARVIN
1999-02-19
408.00
0257817
RICHARDS, WILLIAM A
1999-02-19
470.00
0257818
RODRIGUEZ, BLANCA
1999-02-19
400.00
0257819
RICOTTI, RICARDO
1999-02-19
161.00
0257820
RIVER PARK PLACE
1999-02-19
1,052.00
0257821
SCHORNE-R, JAMES A
1999-02-19
180.00
0257822
ST FRANCIS MANOR
1999-02-19
2,379.00
0257823
SCROGGS, BETTY DAVIS
1999-02-19
324.00
0257824
SACCO, JACQUELINE AND/OR
1999-02-19
490.00
0257825
SABONJOHN, FLORENCE
1999-02-19
268.00
0257826
SANFORD HOUSING AUTHORITY
1999-02-19
521.97
0257827
SMOAK, JEANETTE AND CITY
1999-02-19
34.00
0257828
SANDY PINES
1999-02-19
3,519.00
0257829
SHELTON, ROBERT L
1999-02-19
505.00
0257830
STARCK, MICHAEL R
1999-02-19
382.00
0257831
STRIBLING, WILLIAM JR
1999-02-19
172.00
0257832
SUNDMAN, IVAN
1999-02-19
203.00
0257833
SPARKS, DAVID
1999-02-19
113.00
0257834
SARTAIN, CHARLES S & TELECIA
1999-02-19
65.00
0257835
TROPICAL SHORELAND, INC OR
1999-02-19
245.00
0257836
TOWN & COUNTRY LEASING
1999-02-19
347.00
0257837
VERO MOBILE HOME PARK
1999-02-19
490.00
0257838
VOLF VILCEK, JULIANNA
1999-02-19
196.00
0257839
VERO FIRST CORPORATION
1999-02-19
2,303.00
0257840
VARJABEDIAN, SUMPAD
1999-02-19
527.00
MARCH 9, 1999
4
CHECK
NAME
CHECK
CHECK
NUMBER
DATE
AMOUNT
0257841
BLAKE, SALLIE (WYNN)
1999-02-19
284.00
0257842
WILLIAMS, TOBIAS M
1999-02-19
439.00
0257843
WILLIAMS, DEBRA WASHINGTON
1999-02-19
121.00
0257844
YORK, LILLY B
1999-02-19
194.00
0257845
YORK, DAVID
1999-02-19
467.00
0257846
ZANCA, LEONARD
1999-02-19
1,129.00
0257847
AIRBORNE EXPRESS
1999-02-25
27.70
0257848
ALPHA ACE HARDWARE
1999-02-25
6.98
0257849
APPLE INDUSTRIAL SUPPLY CO
1999-02-25
51.92
0257850
APPLE MACHINE & SUPPLY CO
1999-02-25
681.31
0257851
AT YOUR SERVICE
1999-02-25
1,911.20
0257852
ATCO TOOL SUPPLY
1999-02-25
34.00
0257853
AUTO SUPPLY CO OF VERO BEACH,
1999-02-25
941.02
0257854
ABS PUMPS, INC
1999-02-25
4,635.00
0257855
AL'S WINSHIELD & VINYL RP
1999-02-25
30.00
0257856
COMMONWEALTH TECH
1999-02-25
600.00
0257857
ADDISON OIL CO
1999-02-25
224.68
0257858
AMERICAN TEST CENTER, INC
1999-02-25
1,450.35
0257859
ARCHIVE PUBLISHING
1999-02-25
445.00
0257860
AMERICAN AIR FILTER
1999-02-25
2,655.00
0257861
A T & T
1999-02-25
.74
0257862
A T & T LANGUAGE LINE SERVICES
1999-02-25
50.00
0257863
AMERICAN LIBRARY PREVIEW
1999-02-25
66.54
0257864
ATLANTIC COASTAL TITLE CORP
1999-02-25
469.00
0257865
AUTO PARTS OF VERO, INC
1999-02-25
691.61
0257866
ASSOCIATION FOR FACILITIES
1999-02-25
120.00
0257867
AMERICAN REPORTING
1999-02-25
85.00
0257868
AMERISYS, INC
1999-02-25
_ 330.10
0257869
ACADEMIC SERVICES CORPORATION
1999-02-25
115.00
0257870
APOLLO ENTERPRISES
1999'-02-25
101.39
0257871
ASSOCIATES LEASING, INC.
1999-02-25
7,310.16
0257872
AMERISU=S BAY MEADOWS
1999-02-25
630.00
0257873
ALL CREATURES GREAT & SMALL
1999-02-25
15.00
0257874
B & B INDUSTRIAL SUPPLY
1999-02-25
810.70
0257875
BAKER DISTRIBUTING CO
1999-02-25
240.02
0257876
BARKER ELECTRIC & A/C
1999-02-25
2,280.00
0257877
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
1999-02-25
9,609.93
0257878
BENSONS LOCK SERVICE
1999-02-25
18.00
0257879
BERNAN ASSOCIATES
1999-02-25
33.80
0257880
BIO -SERVICES OF VERO, INC
1999-02-25
180.00
0257881
BLACKHAWK QUARRY COMPANY
1999-02-25
444.37
0257882
BUREAU OF ECONOMIC & BUSINESS
1999-02-25
40.46
0257883
BARTON, JEFFREY K- CLERK
1999-02-25
193,590.33
0257884
BARTON, JEFFREY K -CLERK
1999-02-25
2,726.25
0257885
BERGGREN EQUIPMENT CO, INC
1999-02-25
135.54
0257886
BARNETT BAIL BONDS
1999-02-25
997.00
0257887
B S N SPORTS
1999-02-25
2,469.25
0257888
BAKER & TAYLOR INC
1999-02-25
1,326.20
0257889
BRODART CO
1999-02-25
138.68
0257890
BOYNTON PUMP & IRRIGATION
1999-02-25
432.25
0257891
BILLING SERVICES INC
1999-02-25
8.10
0257892
BFI MEDICAL WASTE SYSTEMS
1999-02-25
81.72
0257893
BAKER & TAYLOR ENTERTAINMENT
1999-02-25
223.36
0257894
BELLSOUTH MOBILITY
199902-25
19.20
0257895
BELLSOU:TH
199902-25
6,079.43
0257896
BENSON, DANIEL MD C/O PAUL
1999-02-25
100.00
0257897
BELLSOUTH PUBLIC COMMUNICATION
1999-02-25
281.48
0257898
BPS -ORLANDO
1999-02-25
159.40
0257899
BROWN, JASON
199902-25
121.94
0257900
BREVARD ASSOCIATED COURT
199902-25
18.00
0257901
BOATC
1999,02-25
90.00
0257902
BELLSOUTH
1999702-25
403.55
0257903
CAMERON & BARKLEY COMPANY
19991-02-25
225.50
MARCH 9, 1999
5
BOOK
PAGE '34
I
CHECK NAME
NUMBER
0257904 CAMP, DRESSER & MCKEE, INC
0257905 CARTER ASSOCIATES, INC
0257906 CHILTON BOOK COMPANY
0257907 CITRUS MOTEL
0257908 CLEMENTS PEST CONTROL
0257909 COLD AIR DISTRIBUTORS
0257910 COMMUNICATIONS INT'L INC
0257911 CLEARFIELD COMPANY, INC
0257912 COASTAL REFINING & MARKETING
0257913 COLLINS, THOMAS H
0257914 CUSTOM CARRIAGES, INC
0257915 COOGAN, MAUREEN
0257916 CRITIC'S CHOICE VIDEO
0257917 CYBERGUYS
0257918 CENTER FOR EMOTIONAL AND
0257919 CONSOLIDATED DATA SYSTEMS INC
0257920 C & D PARTNERS LIP
0257921 COMMERCIAL EQUIPMENT LEASING
0257922 CENTRAL AIR CONDITIONING &
0257923 DELTA SUPPLY CO
0257924 DEMCO INC
0257925 FLORIDA DEPT OF MANAGEMENT
0257926 DEPENDABLE DODGE, INC
0257927 DICKERSON-FLORIDA, INC
0257928 DICKEY SCALES, INC
0257929 DIRECTOR, KENNETH L MD PA
0257930 DISCOVERY BOOK COMPANY
0257931 DOCTOR'S CLINIC
0257932 DAVIDSON TITLES, INC
0257933 FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPRT
0257934 FEDE%
0257935 DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS &
0257936 DOWNTOWN PRODUCE INC
0257937 DILLARD, LASSIE
0257938 DAMPIER, KIM
0257939 E -Z BREW COFFEE SERVICE, INC
0257940 ESQUIRE REPORTING INC
0257941 EVANS, FLOYD
0257942 EMERGENCY MEDICINE ASSOCIATES
0257943 ELPEB, INC
0257944 EDLUND & DRITENBAS
0257945 E D DESIGNER HATS
0257946 ERICSSON, INC
0257947 ECKERD DRUG CO
0257948 ETHERINGTON CONSERVATION
0257949 FLORIDA BAR, THE
0257950 FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF
0257951 FLORIDA COCA-COLA BOTTLING CO
0257952 FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY
0257953 FLORIDA SLUDGE, INC
0257954 FLOWERS BAKING COMPANY OF
0257955 FIRST AMERICAN TITLE OF
0257956 FELLSMERE POLICE DEPARTMENT
0257957 FIRST AMERICAN TITLE OF
0257958 FLORIDA TOURISM ASSOCIATION
0257959 FACTICON, INC
0257960 FACTS ON FILE NEWS SERVICES
0257961 FREIGHTLINER TRUCKS OF SOUTH
0257962 FLORIDA CONFERENCE OF CIRCUIT
MARCH 9, 1999
T
CHECK
DATE
1999-02-25
1999-02-25
1999-02-25
199902-25
1999-02-25
1999-02-25
1999-02-25
1999,-02-25
1999'-02-25
1999-02-25
1999-02-25
1999-02-25
1999-02-25
1999 02-25
1999-02-25
1999r-02-25
1999-02-25
1999-02-25
1999-02-25
1999-02-25
19991-02-25
1999-02-25
1999-02-25
1999-02-25
1999-02-25
1999-02-25
1999-02-25
1999-02-25
1999-02-25
1999-02-25
1999-02-25
1999-02-25
1999-02-25
1999-02-25
1999-02-25
1999-02-25
1999-02-25
1999-02-25
1999-02-25
1999-02-25
1999-02-25
1999-02-25
1999-02-25
1999-02-25
1999-02-25
1999-02-25
1999-02-25
1999-02-25
1999-02-25
1999-02-25
1999-02-25
1999-02-25
1999-02-25
1999-02-25
1999-02-25
1999-02-25
1999-02-25
1999-02-25
1999-02-25
BOOK 108 PAGE 2 1
CHECK
AMOUNT
26,462.22
1,471.50
725.67
396.00
19.00
35.99
1,366.00
28.25
6,056.44
312.00
75.09
387.28
58.55
59.53
314.00
5,609.40
500.00
672.00
56.96
112.31
12.63
3,352.88
15.38
458,866.27
486.75
525.00
725.03
976.94
319.43
500.00
35.75
321.00
217.65
16.73
46.35
68.50
25.00
50.00
49.00
5,876.32
5,334.00
132.00
4,872.76
54.71
15.35
12.00
15.00
584.45
34,679.47
7,182.00
125.63
800.00
50.00
14,349.00
500.00
450.00
92.32
628.58
400.00
•
CHECK
NAME
CH CK
CHECK
NUMBER
D i
AMOUNT
0257963 FLORIDA HISTORICAL LIBRARY
1999-02-25
331.28
0257964 GENERAL GMC, TRUCK
1999-02-25
257.02
0257965
GLIDDEN COMPANY, THE
1999-02-25
17.90
0257966
GREYHOUND LINES, INC.
1999-02-25
95.50
0257967
GORMAN COMPANY
1999-02-25
672.00
0257968
GLI INTERNATIONAL, INC
1999-02-25
195.19
0257969
GREENE, ROBERT E
1999-02-25
1,856.77
0257970
GOLFNET, INC
1999-02-25
85.00
0257971
GINN, CAROLINE D
1999,702-25
105.77
0257972
GRILL REFILL, INC
1999-02-25
62.00
0257973
GRACE'S LANDING LTD
1999-02-25
151.00
0257974
GORDONS-ART REFERENCE INC
1999-02-25
201.00
0257975
HUNT INSURANCE GROUP, INC
1999 02-25
765.00
0257976
HELD, PATRICIA BARGO
1999x02-25
332.50
0257977
HICKMAN, GUY MD, FAAOS
1999-02-25
50.00
0257978
HARRIS SANITATION, INC
1999-02-25
48,341.96
0257979
HEALTHSOUTH INDIAN RIVER
1999-02-25
3,620.92
0257980
HASENAUER, KRIS
1999-02-25
27.00
0257981
HALL -MARK FIRE APPARATUS, INC
1999-02-25
20,180.60
0257982
HARRINGTON INDUSTRIAL PLASTICS
1999-02-25
1,031.59
0257983
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
1999-02-25
273,091.84
0257984
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
1999-02-25
57,370.83
0257985
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY SOLID
1999-02-25
10,239.00
0257986
ICOTECH, INC
1999-02-25
448.75
0257987
INDIAN RIVER ACE HARDWARE
1999-02-25
15.61
0257988
INDIAN RIVER BATTERY, INC
1999-02-25
933.40
0257989
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
1999-02-25
45.00
0257990
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY UTILITY
1999-02-25
557.01
0257991
INDIAN RIVER MEMORIAL HOSPITAL
1999-02-25
209.86
0257992
INGRAM LIBRARY SERVICES
1999-02-25
213.37
0257993
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
1999-02-25
257.00
0257994
IBM CORPORATION
1999-02-25
2,531.61
0257995
INDIAN RIVER ALL -FAB, INC
1999-02-25
684.34
0257996
IRON OFFICE SOLUTIONS
1999-02-25
132.00
0257997
ISG-MCALLISTER PUBLISHING
1999-02-25
75.00
0257998
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY SHERIFF'S
1999-02-25
150.00
0257999
IRRIGATION CONSULTANTS UNLIMIT
1999-02-25
41.75
0258000
INDIAN RIVER HAND
1999-02-25
231.63
0258001
JACOBS ELECTRIC MOTOR REPAIR
1999-02-25
79.30
0258002
JUDGE, JAMES A II
1999-02-25
83.72
0258003
JONES, GLENN H, DC
1999-02-25
350.00
0258004
JIM ROTT HOME IMPROVEMENTS &
1999-02-25
432.00
0258005
JEWETT ORTHOPAEDIC CLINIC
1999-02-25
46.80
0258006
JONES CHEMICALS, INC
1999-02-25
5,104.00
0258007
KIMLEY-HORN & ASSOCIATES, INC
1999-02-25
11,703.09
0258008
KING, JOHN W
1999-02-25
6.00
0258009
KNIGHT & MATHIS, INC
1999-02-25
10.50
0258010
KELLY TRACTOR CO
1999-02-25
24.60
0258011
KEY, PATRICIA W
1999-02-25
318.50
0258012
KIRBY AUTO SUPPLY FT PIERCE
1999-02-25
1,162.62
0258013
KT MOWER & EQUIPMENT
1999-02-25
119.90
0258014
KIRBY AUTO SUPPLY FT PIERCE
1999-02-25
39.40
0258015
KRUGER, INC
1999-02-25
81,810.00
0258016
LONG, JAMES T ESQUIRE
1999-02-25
9,900.00
0258017
L I TREE SERVICE, INC
1999-02-25
600.00
0258018
LOWE'S HOME CENTERS, INC
1999-02-25
5,591.33
0258019
LIBRARY CORP, THE
1999-02-25
6,065.00
0258020
L B SMITH, INC
1999-02-25
249.58
0258021
LESCO, INC
1999-02-25
1,254.54
MARCH 9, 1999
7
•
BOOK 108 PACE528
BOOK 103 PAGE 529
CHECK
NAME
NUMBER
cj�rcxCHECK
DATE
AMOUNT
0258022
LIVE OAR LAWN SUPPLY INC
1999-02-25
6,308.90
0258023
LUCENT TECHNOLOGIES
1999-02-25
155.63
0258024
LOWE'S HOME CENTERS, INC
1999-02-25
116.72
0258025
LANGSTON, HESS, BOLTON,ZNOSRO
1999-02-25
2,227.40
0258026
LANDSCAPE CONNECTION
1999-02-25
786.95
0258027
LYNCH, RONALD D
1999-02-25
700.00
0258028
MAXWELL PLUMBING, INC
1999-02-25
299.59
0258029
MCCOLLUM, NATHAN
1999-02-25
133.18
0258030
MCCORKLE RADIOLOGY
1999-02-25
10.68
0258031
INDIAN RIVER COMMUNITY COLLEGE
1999-02-25
14,505.91
0258032
MILNER DOCUMENT PRODUCTS
1999-02-25
276.17
0258033
MIXELL, LLONALD AND/OR
1999-02-25
299.00
0258034
MARTINS LAMAR UNIFORMS
1999-02-25
2,049.16
0258035
MATRX MEDICAL, INC
1999-02-25
56.39
0258036
MASTELLER & MOLER, INC
1999-02-25
2,970.00
0258037
MEDICAL RECORD SERVICES, INC
1999-02-25
37.70
0258038
MCMASTER-CARR SUPPLY COMPANY
1999-02-25
437.82
0258039
MCDADE WATERWORKS, INC
1999-02-25
33,537.26
0258040
MCCLEARY, MILDRED
1999-02-25
70.55
0258041
MR BOB PORTABLE TOILET
1999-02-25
176.12
0258042
MARC INDUSTRIES
1999-02-25
343.70
0258043
MCGUIRE, GEORGE SEAN
1999-02-25
209.09
0258044
MILLER, JOSEPH C
1999-02-25
112.04
0258045
MAX DAVIS ASSOCIATES INC
1999-02-25
104.50
0258046
MEDICAL SERVICES COMPANY
1999-02-25
106.33
0258047
MOSBY INC
1999-02-25
33.20
0258048
MEDIAONE
1999-02-25.
7,560.00
0258049
NACD LEAGUE CITY
1999-02-25
132.59
0258050
NEW READERS PRESS
1999-02-25
228.48
0258051
NOLTE, DAVID C
1999-02-25
181,074.74
0258052
NICOSIA, ROGER J DO
1999-02-25
1,500.00
0258053
NEW HORIZONS OF THE TREASURE
1999-02-25
35,607.33
0258054
NATIONAL PROPANE CORP
1999-02-25
53.33
0258055
NEELY, EMILY
1999-02-25
16.73
0258056
OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS
1999-02-25
43.75
0258057
PARRS RENTAL INC
1999-02-25
862.90
0258058
PETTY CASH
1999-02-25
158.50
0258059
PETTY CASH
1999-02-25
75.40
0258060
PHILLIPS, LINDA R
1999-02-25
38.50
0258061
PHYSIO CONTROL CORPORATION
1999-02-25
11,628.00
0258062
PROFESSIONAL TITLE OF
1999-02-25
15,000.00
0258063
PROFESSIONAL TITLE OF
1999-02-25
5,000.00
0258064
PORT PETROLEUM, INC
1999-02-25
1,206.64
0258065
PLEZALL WIPERS, INC
1999-02-25
109.42
0258066
PRESS JOURNAL
1999-02-25
366.00
0258067
POSTMASTER
1999-02-25
132.00
0258068
PINEWOODS ANIMAL HOSPITAL
1999-02-25
15.00
0258069
PRIMARY CARE OF THE TREASURE
1999-02-25
630.00
0258070
PANGBURN, TERRI
1999-02-25
24.00
0258071
PRESS JOURNAL/STUART NEWS
1999-02-25
134.75
0258072
PRAXAIR DISTRIBUTION
1999-02-25
144.47
0258073
PROMEDIX CORP
1999-02-25
2,433.26
0258074
PRICE, MATTHEW A.
1999-02-25
800.00
0258075
POSTMASTER
1999-02-25
225.60
0258076
PING, INC
1999-02-25
441.79
0258077
QUINLAN, TRACY L
1999-02-25
14.50
0258078
RINGHAVER
1999-02-25
2,839.78
0258079
RUSSELL CONCRETE, INC
1999-02-25
260.00
0258080
RISSMAN, WEISBERG, BARRETT,
1999-02-25
28.50
0258081
RELIANCE PETROLEUM CO, INC
1999-02-25
161.10
0258082
RIA GROUP
1999-02-25
1,130.04
MARCH 9, 1999
8
•
CHECK
NAME
CHECK
CHECK
NUMBER
DATE
AMOUNT
0258083
RSR
1999-02-25
5,699.86
0258084
ROYAL CUP COFFEE
1999-02-25
140.85
0258085
RAPP, PAMELA
1999-02-25
48.00
0258086
SEBASTIAN, CITY OF
1999-02-25
150.00
0258087
SEWELL HARDWARE CO, INC
1999-02-25
51.59
0258088
SEXUAL ASSAULT ASSISTANCE
1999-02-25
4,459.33
0258089
SOUTHERN EAGLE DISTRIBUTING,
1999-02-25
534.40
0258090
STURGIS LUMBER & PLYWOOD CO
1999-02-25
989.33
0258091
SIMON & SCHUSTER
1999-02-25
389.99
0258092
SUN BELT MEDICAL SUPPLY, INC
1999-02-25
2,639.92
0258093
SHELDON, JAMES
1999-02-25
679.96
0258094
SYSCO FOOD SERVICES OF
1999-02-25
1,000.52
0258095
SEBASTIAN HOSPTIAL
1999-02-25
43.61
0258096
SMITH, VICKY
1999-02-25
241.70
0258097
SANDY PINES
1999-02-25
509.00
0258098
SOUTHERN LOCK AND SUPPLY CO
1999-02-25
41.19
0258099
SUNET DIRECT
1999-02-25
50.85
0258100
SOUTHPORT APPAREL, INC
1999-02-25
40.50
0258101
SOUTHERN COMPUTER SUPPLIES INC
1999-02-25
97.00
0258102
SHIELDS, VANESSA
1999-02-25
38.62
0258103
SCHWEY, PAUL MATTHEW
1999-02-25
36.00
0258104
ST JOHNS RIVER WATER MANAGEMNT
1999-02-25
17,513.25
0258105
STEWART, SARAH LYNN
1999-02-25
38.62
0258106
SOUTHWESTERN SUPPLIERS INC
1999-02-25
65,491.33
0258107
SIEMENS CERBERUS DIV
1999-02-25
169.49
0258108
STUDSTILL, MICHAEL & SANDRA
1999-02-25
500.00
0258109
TEN -8 FIRE EQUIPMENT, INC
1999-02-25
16,951.19
0258110
TERRA
1999-02-25
1,047.50
0258111
TLC DIVERSIFIED, INC
1999-02-25
14,490.00
0258112
TEXACE CORP
1999-02-25
398.51
0258113
TRUGREEN CHEMLAWN
1999-02-25
770.00
0258114
TREASURE COAST MASSAGE THERAPY
1999-02-25
182.00
0258115
TREASURE COAST COURT
1999-02-25
50.00
0258116
UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA
1999-02-25
20.00
0258117
UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA
1999-02-25
930.00
0258118
USA BLUEBOOK
1999-02-25
197.10
0258119
UNIVERSITY OF TAMPA PRESS
1999-02-25
52.63
0258120
US FILTER/STRANCO
1999-02-25
506.85
0258121
UNISTRUT NORTHERN
1999-02-25
95.00
0258122
USL CITY ENVIRONMENTAL
1999-02-25
14,540.00
0258123
VELDE FORD, INC
1999-02-25
400.17
0258124
VERO BEACH, CITY OF
1999-02-25
_
1,577.88
0258125
VERO BEACH, CITY OF
1999-02-25
9,175.00
0258126
VERO LAWNMOWER CENTER, INC
1999-02-25
98.05
0258127
VIRGIL'-S RADIATOR WORKS
1999-02-25
1,416.00
0258128
VERO BEACH, CITY OF
1999-02-25
32.50
0258129
VERO BEACH, CITY OF
1999-02-25
1,649.11
0258130
VERO BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT
1999-02-25
25.00
0258131
VERO BEARING & BOLT
1999-02-25
258.71
0258132
VANTAGE EQUIPMENT CO
1999-02-25
1,040.94
0258133
VERO COLLISION CENTER
1999-02-25
1,850.00
0258134
WAL-MART STORES, INC
1999-02-25
480.37
0258135
4 W GRAINGER, INC
1999-02-25
34.44
0258136
WINN DIXIE ORLANDO
1999-02-25
627.28
0258137
WAL-MART PHARMACY, INC
1999-02-25
23.51
0258138
WILLHOFF, PATSY
1999-02-25
104.00
0258139
WINN DIXIE STORE
1999-02-25
24.96
0258140
WILLIAM THIES & SONS, INC
1999-02-25
165.00
0258141
WALGREENS PHARMACY
1999-02-25
147.45
0258142
WEST GROUP PAYMENT CTR
1999-02-25
724.50
0258143
WOLFE, ERIN
1999-02-25
33.47
0258144
ZEE MEDICAL SERVICE
1999-02-25
120.98
MARCH 9, 1999
U
BOOK 108 FAGE 30
BOOK 108 PAGE 53i
CHECK
NAME
CHECK
CHECK
NUMBER
DATE
AMOUNT
0258145
TRIPP, WILBUR
1999-02-25
494.00
0258146
BLOOMINGBURG, OTTO H
1999-02-25
592.40
0258147
JOHNSON, LETISHA D
1999-02-25
988.00
0258148
BECKER, RICHARD
1999-02-25
105.04
0258149
ERENBERG, DONALD
1999-02-25
105.06
0258150
CUDDIE, ELDEN
1999-02-25
52.58
2,098,333.50
7.C. Native Habitat, Inc./Prange Islands - Contract Revision and
WaiverofPerformance Bond Rgluirement
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of March 3, 1999:
TO: James E. Chandler
County Administrator
DE TMENT HEAD CONCURRENCE:
1
Obert M. Keating, AI P
Community Development Director
THROUGH: Roland M. DeBlois, AICP
Chief, Environmental Planning & Code Enforcement Section
FROM: James E. Rosich, AICP
Environmental Planner
DATE: March 3,1999
RE: Request to Revise Contract with Native Habitat, Inc. to Waive Performance
Bond Requirement
It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal consideration by the Board of County
Commissioners at its regular meeting of March 9, 1999.
BACKGROUND
At its meeting of February 9, 1999, the Board of County Commissioners approved the Purchasing
Division's request for the County to execute a contract with Native Habitat, Inc. to perform herbicide
treatment of nuisance exotic vegetation on the Prange Islands at the quoted price of $24,950.
Subsequently, Native Habitat, Inc. requested that staff waive the performance bond requirement for
this project. County Code Section 105.04(h)(1) states that normally for contracts under $25,000
payment and performance bonds shall not be required (see attached memorandum from Deputy
County Attorney Will Collins).
MARCH 9, 1999
10
ri
•
ANALYSIS
Although this project calls for a two year time of completion, the majority of the work will be
completed within 3-4 weeks of contract execution. The remaining work will consist of performing
monitoring and follow up applications of herbicide, as necessary. To ensure that these are
completed, 10% of the bid price ($2,495) will be retained, and released upon project completion.
Thus, there is no need to require a performance bond for this project.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners waive the performance bid requirement
and authorize staff to execute a contract with Native Habitat, Inc..
ATTACHMENTS _
1. Memorandum from Deputy County Attorney William Collins dated February 22, 1999.
2. Copy of February 9, 1999 Board of County Commissioner minutes regarding Prange Islands/
Native Habitat, Inc. bid approval.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Adams, SECONDED BY
Commissioner Stanbridge, the Board unanimously waived the
performance bond requirement and authorized staff to execute
a contract with Native Habitat, Inc. to perform herbicide
treatment of nuisance exotic vegetation on the Prange Islands at
the quoted price of $24,950, as recommended in the
Memorandum.
CONTRACT WILL BE PLACED ON FILE
IN TAE OFFICE OF TBE CLERK TO TAE BOARD
WEEN EXECUTED AND RECEIVED
7.D. 1998 Tran&portation Disadvantaged Planning Grant - Progress
Report and Reimbursement Invoice #4 Approval
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of February 25, 1999:
TO: James7E. Chandler
County Administrator
HEAD CONCURRENCE
Robert M. Keating, AICP'
Community Development
FROM: Sasan Rohani, AICP S .A
Chief, Long -Range Planning
MARCH 9, 1999
11
BOOK 108 FAE532
BOOK 108 PAGE
DATE: February 25, 1999
RE: REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF PROGRESS REPORT & REIMBURSEMENT
INVOICE #4 FOR THE 1998 TRANSPORTATION DISADVANTAGED
PLANNING GRANT
It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal consideration by the Board of County
Commissioners at their regular meeting of March 9, 1999.
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
It is required, as part of the Transportation Disadvantaged (TD) Planning Grant contract between the
Indian River County Board of County Commissioners (BCC) as the Designated Official Planning
Agency (DOPA) and the State of Florida Commission for the Transportation Disadvantaged (CTD),
that periodic progress reports and reimbursement invoices be submitted. To comply with the CTD's
requirements, staff has prepared a progress report and invoice for the period from October 1, 1998
to December 31, 1998.
For the 1998 planning grant period, the invoice and progress report represent the fourth and final
submittal. This progress report and applicable finished products, such as the Local Coordinating
Board (LCB) meeting agenda items, CTC reports, etc., are required to accompany all reimbursement
invoices.
On February 25, 1999, the Transportation Disadvantaged Local Coordinating Board (TDLCB)
reviewed and approved the attached progress report and invoice. At that time, the TDLCB
recommended that the Board of County Commissioners, in its capacity as the Transportation
Disadvantaged Program Designated Official Planning Agency (DOPA), approve the attached
progress report and invoice and forward these to the CTD.
ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS
Attached is a copy of the progress report and invoice for the October 1, 1998 to December 31, 1998
period.
Finished products such as TDLCB meeting agenda items, CTC reports, and other pertinent reports
are required to accompany all reimbursement invoices. These materials will be submitted to the state
along with the reimbursement invoice and the progress report.
The BCC/DOPA's alternatives are either to approve the transmittal of the Progress Report and
reimbursement invoice as submitted, to approve transmittal of the Progress Report and invoice with
revisions, or to deny the transmittal of the Progress Report and reimbursement invoice to the state.
Choosing the last alternative could affect the county's reimbursement of staff time expended for
transportation disadvantaged planning related services.
RECOMMENDATION
The TDLCB and the staff recommend that the Board of County Commissioners/DOPA approve
Progress Report and reimbursement invoice #4, and direct staff to transmit the report and the invoice
to the State of Florida Commission for the Transportation Disadvantaged (CTD).
Attachments
Progress Report and reimbursement invoice #4, 1998 planning grant.
MARCH 9, 1999
12
•
•
ON MOTION by Commissioner Adams, SECONDED BY
Commissioner Stanbridge, the Board unanimously approved the
Progress Report and Reimbursement Invoice #4 and directed
staff to transmit the report and the invoice to the State of Florida
Commission for the Transportation Disadvantaged, as
recommended in the Memorandum.
7.E. Oslo Riverfront Conservation Area - Intergovernmental
ManagementAgreementwith FloridaklandNavigationDistrict and
A Johns River Water Management District to Include the Flinn
Tract LAAC Site
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of March 3, 1999:
TO: James E. Chandler
County Administrator
HEAD CONCURRENCE:
`- eit M. Keating, AICPj
Community Development Dire
FROM: Roland M. DeBlois;-�QCP
Chief, Environmental Planning
DATE: March 3, 1999
SUBJECT: Approval of Amendment to the Oslo Riverfront Conservation Area Inter-
governmental Management Agreement to Include the Flinn Tract LAAC Site
It is requested that the information herein presented be given formal consideration by the Board of
County Commissioners at its regular meeting of March 9, 1999.
On June 17, 1998, the ±37.6 acre Flinn tract on south Indian River Boulevard was acquired under
the County environmental lands program with cost -share funding from the St. Johns River Water
Management District (SJRWMD) and the Florida Inland Navigation District (FIND). Prior to that,
on February 3, 1998, the Board of County Commissioners approved a cost -share participation
agreement with SJRWMD and FIND to acquire the Flinn tract, stipulating that an intergovernmental
management agreement would subsequently be drawn up setting forth the levels of management
responsibilities among the three agencies.
MARCH 9,1999
13
BOOK 103 FADE 3
F,
BOOK 108 PAGE �P �
As such, attached is a proposed intergovernmental management agreement for the Flinn tract, in the
form of an amendment to a 1991 agreement between the County and SJRWMD for management of
the Oslo Riverfront Conservation Area (ORCA).
The Flinn tract and ORCA are part of the overall "Oslo Riverfront Corridor" project area identified
by the SJRWMD and the County. Therefore, it is appropriate for the Flinn tract management
agreement to be an amendment to the existing ORCA management agreement.
Indian River County has an undivided 50% title interest in both the Flinn and ORCA properties. In
both cases, when the properties were approved for purchase, the County agreed to be the manager
of the properties. Following are the main points of the proposed management agreement amendment
for the Flinn tract:
0
• The County is to revise the ORCA management plan within one year to include the
Flinn tract.
• The SJRWMD agrees to assist with land management activities as requested by the
County.
• FIND will provide 25% cost -share funds for invasive plant management, and up to
50% cost -share funding for public access improvements.
• The County will be responsible for providing and maintaining public access facilities
and overseeing the removal of invasive plant species.
Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners approve the attached "First Amendment
to the Oslo Riverfront Conservation Area Intergovernmental Management Agreement" relating to
the Flinn tract, and authorize the Board Chairman to execute said Agreement.
Copy of the proposed "First Amendment to the Oslo Riverfront Conservation Area
Intergovernmental Management Agreement" (including the original ORCA
Intergovernmental Management Agreement)
Map of the Flinn tract and overall Oslo Riverfront Corridor (north portion)
ON MOTION by Commissioner Adams, SECONDED BY
Commissioner Stanbridge, the Board unanimously approved the
First Amendment to the Oslo River&ont Conservation Area
Intergovernmental Management Agreement with St. Johns River
Water Management District and Florida Inland Navigation
District relating to the Flinn Tract and authorized the Chairman
to execute same, as recommended in the Memorandum.
MARCH 9. 1999
ons
@@ff-W FIRST AMENDMENT TO CONTRACT IS
AITLE
IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD
14
0
ZF. Purchase ofLawnmower from Vero Lawnmower - Bid Waived
The Board reviewed Memoranda of February 23, 1999 and March 1, 1999:
DATE: February 23, 1999
TO: Tom Frame, Director
Department of General SZge�,
s
FROM: Fran Powell, Purchasing
SUBJECT: Mower for Building and Grounds Division
Per your request, the Snapper Zero Turn Mower (Model Z2205K) for Building and
Grounds is a model that Snapper Mowers has discontinued from their product line. This
unit has a 20 hp Kohler engine with a 48" deck and hydro drive joystick steering system.
This model number has been replaced with a 22hp Kohler engine with a 52" deck.
Vero Lawnmower Center has successfully located one of the remaining units through his
distributor and can have the unit delivered within a few days. The suggested retail list for
this unit is $6,500.00 and the County's price is $5,599.00.
Commercial mower units are available on State Contract but the unit most closely
meeting the specifications is a SCAG Zero -Turn Rider (STT52B-22KA) with a 52" deck
for $6,980.00.
The new Snapper model with a 22 hp motor and a 52" deck would cost the County
$5,865.00 from our local Snapper dealer.
With Board approval, the Building and Grounds Division has standardized on Snapper
mowers to cut down on cost to inventory parts and be able to interchange parts from one
unit to the another. Even with this model being discontinued by Snapper, availability of
parts, will not be a problem from the manufacturer. The warranty on this unit is one (1)
year on the machine and two (2) years on the engine.
In closing, I recommend staff prepare an agenda item for Board approval requesting the
waiver of the bidding requirements and authorize the direct purchase of the Snapper
discontinued model from Vero Lawnmower at $5,599.00.
If I can be of any further assistance, please do not hesitate to call.
MARCH 9, 1999
15
600K iW Ft�GE ��
BOOK 108 PAGE 537
TO: Honorable Board of County Commissioners
THRU: James E. Chandler,
County Administrator
THRU: Tom Frame, Director
General Services
FROM: Lynn Williams, Superintenden
Buildings & Grounds
DATE: March 1, 1999
SUBJECT: Bid Waiver
Consent Agenda
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS:
Staff is requesting authorization to waive the bidding
requirements for the purchase of a Zero Turn Snapper Lawnmower.
ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS:
The attached memorandum explainsthe research and the savings
opportunity.
RECOMMENDATION AND FUNDING:
Staff recommends the purchase of a 1997 "new" Model Z2205K
Mower from Vero Lawnmower at the price of $5,599.00.
Funding is available in account #001-220-519-066.49.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Adams, SECONDED BY
Commissioner Stanbridge, the Board unanimously waived the
bidding requirements for the purchase of a Zero Turn Snapper
Lawnmower and authorized the purchase of a 1997 "neva'
Model Z2205K mower from Vero Lawnmower in the amount of
$5,599, as recommended in the Memoranda.
(Clerk's Note: Following discussion of item 7.G., Vice Chairman Adams asked why
the recommendation was not for a more powerful motor, and Buildings and Grounds
Superintendent Lynn Williams advised that staffwas trying to standardize and deck size was
important to them, not the horsepower of the motor.)
MARCH 9, 1999
16
7. G. Bid #9044 - Exterior Painting of County Administration
Building and Health Building - Lucas Water roo in Colnpany
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of March 3, 1999:
DATE: March 3, 1999
TO: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
THRU: James E. Chandler, County Administrator
Tom Frame, General Services Directo66k� W
FROM: —Fran Boynton Powell, Purchasing Manager
SUBJECT: Bid Award: IRC #9044/ Painting of County Administration & Health Buildings
Building and Grounds Division
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
Bid Opening Date:
Advertising Dates:
Specifications hWed to:
Replies:
"No Bid" Response:
VENDOR
Lucas Waterproofing Co.
Vero Beach, Fl
R.E. Steele Painting
Vero Beach, Fl
Exterior Coating by Maritime
Vero Beach, Fl
McPoyles Painting Inc.
West Palm Beach, Fl
Russell Payne Painting
Vero Beach, Fl
Special Coating Systems
Ocala, Fl
TOTAL AMOUNT OF BID
SOURCE OF FUNDS
ESTIMATED BUDGET
RECOMMENDATION
February 26,1999 at 2:00 PAL
February 10, & 17, 1999
Twenty six (26) Vendors
Six (6) Vendors
Five (5) Vendors
TOTAL BID
$47,500.00
$47,840.00
$56,110.00
$64,171.15
$66,042.70
$86,000.00
S47,500.00
Building Alterations
001-220-519-041.25
$52,300.00
Staff recommends that the bid be awarded to Lucus Waterproofing Company as the lowest most responsive and
responsible bidder meeting specifications as set forth in the Invitation to Bid. (See attached Department Memo).
In addition, staff requests authorization for the Chairman to execute the original contract document when the
attached sample contract has been reviewed and approved as to form by the County Attornev.
MARCH 99 1999
17
BOOK 103 FAGS 538
I
BOOK 108 PAGE 5J9
Commissioner Ginn recommended that staff get some advice in determining color
and trim colors so the buildings look nice when the job is completed.
General Services Director Tom Frame had walked the perimeter of the buildings and
noted that they consisted of a lot of different textures and the Administration Building has
had many additions. He thought they needed professional advice.
Vice Chairman Adams questioned why staff did not recommend the low bid for each
building instead of the combined low base bid. She encouraged the use of the two
companies with the lowest bid for each building.
Director Frame asked the Board to defer the matter for a week so he would be better
prepared to address their concerns.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Adams, SECONDED BY
Commissioner Ginn, the Board Unanimously tabled the matter
for a week.
Z.H. Assignment of Food Service Concession License for County
Administration Building trom All Itto Robin Trogdon
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of February 26, 1999:
Date: February 26, 1999
To: Honorable Board of County Commissioners
Thru: James E. Chandler, County Administrator
From: Thomas W. Frame, General Services Director
Subject: Assignment of Concession License in Administration Building
Consent Agenda
BACKGROUND:
On January 3, 1995, the Board of County Commissioners approved a license agreement for the operation
of the "County Food Service Concession" with Lillian Ni Barker. The selection was the result of a Request
for Proposals (RFP) solicited by Indian River County.
Subsequently, the concession was assigned with approval of the Board to Salvatore Pecoraro on May 13,
1997. Then on October 20, 1998, the Board approved an assignment from Mr. Pecoraro to Mr. Allyn
Withee.
MARCH 9,1999
18
•
Due to personal reasons beyond Mr. Withee's control, he is no longer able to continue with the operation
and would like the approval of the County Commissioners to allow the assign of the license to Mrs. Robin
Trogdon, 1401 25th Avenue, Vero Beach. Mrs. Trogdon has over twenty years experience in food
preparation and service in Palm Beach County.
ANAYLSIS•
The option to the Board is to either approve the assignment which will not provide any interruption in
service, or solicit new proposals recognizing that could take several weeks to accomplish with no guarantee
of any qualified responses. Mrs. Robin Trogdon, who will operate the facility with her husband is ready
to continue the operation without interruption of services.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve the assignment from Allyn Withee to Robin Trogdon subject to the terms and conditions of the
original license agreement approved by the Board on January 3, 1995, to Lillian Barker and subsequently
assigned to Allyn Withee, and authorize Board Chairman to execute said agreement.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Adams, SECONDED BY
Commissioner Stanbridge, the Board unanimously approved the
assignment of concession license in Administration Building
from Allyn Withee to Robin Trogdon subject to the terms and
conditions of the original license agreement and authorized the
Chairman to execute said agreement; as recommended in the
Memorandum.
ASSIGNMENT OF LICENSE IS ON FILE
IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD
U LWayers Association of Indian River County v. Indian River
County Acquisition of 50 Lots from Atlantic Gulf Communities -
Sebastian Highly
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of March 2, 1999:
TO: Board of County Commissioners
FROM: Terrence P. O'Brien, Assistant County Attomey"v
DATE: March 2, 1999
SUBJECT: Taxpayers Association of IRC v. Indian River County
MARCH 99 1999
19
•
BOOK 108 PAGE 540
BOOK 108 FAGE 54.E
The Taxpayers Association challenged the County's acquisition, under the LAAC
Program, of the 50 lots from Atlantic Gulf Communities in the Sebastian
Highlands area. The Taxpayers petitioned for a writ of certiorari to the Circuit
Court. The petition was denied as moot. The Taxpayers appealed to the 4th
DCA. The 4th DCA remanded the case to the Circuit Appellate Division for a
decision on the merits. The Circuit Court's Appellate Division denied the
petition and the time for appeal or rehearing has expired.
The decision of the Court upholds the manner and procedure that the County
used to purchase the Sebastian Highlands lots. A copy of the decision is attached.
NO ACTION REQUIRED OR TAKEN.
7.J. False Alarms Responded to by Law Enforcement - Proposed
Ordinance Scheduled -for March 23, 1999 Public Hearing
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of March 3, 1999:
TO: Board of County Commissioners
FROM: Terrence P. O'Brien, Assistant County Attornep
DATE: March 3, 1999
SUBJECT: False Alarms Responded to by Law Enforcement
The proposed ordinance directed to the subject matter which was presented by the
Sheriff to the Board of County Commissioners previously has been revised by the
Office of the Sheriff and is now ready for a public hearing.
A hearing date of March 23, 1999 is recommended.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Adams, SECONDED BY
Commissioner Stanbridge, the Board unanimously approved a
hearing date for the proposed False Alarms ordinance for March
23, 1999, as recommended in the Memorandum.
MARCH 9, 1999
0
20
0
•
•
7X Annual County Tax Deed A plications -13 Parcels
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of February 25, 1999:
TO: Board of County Commissioners
FROM: Lea R. Keller, CLA
Certified Legal Assistant
THRU: Charles P. Vitunac, County Attorney
DATE: February 25, 1999
RE: Annual County Tax Deed Applications
The Clerk of the Circuit Court has notified us that there are 13 parcels that are now eligible for
tax deed applications (as shown on the attached list). In connection with this there are certain
fees that the County must pay (as itemized on the attached list).
Requested Action: Staff requests that the Board approve the payment of $3,309.17 to the Clerk.
Attachments: 13 Tax Deed Applications
ON MOTION by Commissioner Adams, SECONDED BY
Commissioner Stanbridge, the Board unanimously approved
payment of $3,309.17 to the Clerk of the Circuit Court
regarding 13 parcels now eligible for tax deed applications, as
requested in the Memorandum.
U. Payments to Vendors of Court Related Costs
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of February 26, 1999:
TO: Board of County Commissioners
FROM: Terrence P. O'Brien, Assistant County Attomey o
DATE: February 26, 1999
SUBJECT: Payments to Vendors of Court Related Costs
MARCH 9, 1999
21
BOOK 10j PAGE"
BOOK 103 PAGE 543
The Office of the County Attorney has processed and approved payment to the following vendors
for the weeks of February 15 and February 22, 1999. Listed below are the vendors names and
the amount of each court related costs.
Town of Newburgh Court
Record Research
5.00
Sandy Crawford/Brevard Clerk
Record Research
7.00
Peggy Gollnick
Transcription
45.50
Linda R. Phillips
Transcription
17.50
Peggy Gollnick
Transcription
136.50
Peggy Gollnick
Transcription
77.00
Shirley E. Corbin
Transcription
66.50
Linda R. Phillips
Transcription
98.00
Linda R. Phillips
Transcription
63.00
State Attorney Info & Evidence
Witness Management
33.00
Ralph Mora, Ph.D.
Clinical Evaluation
500.00
Ronald G. Lynch, J.D.
Expert Witness
700.00
Kenneth R. Director, M.D.
Clinical Evaluation
525.00
Esquire Reporting, Inc.
Court Reporter
25.00
John J. Williams, D.D.S.
Expert Witness
225.00
James T. Long, Esq.
Public Defender Conflicts - Juvenile
300.00
James T. Long, Esq.
Public Defender Conflicts - Misd.
600.00
James T. Long, Esq.
Public Defender Conflicts - Felony
9,000.00
Brevard Assoc. Court Services
Transcription
18.00
Medical Record Services
Record Research
37.70
American Reporting
Transcription
85.00
Floyd F. Evans
Court Interpreter
12.50
Patricia W. Key
Transcription
318.50
Floyd F. Evans
Court Interpreter
12.50
Linda R. Phillips
Transcription
38.50
Floyd F. Evans
Court Interpreter
12.50
Floyd Evans
Court Interpreter
12.50
Treasure Coast Court Report
Court Reporter
50.00
Gary W. Litman, Ph.D.
Expert Witness
2,012.50
William Coffin
Witness Reimbursement
87.00
Treasure Coast Court Report
Court Reporter
100.00
Treasure Coast Court Report
Court Reporter
25.00
H. Hooshmand, M.D., P.A.
Clinical Evaluation
500.00
Treasure Coast Court Report
Court Reporter
50.00
Linda R. Phillips
Transcription
45.50
Robert J. Brugnoli, Ph.D.
Clinical Evaluation
500.00
Robert J. Brugnoli, Ph.D.
Clinical Evaluation
500.00
Laurence S. Levine, Psy.D.
Expert Witness
1,400.00
Shirley E. Corbin
Transcription
140.00
Shirley E. Corbin
Transcription
143.50
Shirley E. Corbin
Transcription
80.50
Shirley E. Corbin
Transcription
77.00
Shirley E. Corbin
Transcription
38.50
Shirley E. Corbin
Transcription -
308.00
Shirley E. Corbin
Transcription
220.50
Robert J. Brugnoli, Ph.D.
Clinical Evaluation
300.00
American Reporting
Transcription
80.00
Total
$19,629.70
NO ACTION REQUIRED OR TAKEN.
MARCH 99 1999
22
0 •
ZA Economic Development Council - Accept Resignation of
Linda Pell Nagy
The Board reviewed a letter of February 25, 1999:
8006 James Rd.
Ft. Pierce, FL 34951
Indian River County Administration Building
Attn. Commissioner John Tippin, Chairman
1840 25th Street
Vero Beach, FL 32960
February 25, 1999
Dear Chairman Tippin,
As much as I have enjoyed being a member of the Indian River Economic Development
Council, I feel that it is appropriate for me to step down at this time. I have been
representing a civic group, through the American Business Women's Association. So
far, I have been unsuccessful in acquiring any other members in the group to take my
place; assuming that was feasible.
After getting married, and settling down in Lakewood Park, part of St. Lucie County, it
seems inappropriate for me to be representing the interests of Indian River County.
Please accept my apologies for being unable to continue my position. My thoughts have
been greatly concerned with the ethics of my staying on the board. Thank you for
allowing me to participate on the board. I have found it very interesting and educational.
I hope that I was able to provide useful information and feedback while on the board.
With regrets,
Linda Nagy (formerly Pell)
ON MOTION by Commissioner Adams, SECONDED BY
Commissioner Stanbridge, the Board unanimously accepted the
resignation of Linda Pell Nagy from the Economic Development
Council with regret.
MARCH 9, 1999
23
BOOK 108 PAGE 544
BOOK. PAGE 545)
7.N. Miscellaneous Budget Amendment 010
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of March 311999:
TO: Members of the Board
of County Commissioners
DATE: March 3, 1999
SUBJECT: MISCELLANEOUS BUDGET AMENDMENT 010
CONSENT AGENDA
THROUGH: Joseph A. Baird
OMB Director
FROM: Jason E. Brown
Budget Analyst
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
The attached budget amendment is to appropriate funding for the following:
1. On December 8, 1998, the Board of Commissioners approved a joint participation
agreement with the Florida Department of Transportation to receive grant monies in the
amount of $203,868. This Public Transit Block Grant is used by the county to fund the
Community Transportation Coordinator. The attached entry appropriates funding.
2. Communication equipment upgrades for the 911 Communications Centerwere budgeted
for $276,052 in fiscal year 1997/98. Not all work on the system was completed last year.
This entry appropriates funding of $148,070 in the current year from the 911 Surcharge
Cash Forward revenues.
3. Office equipment for the County Attorney's office was budgeted for $5,600 in fiscal year
1997/98. Some of the requested equipment was not purchased until the current year.
The attached entry appropriates funding from General Fund Cash Forward revenues.
4. On February 16, 1999, the Board of Commissioners approved a proposal to upgrade the
800 MHz communications system to meet Year 2000 compliance at a cost of
$135,633.26. Funding will come from Optional Sales Tax revenues.
5. The Budget Department calculated the sick incentive incorrectly for the Recreation
Department employees. The attached entry appropriates funding from the M.S.T.U.
Reserve for Contingencies.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners approve the attached budget
amendment.
MARCH 99 1999
24
0 0
ON MOTION by Commissioner Adams, SECONDED BY
Commissioner Stanbridge, the Board unanimously approved
Budget Amendment 010, as recommended in the Memorandum.
TO: Members of the Board
of County Commissioners
FROM: Joseph A. Baird
OMB Director
BUDGET AMENDMENT: 010
DATE: March 3.1999
Entry
Number
Funds/Department/Account Name
Account Number
Increase
Decrease
1.
REVENUES
GENERAL FUND/
FDOT Public Transportation Block Grant
0014000-334-045.00
$203,868
SO
EXPENSES
GENERAL FUND/
Community Transportation Coordinator
001-110-541-088.23
5203,868
$0
2.
REVENUES
911 SURCHARGE/ Cash Forward Revenues
120-000-389-040.00
$148,070
50
EXPENSES
911 SURCHARGE/
Communications Equipment -All
120-133-519-066.45
$143,230
50
911 SURCHARGE/
Office Furniture and Equipment
120-133-519-066AI
$4,840
$0
3.
REVENUES
GENERAL FUND/ Cash Forward Revenues
001-000-389-040.00
$1,172
$0
EXPENSES
GENERAL FUND/ County Attorney/
Office Furniture & Equipment
001-102-514-066AI
$1,172
50
4.
REVENUES
OPTIONAL ONE CENT SALES TAX/
Interest Earnings
315-000-361-015.00
$135,634
SO
EXPENSES
OPTIONAL ONE CENT SALES TAX/
Emergency Management/ 800 MHz system
315-208-525-06651
$135,634
$0
5.
EXPENSES
MUNICIPAL SERVICES TAXING UNIT/
Recreation/ Special Pay
004108-572-011.15
$1,088
50
MUNICIPAL SERVICES TAXING UNIT/
Recreation/ Social Security Matching
004108-572-012.11—
$69
50
MUNICIPAL SERVICES TAXIING UNIT/
Recreation/ Medicare Matching
004108-572-012.17
$16
SO
MUNICIPAL SERVICES TAXING UNIT/
Recreation/ Retirement Contribution
004-108-572-012.12
5180
50
MUNICIPAL SERVICES TAXING UNIT/
Recreation/ Worker's Compensation
004-108-572-012.14
$38
SO
MUNICIPAL SERVICES TAXING UNIT/
Reserve for Contingencies
004-199-581-099.91
$0
5091
MARCH 99 1999
25
600K 108 FAGE 011D
BOOK 106 PAGE 54
9.A.1. ORDINANCE 99-05 - ON SITE MANAGEMENT GROUP.
INC. - REZONING FOR POINTE WEST DEVELOPMENT
(APPROXIMATELY 602.99 ACRES FROM RM -8 AND A-1 TO PDTND�
AND CONCEPTUAL PLANNED DEVELOPMENT PLAN APPROVAL
(GENERAL LOCATION: SOUTH OF SR -60, NORTH OF 8TH
STREET, BETWEEN 66TH AVENUE AND 82ND AVENUE)
PROOF OF PUBLICATION OF ADVERME1AM FOR REARING
I5 ON FILE IN TAE OFFICE OF TBE CLERK TO TAE BOARD
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of March 3, 1999:
TO: James E. Chandler
County Administrator
DTP90N HEAD CONCURRENCE:
.�i ,L
Robert -M. Keating, AICP,�
Community Development hector+-/
-4-6;
THROUGH: Stan Boling, AICP
Planning Director
FROM: John McCoy, AICAdiZ R
Senior Planner, Current Development
DATE: March 3, 1999
SUBJECT: On Site Management Group Inc.'s Request to Rezone Approximately 602.99
Acres From RM -8, Residential Multi -Family (up to 8 units/acre), and A-1,
Agricultural 1 (up to 1 unit/5 acres), to Planned Development Traditional
Neighborhood Design (PDTND) and Receive Conceptual Planned Development
Plan Approval
It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal consideration by the Board of County
Commissioners at its regular meeting of March 9, 1999
This is a request by On Site Management Group, Inc., through its agent Masteller & Moler, Inc., to
rezone approximately 602.99 acres from RM -8, Residential Multi -Family (up to 8 units/acre), and
A-1, Agricultural 1 (up to 1 unit/5 acres), to PDTND (Planned Development Traditional
Neighborhood Design). As part of the rezoning request, a conceptual PD plan has been submitted
for approval. The site is located between SR 60 and 81' Street; east of 82nd Avenue and West of 661'
Avenue (please see attachment #2). The purpose of this request is to secure a zoning district and
conceptual PD plan approval that allows a Traditional Neighborhood Design project.
MARCH 9, 1999
• Planning and Zoning Commission Action
At its regular meeting of January 28, 1999, the Planning and Zoning Commission voted unanimously
(6-0) to recommend that the Board of County Commissioners approve the PD rezoning and PD
conceptual plan with the conditions recommended by staff, including modification to two of the
conditions. The two modified conditions relate to buffering. One of the modified conditions
addresses buffering between West Lake Estates and the future elementary school site, while the other
modified condition addresses buffering between the SR 60 office/commercial area and adjacent uses
to the east and west. These modified buffer conditions are detailed in this report and are
incorporated into this report's recommendation. —
As a result of concerns expressed by West Lake Estates residents about the construction of 16th
Street, staff has developed another option for paving 161 Street that would eliminate the need for
additional right-of-way from all or some of the West Lake Estates lots. As an option to acquiring
right-of-way from West Lake Estates lots and buffering a roadway that would be located closer to
existing homes, the developer could dedicate an additional 30' of right-of-way along the south side
of the 161 Street canal and relocate the canal 30' to the south, or culvert the canal, and build 16th
Street in the 60' of existing road and canal right-of-way. With this option, where the road is shifted
south,there would not appear to be a need for 16' Street buffering since the paved road would not
be located closer to homes than the existing unpaved road. Such an option would require approval
of and coordination with the Indian River Farms Water Control District (IRFWCD). Staff has
included this option in the recommendation to provide greater flexibility to work out an acceptable
developer's agreement in the future. Details of these options and the timing of such an agreement
are addressed in the analysis section of this report.
• Planned Development Rezoning Required
Presently, the site is zoned RM -8 (19.8 acres) and A-1 (583.09 acres), with 95.52 acres inside the
Urban Service Area (USA) and 507.47 acres outside the USA. The 95.52 acres inside the USA are
designated M-1, medium density (up to 8 units/acre), while the property outside the USA is
designated AG -1, Agricultural 1(up to 1 uniV5 acres). Based on Objective 18 of the comprehensive
plan future land use element, the developer is required to go through the planned development (PD)
rezoning process to secure approval for the proposed TND project.
• The PD Zoning District Generally
The county has reviewed and approved PD rezonings involving both non-residential and residential
projects. These include: Wal Mart/Sams, Hedin Commercial, Magi Mini Storage, Randall Mini
Storage, and Old Orchid Groves. Unlike standard zoning districts, there are no specific size or
dimensional criteria for PD districts. Instead, the PD district is based on the underlying land use plan
designation for density, use and compatibility. In the PD zoning district, setbacks and other typical
zoning district criteria are established on a site by site basis through approval of a conceptual PD
plan that is adopted as part of the PD rezoning ordinance. The conceptual PD plan serves as the
zoning standard for the site.
A rezoning to the PD district requires the submission of a binding conceptual PD plan which, along
with certain PD district requirements, limits uses and sets -forth specific development standards on
each site. Thus, a PD rezoning allows a unique PD district, that is consistent with the site's
underlying land use designation(s), to be developed for each site.
In this case, the conceptual plan proposes: up to 1,199 residential units; office, commercial, civic
and institutional uses; an 18 hole golf course open to the public; and an equestrian/residential
development. Aspects of the proposed conceptual PD plan, including satisfaction of Objective 18
TND policies and criteria, are addressed in the "plan analysis" section of this report.
MARCH % 1999
27
BOOK 108 PAGE 543
I
BOOK 108 FADE 549
0 The PD Rezoning Process
The PD rezoning review, approval, and development process is as follows:
STEP 1. Rezoning and Conceptual PD Plan Approval: Review and recommendation made by
staff and by the Planning and Zoning Commission. Final action taken by the Board
of County Commissioners.
STEP 2. Preliminary PD Plan/Plat (combination of site plan and preliminary plat) Approval:
Review and recommendation made by staff. Final action taken by the Planning and
Zoning Commission. Must comply with the Board's action/approval of conditions
on the rezoning request.
STEP 3. Land Development Permit or Permit Waiver: Reviewed and issued by staff for
construction of subdivision improvements (road, utilities, drainage).
STEP 4. Building Permit(s): Reviewed and issued by staff for construction of buildings.
STEP 5. Final PD plat Approval: Review and recommendation made by staff. Final action
taken by the Board of County Commissioners.
STEP 6. Certificate of Occupancy: Reviewed and issued by staff for use and occupancy of
buildings.
The applicant is pursuing approval of Step 1. If the Board approves the rezoning and conceptual
plan, then preliminary PD plan approval for each phase or combination of phases will be reviewed
by the Planning and Zoning Commission.
Once a conceptual PD plan is approved, only minor modifications to the conceptual plan can be
approved at a staff level. Any proposed changes that would intensify the site use (e.g. increase the
maximum building area) or reduce compatibility elements (e.g. reduced buffering) may be approved
only via a process involving public hearings held by both the Planning and Zoning Commission and
the Board of County Commissioners.
• Proposed PD District for the Project Site
The subject site is split between two land use designations. The northern 95.52 acres are designated
as M-1, Medium Density 1 (up to 8 unitslacre), and located inside the USA, while the 507.47 acres
south of 161 Street are designated as AG -1, Agriculture 1(up to 1 unit/5 acres), and located outside
the USA. In this instance, the TND criteria of Objective 18 of the County's Comprehensive Plan
control the use of the property and how density is calculated and distributed. Any conceptual PD,
such as this one, that proposes density higher than 1 unit/5 acres outside the USA, must meet the
TND criteria of Objective 18. The proposed PDTND zoning district and corresponding conceptual
PD plan set limits on the type and location of specific uses allowed; the intensity and location of
development; and the dimensional criteria for various blocks, tracts, and lots.
Although PD zoning district parameters are flexible, certain standards related to uses, compatibility
(buffering), infrastructure improvements, dimensional criteria and open space apply to this project
and are set forth in Chapter 915 (P.D. Ordinance) of the county's land development regulations
(LDRs) and Objective 18 of the comprehensive plan. Based on the proposed conceptual PD plan,
Chapter 915, and Objective 18, the proposed PD district for the subject site contains the special
elements identified in the table below. The table also lists RM -8 and A-1 district criteria for
comparison purposes.
MARCH 9, 1999
r�
u
28
•
MARCH 9, 1999
29
•
BOOK 103 FAuE 550
DISTRICTS
USES
PROPOSED PD
RM -8 DISTRICT
A-1 DISTRICT
ALLOWED
DISTRICT
Single -Family
Permitted
Permitted
Permitted
Multi -Family
Permitted
Permitted
Not Allowed
Elementary
Permitted (inside USA)
Special Exception
Special Exception
School
with Conditions
Golf Course
Permitted (project edge)
Special Exception
Administrative
per Conceptual PD
Permit
Equestrian
Permitted (project edge)
Not Allowed
Permitted
Facility
with Conditions
Commercial Uses
Permitted with
Limited to PD
Limited to PD
Limitations and
Accessory/CN
Accessory/CN
Conditions
Commercial
Commercial
Retail
Permitted with
Limited to PD
Limited to PD
Limitations and
Accessory/CN
Accessory/CN
Conditions
Commercial
Commercial
Office (medical
Permitted with
Limited to PD
Limited to PD
& professional)
Conditions
Accessory/CN
Accessory/CN
Commercial
Commercial
Restaurant
Permitted with
Limited to PD
Limited to PD
Conditions
Accessory/CN
Accessory/CN
Commercial
Commercial
Convenience
Permitted in Town
Limited to PD
Limited to PD
Store with Fuel
Center with Conditions
Accessory/CN
Accessory/CN
Sales
Commercial
Commercial
Health and
Permitted in Town
Administrative
Limited to PD
Fitness
Center
Permit
Accessory/CN
Commercial
Institutional Uses
Permitted with
Special Exception
Special Exception
Conditions
and Administrative
and Administrative
Permit
Permit
Total Care
Permitted with
Special Exception
Not Allowed
Facility
Conditions
Assisted Living
Allowed with Conditions
Special Exception
Not Allowed
Facility
(must be north of 161
Street)
Day Care Center
Permitted in Town
Permitted
Administrative
-Center
Permit
Hotel
Permitted in Town
Not Allowed
Not Allowed
Center with Conditions
Place of Worship
Permitted along I&
Administrative
Permitted
Street with Conditions
Permit
MARCH 9, 1999
29
•
BOOK 103 FAuE 550
BOOK 103- PAGE 5i
The elementary school, total care facility and the adult living facility (ALF), as well as the majority
of the commercial uses and multi -family units, will be inside the urban service area north of 161
Street. The two blocks of Town Center located south of 161 Street and the multi -family blocks
adjacent to those blocks are the only commercial and multi -family areas located outside of (yet
contiguous to) the urban service area.
While Objective 18 allows these types of uses outside the urban service area, it is the intent of
Objective 18 to concentrate overall project density and intensity inside the USA and to generally
locate less dense and less intense uses outside the USA, with a green belt around the overall project
perimeter. The proposed conceptual PD plan achieves these aims.
11_4*41) �
• Existing Zoning and Land Use Pattern
The 602.99 acres are generally vacant, with the exception of several scattered single-family homes,
a small church retreat, remnant infrastructure and slabs from the defunct Old Oak Park development,
and a few miscellaneous agricultural structures. The vacant property is fallow, in groves, or
improved pasture. There are two small wooded parcels.
The property to the north of the subject site, north of SR 60, is designated as M-1, Medium Density
1 (up to 8 units/acre), and is either vacant or residentially developed. To the south, property is
designated AG -1 and is generally in agricultural use with some scattered homes. West of the
subject site, property is designated M-1 north of 16`" Street, and AG -1 south of 161 Street. The
properly to the west is residentially developed, in agricultural production, or developed as the Life
for Youth Ranch. Property to the east has an M-1 land use designation north of 161 Street with
office and/or residential development, and is designated AG -1 and in agricultural production south
of 161' Street.
• Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan
Rezoning requests are reviewed for consistency with the policies of the comprehensive plan and
must also be consistent with the overall designation of land uses as depicted on the Future Land Use
Map. These include agricultural, residential, recreational, conservation, and commercial and
industrial land uses and their densities. Commercial and industrial land uses are located in nodes
throughout the unincorporated areas of Indian River County.
The goals, objectives and policies are the most important parts of the comprehensive plan. Policies
are statements in the plan which identify the actions which the county will take in order to direct the
community's development. As courses of action committed to by the county, policies provide the
basis for all county land development related decisions. While all comprehensive plan policies are
important, some have more applicability than others in reviewing rezoning requests. Of particular
applicability for this request are the following policies and objectives.
Policy 1.4: Indian River County's land development regulations shall, through various means, ensure
that adjacent land uses are compatible. Those means shall include, but not be limited to, use of the
following:
• vegetative buffers;
• setbacks;
• open space;
• physical separation;
• regulation of lighting;
• regulation of hours of operation; and
• regulation of access.
MARCH 9,1999
30
0 - 0
Note: The rezoning/conceptual PD plan meets or exceeds applicable land development
regulations and provides various special setbacks, buffers, parks, open spaces, a
green belt, and aesthetic improvements to ensure compatibility internally and
externally. These elements are guaranteed via the binding conceptual PD plan.
Policy 3.2: Regardless of land use designation or zoning district, no development shall be approved
unless it is consistent with the concurrency management system in the capital improvements
element, and the levels of service established in this element and other elements of the
Comprehensive Plan.
Note: The rezoning/PD conceptual plan and proposed development meet applicable
concurrency management system requirements.
Policy 5.3: Indian River County zoning districts shall permit a variety of residential building and
development styles.
Note: The rezoning/PD conceptual plan provide for a variety of residential buildings and
housing choices within the proposed development. In fact, this project is specifically
designed to provide a special "TND Lifestyle" for housing and work choices.
Policy .4: Indian River County LDRs shall contain a special Planned Development (PD) zoning
district. That district shall be designated as an overlay on the County Zoning Atlas. The PD zoning
district is intended to provide for the development of projects which require flexibility in order to
maximize open space and conserve natural features, provide alternative designs, incorporate
recreational facilities, and incorporate a mix of uses.
Note: The proposed PD rezoning actually implements this policy, by providing a mixture
of uses, including open spaces and recreation uses, within an alternative (TND)
design.
Policy 9.1: By January, 2000, Indian River County shall establish guidelines to ensure that all new
county buildings and facilities will be compatible with the architectural character of the surrounding
neighborhood.
Note: A significant portion of the development will be subject to the SR 60 Corridor Plan
criteria which require satisfaction of certain architectural standards. Furthermore,
this TND development will, during preliminary PD plan review for all phases, be
subject to architectural review for consistency with TND comprehensive plan
policies.
Policy 9.3: By January 2000, Indian River County shall formally examine the feasibility of
developing corridor plans along roads that serve as entranceways to the county and along other
roads, as determined by the county. The county shall continue to implement the recommendations
of the Wabasso Corridor Plan and the SR 60 Corridor Plan.
Note: A significant portion of this project will be subject to the SR 60 Corridor Plan
requirements.
Policy 18,3: To facilitate TND projects east of I-95 that are partially outside but adjacent to the
urban service area, and to continue to preserve the agricultural and natural character and function of
the area, the county shall allow portions of TND projects to be located outside of the urban service
area A minimum of 60% of the total project density shall be derived from the portion of the project
located within the urban service area Density shall be calculated and allowed based upon:
MARCH 9, 1999
31
a
BOOK 108FAGE
BOOK 108 FACE 553
• the land use designation underlying the portion of the project within the urban service area;
and
• 1 unit/acre for project property located outside of the urban service area.
Note: The applicant is using these incentive criteria to achieve close to the maximum
number of units (about 95%) allowed under the comprehensive plan.
Policy 18.1: By January 1999, the county shall adopt land development regulations that establish the
TND, Traditional Neighborhood Design, zoning district. The TND district shall be limited to
planned developments.
Note: This project implements Objective 18. The TND criteria and policy 18.1 are
discussed in detail later in this report
■ Compatibility With Surrounding Areas
Generally, the golf course and equestrian facility will provide a green belt around the project and
ensure compatibility with the agricultural uses located outside the urban service area. The
conceptual plan employs specific buffers and/or extra setbacks on the project perimeter. Special
attention has been given to school buildings, commercial uses and multi -family development that
need to be located a sufficient distance from adjacent uses outside the project. Furthermore, the
residential -scale and architectural treatment of commercial/office buildings within the project will
contribute to compatibility with surrounding residential areas, and avoid a "strip commercial"
appearance.
■ Concurrency Impacts
A conceptual review of the concurrency impacts for this project indicates that the project will
generate no adverse concurrency impacts, subject to the conditions contained in this report's
recommendation. Further concurrency determinations will be required on a project by project basis
for each phase.
■ Environmental Impacts
These issues are addressed later in this report
The conceptual PD plan depicts an 18 hole public golf course and clubhouse, equestrian area,
single-family areas, multi -family areas, civic uses, institutional uses, and commercial and office uses.
The commercial uses are located along the SR 60 project entrance area and in the Town Center.
Institutional civic uses, including a total care facility, an ALF, and an elementary school, are located
north of 16°i Street inside the urban service area. The plan proposes lower densities out from the
Town Center and outside the USA, and proposes a green belt adjacent to those project perimeters
that are located outside the USA.
The development will have a single access point to SR 60, and a single access point to 12' Street
(for the equestrian center). Two access points will connect to 741h Avenue. Multiple access points
will connect to 161 Street. All of the internal streets, lanes and driveways are inter -connected in a
modified grid system.
MARCH 9, 1999
32
•
1. Size of Site: 602.99 acres (gross)
587.00 acres (net less right-of-way dedications)
2. Zoning Classifications:
Current: RM -8, Residential Multi -Family
A-1, Agricultural
Proposed: PDTND, Planned Development Traditional
Neighborhood Development
3. Land Use Designations: M-1, Medium Density 1 (up to 8 units/acre) on 95.52
acres
AG -1, Agricultural 1 (up to 1 unit/5 acres) on 507.47
acres
4. Commercial/Office Area Proposed: 26.65 acres or 4.41 % of project area
170,000 sq. ft. floor overall
a. Maximum at SR 60/entrance area: 42,500 sq. ft. floor area (25%)
b. Maximum in Town Center: 127,500 sq. ft. floor area (75%)
Note: Many of the buildings in the commercial/office areas accommodate 21 floor
residential units. Thus, many buildings will contain a mixture of
commercial/office and residential units.
5. Total Units Proposed: 1,199 units (maximum)
The 1,199 residential units exceed the normal Development of Required Impact
(DRI) threshold for Indian River County. That threshold may, however, be
exceeded for a mixed use project, such as the one proposed. During the PD review
process, the applicant has coordinated with the Department of Community Affairs
(DCA) and the Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council (TCRPC). Since the
developer is proposing a traditional neighborhood design (TND), the DCA and
TCRPC have indicated that the development should not be subject to full DRI review
and approval but can be approved at the State and Regional levels via the binding
letter process. That process has been used by other developments in the county,
including Sams/Wal Mart and Horizon/Prime Outlets (existing phase).
The Board of County Commissioners can approve this development subject to the
developer obtaining a binding letter or can require the developer to obtain a binding
letter prior to rezoning and conceptual PD plan approval. In staffls opinion, the
development should be approved with a condition that the binding letter be obtained
prior to release of the Phase IA preliminary PD plan.
6. Density: Proposed: 2.04 units/acre
Allowed: 2.13 units/acre
Units Inside USA Proposed: 64% of project total
Required (minimum): 60% of project total
The number of units and resulting density are calculated in accordance with comprehensive
plan policy 18.3, which requires 60% of the density to be derived from inside the urban
MARCH 9, 1999
33
BOOK 103 PACE 554
r -
BOOK D8 PAGE555
service area (USA) and allows 1 unit per acre for areas outside the urban service area in
calculating the total number of units allowed.
7. Surrounding Land Uses: North: SR 60, Vacant, ResidentiaURM-8, RM -6,
RS -6 _
South: Agricultural/A-1
East: Office, Single -Family
Agricultural/RM-6, PRO, RS -1, A-1
West: Agricultural, Life for Youth Ranch/A-1
8. Open Space and Recreation: Open space and PD recreation area requirements will
be exceeded through the provision of parks, golf course, perimeter buffers, lakes, and
private open space.
Recreation Area: Required:
14.39 acres (2.4%)
Provided:
35.06 acres (5.8%)
Open Space: Required:
391.54 acres (64.9%)
Provided:
426.57 acres (70.7%)
Note: Open space requirements are based on PD open space standards applied to
land designated M-1 and AG -1, on a pro -rated basis.
9. Landscaping and Buffering:
A minimum 25' planned development setback is required and provided around the
entire perimeter of the development. Planted buffers, greater setbacks, and other
compatible measures are required and proposed for certain perimeter areas within the
development. These are as follows:
MARCH 9, 1999
0
SR 60 Entrance Area Commercial/Office-
Requires 30' setback along the east and west sides, with a SR 60 corridor plan
landscape strip along SR 60 and a Type "B" buffer with 6' opaque feature
along the east and west sides, as specifically recommended by the Planning
and Zoning Commission. The SR 60 building setback is 75'.
Multi -Family Area:
Along a short segment of a north property line, multi -family development
inside the project is proposed adjacent to single-family located outside the
project Along that interface, a 25' setback and either a Type "C" buffer with
a 3' opaque feature or a Type "D" buffer with a 6' opaque feature is required.
Blementary School Site:
The elementary school site will have a 200' building setback from the east
property line (West Lake Estates) and a 50' building setback from the south
property line (16v' Street). Along the school site/West Lake Estates interface,
a 30' wide Type "C" buffer must be constructed prior to completion of Phase
IA, as specifically recommended by the Planning and Zoning Commission.
Prior to opening of the school, a 6' high vinyl clad chain link fence with
opaque vegetative screening or a 6' masonry wall must be constructed along
the interface.
Residential Outside Urban Service Area:
Agricultural areas outside the urban service area (USA) and adjacent to the
project perimeter will be buffered by the golf course. The golf course will
34
0
�J
form a green belt around most of the residential development outside of the
urban service area.
Sixteenth Street Buffer for West Lake Estates:
One of the following two 16' Street alignmentlimprovement options will be
chosen in the future by the Board of County Commissioners via a developer's
agreement.
Option (1):1 & Street Existing Alignment
When the developer constructs the portion of 16* Street just west of 74"
Avenue, the roadway, if it follows the usual alignment, will be adjacent to the
rear yards of some of the residences in the West Lake Estates subdivision.
Under this option, there will be 7 lot owners affected by this construction.
The two most westerly lot owners will be the most affected, since their lots
are the shallowest, and homes are the closest to the existing 161 Street right-
of-way. The developer, staff, and West Lake Estates residents have met, and
the developer is working with public works to develop buffering details,
including a berm, masonry wall and landscaping, for this option. If this
option is chosen via the developer's agreement, a detail of the proposed
buffer must be approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission in
conjunction with the preliminary PD plans for Phase IA, the phase which
will include the 161 Street paving. To narrow the width of I & Street's right-
of-way needed next to West Lake Estates, the developer has committed to
oversizing the project stormwater system and accepting and treating 161"
Street run-off.
Option (2):16`h Street Relocation
MARCH 9, 1999
If portions of 16'h Street are relocated to the south and no additional right -of.
way is required from West Lake Estates lots along the north side of 16'h
Street, there would be no apparent need for a buffer along the West Lake
Estates lots. This option requires the developer to either dedicate 30' of right-
of-way south of 16* Street, and relocate the existing canal or culvert the
canal, and build the road in the 60' of road and canal right-of-way. This
-option would be subject to Indian River Farms Water Control District
approval.
Equestrian Facility and Homes:
The equestrian facility is a self-contained equestrian and residential
community located at the south end of the development on 90 acres between
12* Street and 81' Street. The equestrian facility will include up to 46 homes,
polo field, practice field, pasture, stables and support facilities.
The minimum setback for any residential structure will be 150' from the east
and west property lines of the equestrian site. In order to keep the residential
development proposed with the equestrian facility compact and contiguous
with the rest of the TND development to the north, no residential structure
will be located within 800' of the site's south property line. All residential
development will be clustered, and large areas of green space and equestrian
use will cover the remainder of the site.
Any agricultural structures must be setback 30' from any property line. No
buffers are required for such structures.
35
r 1
L_J
BOOK 103 FADE 556
BOOK 108 PAGE557
Driving Range/Multi-Family Buffers:
The applicant is proposing a golf course driving range that will abut a
proposed multi -family block to the west. Although this interface is interior
to the project, a Type "D" buffer or equivalent with no opaque feature is
required to separate these particular uses. The buffer must be constructed
with development of the driving range, which is in Phase I.
10. Parking:
The developer has committed to meeting the number of spaces required by the
county's parking regulation for all uses proposed. Under those regulations, the
developer may, at a future date, prepare a shared parking study for the Town Center
area to justify lower rates. Such rates would require Planning and Zoning
Commission approval. Any such shared parking study would need to comply with
section 954.08(2). Staff anticipates there will be shared parking among Town Center
uses and will encourage use of the parking study option during review of preliminary
PD plans.
11. Traffic Circulation:
The project will access SR 60, 16m Street, 7411 Avenue and 12"' Street. There will be
one access point on SR 60, one access point on 121' Street, two access points on 741'
Avenue, and multiple access points on 161h Street. Internal circulation will be
provided by a main boulevard and a series of internal streets laid out on a modified
grid system. Transit stops are proposed at prominent and highly accessible locations,
and will be integrated into an overall project design theme. The design of the transit
stops will be finalized in Phase IA.
It should be noted that the dedication and improvements section of this report
provides a list of traffic improvements to be provided over time as the project is built
and as vehicle trips are generated/attracted by the development. These improvements
have been determined based upon a traffic analysis submitted by the applicant and
approved by traffic engineering. That analysis indicates that the road improvements
covered in the dedication and improvements section will need to be constructed. In
addition, various other traffic areas will need to be monitored during the course of
overall project development. The traffic impact analysis indicates that a developer's
agreement should include:
a) A monitoring condition for potential signalization at the main project
entrance on SR 60.
b) A monitoring condition for the geometric improvements, as well as
signalization, at SR 60 and I-95 east and west ramp intersections.
c) A monitoring condition regarding the golf cart crossing on 70 Avenue. The
county stipulates that, if the 74th Avenue traffic volume reaches 2,500
vehicles daily or 250 vehicles in the peak hour or if a safety problem is
discovered, then a grade separation crossing must be constructed.
Responsibilities and timing of required improvements and conditions will be covered
in further detail in a developer's agreement that is being negotiated with Public
MARCH 9, 1999
36
•
Works by the developer. That agreement may require additional improvements or
conditions, and must be approved by the Board of County Commissioners prior to
preliminary PD approval for Phase IA.
12. Dedications and Improvements:
MARCH 9,1999
School Site:
The developer has coordinated with county and school board staff, and has
committed to dedicate an elementary school site to the Indian River County
School Board with certain conditions. The site is f 15 acres and is located
on the north side of 161 Street on the east project boundary. The school site
will be cleared and grassed with Phase IA and used for an interim period as
a polo field and a community recreation field. The School Board will have
a window of opportunity between 2007 and 2014 to commence construction
of an elementary school. If the site is not used by the School Board in that
window, then it will remain in use for community recreation (e.g. polo,
soccer). Prior to issuance of a land development permit for Phase IA, the
developer shall enter into a formal agreement with the School Board to secure
dedication of the site.
Right -Of -Way Dedications:
The County's Thoroughfare Plan classifies 161' Street as a
collector road requiring up to 90' of right-of-way. Presently,
30' of right-of-way exists for 161 Street. The developer will
need to dedicate 30' of right-of-way without compensation to
create the local road minimum of 60' for the area within the
project boundary. The 30' of additional right-of-way will
need to be dedicated prior to the issuance of a land
development permit for Phase I.
For any right-of-way over 60' acquired by the county, the
developer will be compensated. Regarding the timing of
Thoroughfare Plan right-of-way dedication and
compensation, a developer's agreement will formalize those
timeframes. As submitted, the conceptual plan accommodates
the full, ultimate 90' of right-of-way, although the amount of
right-of-way adjacent to 16th Street will be narrowed -down
below 90' due to dedication of rights to convey stormwater
run-off into the project.
The County's Thoroughfare Plan classifies 74'' Avenue as a
minor arterial which requires 100' of right-of-way. Presently,
no right-of-way exists for 74" Avenue. The applicant will
need to dedicate 60' without compensation to create the local
road minimum width of 60'. The 60' will need to be dedicated
prior to the issuance of a land development permit for
Phase I.
The developer will be compensated for any right-of-way over
the 60' local road standard. The timing of the dedication and
compensation for the thoroughfare plan right-of-way will be
formalized in a developer's agreement. The conceptual PD
plan accommodates the Thoroughfare Plan ultimate right-of-
way for 74v' Avenue.
37
•
BOOK 103 FAGt 558
r
MARCH 9, 1999
BOOK 108 PAGE 559
The county's Thoroughfare Plan classifies 121 Street as a
minor arterial requiring 100' of right-of-way. Presently, 30'
of right-of-way exists for 12* Street. The developer will need
to dedicate an additional 30' without compensation to
complete the minimum local standard of 60'. The 30'
dedication will need to take place prior to issuance of a land
development permit for Phase I.
The developer will be compensated for any right-of-way over
the 60' local road minimum standard. The timing of the
dedication and compensation for the Thoroughfare Plan right-
of-way will be formalized in a developer's agreement. The
conceptual PD plan accommodates the full, ultimate 100' of
right-of-way.
The county's Thoroughfare Plan classifies 81 Street as a
major rural collector roadway requiring 80 feet of right-of-
way. Presently, 30' of right-of-way exists for 8t' Street. The
developer will need to dedicate an additional 30' without
compensation to complete the minimum local road standard
of 60'. The 30' dedication will need to take place prior to the
issuance of a land development permit for the equestrian
center.
The developer will be compensated for any right-of-way over
the 60' local road minimum standard. The timing of the
dedication and compensation for the Thoroughfare Plan right-
of-way will be finalized in a developer's agreement. The
conceptual PD plan accommodates the full 80' of ultimate
right-of-way.
Note: The developer's agreements must be approved prior to
issuance of a land development permit for Phase IA.
Roadway Paving:
The developer will be responsible for paving 16th Street from the
project entrances to 741 Avenue. That paving will need to be done
in Phase IA, prior to the issuance of a C.O. Details of the
improvement will be part of the developer's agreement. The
developer is proposing to pave 161 Street from 741 Avenue to 821
Avenue. The use of traffic calming devices, including the use of
roadside landscaping, will be considered in the 161 Street design.
The developer is responsible for paving 74* Avenue from SR 60 to
south of the project entrance (approximately 1,000' south of 16'
Street) on 741' Avenue. Details of the 741h Avenue improvement will
be part of a developer's agreement. This paving will need to occur
prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the golf course
(Phase 1) or any unit south of 161 Street. As an alternative, the Public
Works Director may approve alternative paved access from SR 60 to
the clubhouse site for the golf course Certificate of Occupancy. Such
alternative access could include the project's SR 60 entry boulevard
and internal project streets that connect the golf clubhouse to SR 60.
38
MARCH 9, 1999
The developer will be responsible for the paving of 12'' Street from
74" Avenue west to the westernmost driveway of the equestrian
facility, and the remaining unpaved portion of 741 Avenue from the
74th Avenue project entrance south to 121 Street. The paving must
be complete prior to the issuance of a C.O. for any residential unit in
the equestrian facility. Details of this 741h Avenue and 121' Street
paving are subject to the developer's agreement.
Other Required Roadway Improvements:
The approved traffic impact analysis indicates that the following traffic
improvements are required:
a) Eastbound right turn lane on SR 60 at the main project entrance.
b) Westbound left turn lane on SR 60 at the main project entrance.
c) Eastbound and westbound left turn lanes on 16th Street at the main
project entrance.
d) Southbound left turn lane on 821 Avenue at 161' Street.
e) Eastbound left turn lane on 161' Street at 741 Avenue.
f) Westbound left turn lane on 161 Street at 74th Avenue.
g) Southbound right turn lane on 741 Avenue at 161' Street.
h) Westbound right turn lane on 161 Street at the main project entrance.
i) Northbound and southbound left turn lanes on the main project
entrance at 16`h Street.
j) The analysis indicates that a northbound left turn lane is required at
the intersection of SR 60 and 741 Avenue for development beyond
Phase 9 or the year 2007.
k) A southbound right turn lane is required on 58th Avenue at the
intersection of SR 60 and 581 Avenue for development beyond Phase
9 or the year 2007.
1) Prior to issuance of a C.O. for Phase I, the SR 60/74th Avenue
intersection must be signalized.
Responsibilities and timing of required improvements and conditions will be
covered in further detail in a developer's agreement that is being negotiated
with Public Works by the developer. That agreement may require additional
improvements or conditions, and must be approved by the Board of County
Commissioners prior to preliminary PD approval for Phase IA.
Note: The referenced developer agreements must be approved prior to
issuance of a land development permit for Phase IA.
Sidewalks:
Sidewalks are required along the north side of 16' Street and along the west
side of 741 Avenue. Required sidewalks will be constructed or bonded out
in each respective phase where required sidewalks are located.
Internal Pedestrian System:
The development will have a sidewalk system and cart path system to
facilitate pedestrian access. These two systems will be linked at points. The
cart path will be built in conjunction with the golf course, while the internal
sidewalk system will be constructed with individual phases.
T
BOOK 103 PAGE �1�
BOOK 108 PAGE 561
There is an issue with the proposed golf cart path crossing at 74`h Avenue.
Public Works has conditionally approved an at grade golf cart crossing on
741 Avenue, just south of the development's access point on 74* Avenue,
approximately 1,000' south of 16' Street. Public Works is requiring a two
tiered condition. Initially, the crossing will be allowed and will be
monitored for traffic volume and safety. If and when the county deems that
warrants are met, the developer will be required to construct a pedestrian
actuated traffic signal at the crossing. The crossing will continue to be
monitored for safety. If the county determines that the crossing is creating
a safety problem, then the developer must design and construct a grade
separated crossing. These conditions can be enforced via the right-of-way
permit that the developer will need to obtain from Public Works for Phase
IA.
—There is a separate issue with pedestrian access to the equestrian facility
located south of 121 Street. The developer will need to show a pedestrian
connection on the conceptual plan and on the golf course and equestrian
facility preliminary PD plans. A pedestrian access easement must be
established to connect the equestrian development with the overall project's
internal pedestrian system. The connection will need to be completed with
the equestrian facility.
Half -Street:
Eighteenth Street is a half -street (right-of-way) created by the plat of Green
Briar Estates, a single-family development located just east of Cambridge
Park. This half -street segment abuts a portion of the Pointe West site's
northern border. The developer will need to either dedicate the right-of-way
necessary to complete 181 Street as a 60' local road minimum right-of-way
or have the half -street abandoned, prior to issuance of an LDP for the phase
adjacent to 18`h Street. In either case, Pointe West will not connect to 18'
Street.
13. Drainage:
The site is broken into 4 major drainage basins. These basins are: the area north of
16' Street, the area south of 166 Street and north 121 Street west of 74`h Avenue, the
area south of 16'h Street east of 74th Avenue, and the area south of 12'h Street. Lakes
will be constructed within each basin and will be inter -connected and treat
stormwater from the respective basin. Each basin will ultimately outfall to an Indian
River Farms Water Control District canal. The developer will need to secure
stormwater management permits from the St. Johns River Water Management
District (SJRWMD), Indian River Farms Water Control District (IRFWCD), and
Indian River County prior to construction of the respective phase. Public Works has
accepted the project engineer's certification of the conceptual stormwater design.
14. Utilities:
The entire development will be serviced by county water and sewer. These utility
provisions are consistent with the comprehensive plan and LDRs, and have been
approved by the Department of Utility Services and the Health Department. The
developer will need to secure a land development permit and utility permits prior to
construction of the respective phase.
MARCH 9, 1999
40
0
•
r"I
•
15. Phasing:
The project is divided into 13 phases. The phasing plan ensures that each phase or
aggregation of phases will be able to "stand on its own" with respect to the land
development regulations and required improvements. Also, the phasing ensures
proper timing of infrastructure improvements, and ensures that the commercial uses
will not outpace residential uses and that recreation and open -space areas will keep
pace with the residential development. Phase I will establish the school site, and the
project's perimeter greenbelt (via the 18 hole golf course, clubhouse and related
improvements), while Phase IA will contain residential uses and some SR 60
office/commercial and Town Center office/commercial uses.
16. Environmental Issues:
The site is mostly agricultural land which has been previously altered. Therefore,
there are few native uplands or wetlands on the subject site. Prior to development of
each phase, the area will be evaluated for presence of wetlands and native upland
habitat. The developer will need to obtain county and jurisdictional permits for any
upland habitat or wetland alteration prior to construction of the respective phase.
17. Emergency Services:
Emergency Services will review each preliminary PD plan for access, hydrant
location and other issues. This is a normal part of the development review process.
While the County Emergency Services Department has determined that an
Emergency Services facility site is not needed from the developer, the Emergency
Services Department has reached an agreement with the developer regarding the
impacts on Emergency Services. The details of this agreement are incorporated in
a letter of agreement dated February 17, 1999. It will be a condition of conceptual
PD plan approval that the applicant comply with the agreement.
18. Sign Package:
Along with the proposed residential -scale and architectural treatment of the
commercial/office buildings, compatibility with surrounding residential areas and
avoidance of a "strip commercial" appearance also require careful regulation of
commercial/office signage along SR 60 and 161 Street. Therefore, prior to
preliminary PD plan approval for any commercial/office building along SR 60 or 16th
Street, the developer must submit a sign package that complies with and is more
restrictive than the SR 60 Corridor Plan requirements. The developer must obtain
Planning And Zoning Commission approval of the sign package.
19. Streetscape Improvements:
Streetscape improvements are important elements in the criteria of TND Policy 18.1.
These elements include street trees, on -street parking, hardscape improvements,
(such as street furniture, streetlights, planters) and wide sidewalks. These elements
will need to be provided throughout the development. As part of each preliminary
PD plan approval, the developer shall obtain approval of a streetscape plan.
20. TND Architectural Requirements:
Preliminary planned development plans are required for all phases of this project.
Those plans will be reviewed by staff and the Technical Review Committee (TRC),
MARCH 9, 1999
►F
BOOK 108 PAGE 562
r
BOOK 103 FACE 563
and approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission. As part of the preliminary
PD plans for commercial and residential phases, a detailed site plan will be part of
each submittal. For any of the single-family areas, a plan book of all models
proposed in that area must be submitted with the preliminary PD to ensure that the
layouts meet the TND criteria of Policy 18.1 and the conditions of this report. The
plan book shall contain a typical floor plan of the unit and architectural elevations of
all building sides. In conjunction with each single-family preliminary PD plan, a
plan book for the single-family homes must be submitted and approved.
21. Hotel and ALF Total Care Facilities:
While the hotel/lodging facility and the ALF/total care facility add necessary
elements to the community, it is important to limit the intensity of the hotel/lodg"
use and ALF/total care use, so that neither one of the uses dominates the community.
The institutional portion of the ALF/total care facility will contain units which range
from fairly independent living with group meals and minor supervision to units
which offer total nursing care. As proposed, the ALF/total care facility will be a mix
of single-family and multi -family units that will be associated with the institutional
portion of the ALF/total care facility. Consequently, the ALF/total care facility will
be like Indian River Estates or Oak Harbor. Since it is important that the entire
development not function as a retirement community, the number of beds in the
institutional portion of the ALF/total care facility are limited to the equivalent of 50
residential units. This restriction does not apply to the single-family or multi -family
units associated with the ALF project.
According to the developer's concept, the hotel/lodging facilities will serve the Town
Center uses, the ALF/total care visitors, and visitors from the residential areas. As
a result, the lodging facilities will bring a transient element to the Town Center and
create activity. As with ALF uses, it is important that lodging facilities do not
dominate the scale of Town Center or introduce too much of a transient element to
the community. Consequently, lodging facilities are limited to a maximum of 65
rooms.
22. Planned Development Waivers and Modifications:
Dimensional Modifications Requested through the PD Process are as follows
for specified project areas:
Setbacks for SR 60 Entrance Commercial/Offue
Setback Site from
SR 60
East & West
Setback from Internal
Internal Property
0
(Perimeter) Property
Right -of -Way
Lines
Line
0
75'min I
25'min
---]
5'min - 15'max
Setbacks for Town Center CommerciaUOffke
Setback from 161h Street
Right -of -Way
Setback from Internal Right-
of -Way
Setback from Internal
Property Line
20'min
0
0
MARCH 9,1999
42
•
Setbacks for Multi Family
Setback from
Setback from
Setback from
Internal PD
Internal PD
Internal PD
16* Street
Internal
PD Perimeter
Property
Property
Property
Right -of-
Right -of-
50
Line 1 Story
Line 2 Story
Line 3 Story
Way
Way
15
5
15
20
20' min
5'min - 20'
25' min
10' min
20'min
25'min
5
max*
20
5
0/10
0/10
*Note: Block W -M-8 has 25' maximum setback
Setbacks for Single -Family (measured in feet)
Block
Identification
Front
Setback
Min. Porch
Front (7)
Setback
Max Porch
Front (2)
Setback Min
Front (1)
Setback Max
Rear Setback
WO/ Lane
Rear Setback
W/ Lane
_
Side
Setback
Garage
Side
Setback
Living
N -S-1
5
15
5
15
50
N/A
0/10
0/10
N -S-2
5
15
5
15
20
5
0/10
0/10
N -S-3
5
15
5
15
20
5
0/10
0/10
N -S-4
5
15
5
15
20
5
0/10
0/10
Rear Setback
W/ Lane
Non -Liv
W -S-5
5
15
5
15
25
N/A
6 or
0/100
6.0 or
0/10
W -S-6
5
IS
5
15
25
N/A
6 or
0/10
6.0 or
0/10
W -S-7
5
15
5
15
25
N/A
6 or
0/10
6.0 or
0/10
W -S-8
5
15
5
15
25
N/A
6 or
0/10
6.0 or
0/10
W -S-9
5
15
5
15
20
5
3
4.5
W -S-10
5
15
5
15
20
5
3
5.0
W -S -I1
5
15
5
15
20
5
3
5.0
W -S-12
5
15
5
l5
20
5
3
5.0
W -S-13
5
15
5
15
20
5
3
5.0
W -S-14
5
15
5
15
20
5
3
4.5
W -S-15
5
15
5
15
25
N/A
6
6.0
W -S-16
5
15
5
15
25
N/A
6
6.0
W -S-17
5
15
5
15
25
N/A
6
6.0
W -S-18
5
15
5
15
25
N/A
6
6.0
W -S-19
5
15
5
15
25
N/A
6
7.0
W -S-20
5
IS
5
15
25
N/A
6
7.0
W -S 21
5
15
5
15
20
5
3
5.0
W -S22
5
15
5
15
20
5
3
5.0
W -S-23
5
15
5
15
20
5
3
5.0
W -S-24
5
15
5
15
20
5
3
5.0
W -S-25
5
15
5
15
20
5
3
6.0
W -S-26
5
15
5
15
20
5
3
6.0
1V1AKU1199 1999
43
•
BOOK 10 PAGUE 564
.1
BOOK 103 PAGE 565
Block
Identification
Front
Setback
Min. Porch
Front (7)
Setback
Max Porch
Front (2)
Setback Min
Front (1)
Setback Max
Rear Setback
WO/ Lane
Rear Setback
W/ Lane
Side
Setback
Garage
Side
Setback
Living
E -S-27
5
15
5
15
25
N/A
3
6.5
E -S-28
5
15
5
15
25
N/A
3
7.0
E -S-29
5
15
5
15
25
N/A
3
7.0
E -S-30
5
15
5
15
25
N/A
3
7.5
E -S-31
5
15
5
15
25
N/A
3
7.5
E -S-32
5
15
5
15
25
N/A
3
7.0
E -S-33
5
15
5
15
25
N/A
3
6.5
E -S-34
5
15
5
l5
20
5
3
6.0
E -S-35
5
15
5
15
20
5
3
6.0
E -S-36
5
15
5
15
20
5
3
6.0
E -S-37
5
15
5
15
20
5
3
6.0
E -S-38
5
15
5
15
20
5
3
6.0
E -S-39
5
15
5
15
20
5
3
6.0
E -S-40
5
15
5
15
20
5
3
6.0
E -S41
5
15
5
15
20
5
3
6.5
E -S42
5
15
5
15
20
5
3
6.5
E -S43
5
15
5
15
20
5 —
3
6.5
E -S44
5
15
5
15
20
5
3
6.5
E -S45
5
15
5
15
20
5
3
6.5
E -S-46
5
15
5
15
1 20
5
3
6.5
Note#1 Single-family homes (not including front porch area) can be set back up to 20' in W-
S and E -S blocks provided a minimum 12' deep porch covers at least 50% of the
home's front width and extends 12' in front of the non -porch area of the home.
Note #2 A minimum of 20% of the total project's single-family homes must be built at a front
yard setback between 5' and 7.51
.
Note #3 No more than 20% of the total project's single-family homes can be set back more
than 10' from the front property line as measured from the home or porch.
Note #4 Pools will be no closer than 5' from side and rear property lines; screen enclosures
and decks shall be no closer than 2' from the side and rear property lines. Patios
without pools shall be 5' from the side and rear property lines. Driveways will be no
closer than 1.5' from the side property lines, although shared driveways may straddle
common lot lines, with a common access easement.
Note #5 All principal structures will be 25' from the PD boundary setbacks. Accessory
structures for single-family homes can encroach as provided for in LDR section
911.15:
Note #6 Zero lot line homes will be allowed only north of the golf course and will provide
a 10' sideyard setback opposite the zero.
Note #7 No more than 33% of the perimeter lots and golf course lots may be set back more
than 15', the setback shall not be greater than 2T.
MARCH 9, 1999
•
23. Traditional Neighborhood Design (TND) Criteria:
Objective 18, Policy 18.1 of the County's comprehensive plan has the following
criteria for TND developments:
a. The minimum contiguous project land area shall be 40 acres.
Note: The proposed project is 602.99 acres, which exceeds the 40 acre minimum.
b. Land shall be under unified control, planned and developed as a whole in a
single development or as an approved series of developments or
neighborhoods. The project shall be approved under the Planned
Development (PD) rezoning process.
Note: The applicant is pursuing the PD rezoning process, which includes a PD plan
for the overall project.
C. In order to disperse traffic by offering many alternative routes and
connections between destinations within the project and to appropriate uses
on adjacent sites, the street network shall consist of a grid or modified grid
pattern and shall accommodate connections to appropriate uses on adjacent
sites.
Note: The applicant is using a modified grid system. Consisting of roads, lanes,
and driveways, the grid has multiple connections to the thoroughfare plan
roadway system.
d. Not more than 10% of blocks shall have a block with a perimeter measuring
more than 1,800 feet. Within commercial and mixed use areas, no block face
dimension should exceed 400 feet.
Note: Only 8% of the residential blocks measure more than 1,800', and no
commercial blockface exceeds 400'.
e. The project shall contain a network of interconnected streets, sidewalks, and
pathways.
Note: The development will have an interconnected system of streets, cart paths
and sidewalks, as depicted and noted on the conceptual plan submittal.
f. Streets shall be designed to balance pedestrian and automobile needs, to
discourage high automobile speeds, to effectively and efficiently
accommodate transit systems, and to distribute and diffuse traffic rather than
concentrate it.
Note: The multiple connections to the thoroughfare plan roads, modified grid for
internal streets, proposed transit stops, traffic calming considerations, and
pedestrian system meet this policy.
g. Street trees shall be provided so as to shade sidewalk areas and buffer
sidewalk areas from automobile traffic.
Note: Street trees will be provided along all streets, as depicted in the conceptual
plan submittal.
MARCH 9, 1999
L -
45
•
BOOK C) FADE
r -
BOOK 08 PAGE 567 11
h. Streets and adjacent buildings shall be sited and designed to encourage
—interactions between the street and buildings through the use of amenities
such as reduced building setbacks, "build -to" lines, front porches, stoops, rear
and side yard parking lot locations, and other means.
Note: The conceptual plan uses all of the above referenced items to encourage
interaction. Front porches are required for all single detached homes.
i. Projects shall decrease the prominence of front yard driveways, garages, and
parking lots through one or more of the following: mid -block alleys, garages
located toward the rear of lots, rear and side loaded garages, garages which
are not the predominant architectural feature of the front elevation of
buildings, off-street parking at the rear of buildings, restricted driveway
connections to streets, and traffic calming techniques.
Note: The only garages allowed on the front of homes are side loaded. Front
loaded garages will be recessed behind the front line of non -garage building
area. Many units will have vehicular access from a rear service lane. In the
commercial/office areas, buildings will front streets that have on -street
parking, streetscapes, and sidewalks; parking lots are generally located
behind the buildings.
j. Mixing of Uses
The project shall be designed as a compact or clustered development. Projects may
include the following mix of uses occurring together in close proximity:
• single-family residential,
• accessory dwelling units,
• multiple -family residential,
• commercial and work place,
• civic and cultural, and
• open space.
Note: The proposed development contains all of these uses. Uses are mixed and
located in close proximity to each other, and are integrated together.
k. The following ratios shall apply to land uses within the project:
MARCH 9, 1999
•
Community open spaces open to the public, such as squares, plazas,
or parks, shall comprise a minimum of 5% of the total project area.
Note: Over 6% of the land area will be devoted to community open spaces.
Civic uses, such as post offices, churches, community centers,
meeting halls, schools, day care centers and cultural facilities shall
comprise a minimum of 1% of the total project area.
Note: Over 2% of the project area will be devoted toward civic uses.
Residential uses shall comprise a minimum of 50% and a maximum
of 80% of the total non -conservation and non-agricultural project
area.
Note: Residential uses comprise 53% of the project area.
M.
0
Commercial and office uses located on residentially or agriculturally
designated land shall not exceed 10% of the total land area designated
on the land use plan as residential and agricultural.
Note: Approximately 4.4% of the land area will be used as commercial and
office use.
1. The vertical mixing of uses is allowed and strongly encouraged around
designated town centers, main streets, mixed-use centers, and central squares
—and greens.
Note: Many of the proposed commercial/office buildings (Town Center and SR 60
entrance) provide for 2" d and 3rdfloor residential uses.
In. Each project must have at least one public square, town center, or mixed use
area within a 1/4 mile walking distance from 50% of the project's residential
units and within 'h mile walking distance from 75% of the project's
residential units.
Note: Fifty percent of the units are within 1/4 mile of Town Center, and 75% are
within %s mile of Town Center.
n. To accommodate increased pedestrian use, 50% of sidewalks in public
squares, town centers, or mixed use areas shall have a minimum unobstructed
width (clear and passable for pedestrians) of a least seven feet.
Note: All (100%) of the sidewalks within the Town Center and mixed use areas will
be a minimum of T wide.
o. On -street parking shall be allowed within public squares, town centers, or
mixed use areas.
Note: On street parking is proposed in the Town Center and in the SR 60 entrance
commercial/office area.
P. Off-street parking lots within public squares, town centers, or mixed use
areas shall be provided only at the rear of buildings.
Note: All buildings within the Town Center and mixed use areas front on the street,
with parking located at the side and/or rear.
q. The center shall accommodate space for a transit stop and a civic building.
Note: The conceptual plan proposes 3 transit stops and an elementary school as the
civic building.
r. Project edges located outside the Urban Service Area shall be established and
designed for environmental, agricultural, recreational, or other open space
uses.
Note: The golf course and equestrian facility provide the project greenbelt edges
outside the urban service area.
MARCH 9, 1999
47
BOOK PAGE 568
BOOK 103 PAGE 569
S. Public buildings, such as schools, churches, post offices, and community
centers, shall be provided in prominent, accessible locations within the
project. Such locations generally are at the termination of streets, the
perimeter of the neighborhood center, or the frontage along a designated main
street of a neighborhood or adjacent thoroughfare plan road.
Note: A public school site will be provided along 161 Street and the main entrance
road A possible church site will also be located along 161 Street (block W -
M -8). These locations are prominent.
24. Annual Report:
The developer shall be required to file an annual report with the county planning division.
Seven copies of the annual report shall be submitted each year on the anniversary date of the
approval of the PD rezoning, and shall include the following:
a. Any changes in the plan of development, 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. Identification of undeveloped 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 PD site since the PD rezoning was
approved;
e. An assessment (listing) of the developer's compliance with each condition
of PD rezoning conceptual PD plan approval;
f. Any request, and the status of that request, for a modification to the approved
conceptual plan 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 conceptual PD was approved;
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;
L The report shall specifically address the following items in regard to the
entire subject property;
MARCH 9, 1999
1. square footage of development approved for construction by land use
type;
2. square footage of structures and facilities under construction by land
use type;
3. square footage of structures and facilities completed by land use type;
4. total number of residential certificates of occupancies for the project;
S. the number of residential certificates of occupancies obtained during
the one year reporting date;
48
6. status of the functioning and maintenance of the surface/stormwater
management system;
7. status of water, wastewater, and irrigation services and infrastructure;
8. status and viability of any planted littoral zone, upland edge
vegetation, or required buffer,
9. a report addressing all traffic monitoring conditions;
10. a list of traffic improvements completed, under construction or
design;
11. the number of school age children living within the project (every
other report);
12. number of residential units constructed within 1/4 mile and %i mile of
Town Center;
13. number of residential units constructed at the minimum frontyard
setback, and number constructed at greater than a 10' frontyard
setback.
25. Caribbean Fruit Fly Host Plant:
Consistent with future land use policy 6.5, staff is recommending a restriction
prohibiting Caribbean Fruit Fly Host plants on any portion of the overall project site.
This would be carried out through enforcement of the PD approval, deed restrictions
and plat restrictions. The applicant has indicated that he has no objection to creating
a restriction that would prohibit host plants on the subject property. Staff will
continue to recommend inclusion of such a restriction when the project covenants
and restrictions are reviewed at the time of final plat application.
Based on the above analysis, staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners approve
the rezoning to Planned Development Traditional Neighborhood Design (PDTND) and the
conceptual PD plan, with the following conditions:
1. Caribbean Fruit Fly host plants are prohibited on the overall subject site. Prior to or
via any final plat, the applicant shall restrict the planting and maintenance of
Caribbean Fruit Fly host plans on the subject 602.99 acre site.
2. The preliminary PD plans for Phase I (the golf course and school site) shall:
a. Establish a pedestrian inter -connection from the development's internal
pedestrian system to the equestrian facility site, and
b. Provide a golf cart path design for the 741 Avenue crossing which is
acceptable to Public Works, and
C. Provide a buffer design (Type "D" or equivalent) for the golf course driving
range/multi-family block interface, and
d. Provide landscape plans for the elementary school site buffer (30' wide Type
"C" buffer installed up -front, 6' opaque feature installed when school is
constructed).
3. The preliminary PD plans for Phase IA (SR 60 entrance area, entrance road, one
Town Center block, and several residential blocks) shall:
MARCH 9, 1999
BOOK 103 FAE 570
BOOK 108 PAGE 57i
a. Provide a design for the 16'h Street buffer (under Option #1). The buffer
design is not required if 161' Street is shifted south and right-of-way is not
acquired from West Lake Estates lots (Option #2), and
b. Provide landscape plans for all buffers to be installed with Phase IA
construction, including the SR 60 commercial buffers. The SR 60 buffer
shall consist of a 30' wide, Type "B" buffer with a 6' opaque feature.
4. Prior to approval of the preliminary PD plan for Phase IA, the developer shall:
a. Obtain Board of County Commissioners approval of a developer's agreement
which provides for all off-site improvements including road paving, right-of-
way acquisition, and traffic signals, and provides for monitoring conditions.
The developer shall commit to providing and shall provide drainage capacity
within the development site for 161' Street stormwater run-off.
5. Prior to approval of the preliminary PD plan for Phase IA, the developer shall;
a. Obtain a binding letter from the Department of Community Affairs.
6. Prior to the issuance of a land development permit or permit waiver for Phase I, the
developer shall:
a. Dedicate 30' of additional right-of-way for 16'' Street, without compensation,
along the project's 16* Street frontage, and
b. Dedicate 30' of 161' Street right-of-way south of the 161 Street canal, adjacent
to West Lake Estates, if required by the Public Works Director or developers
agreement (Option #2), and
C. Dedicate 60' of right-of-way for 741 Avenue, without compensation, along
the project's 741 Avenue frontage, and
d. Dedicate 30' of right-of-way for 12'b Street, without compensation, along the
project's 121' Street frontage, and
e. Obtain all jurisdictional permits necessary to construct the first phase.
7. Prior to the issuance of a land development permit or permit waiver for Phase IA, the
developer shall:
a. Enter into a binding agreement with the School Board which provides for the
dedication of the 15 acre site (as identified on the conceptual plan) to the
School Board, with restrictions consistent with the conceptual plan, including
a 200' building setback from the site's eastern boundary. The agreement shall
provide for access rights, and drainage rights for the site. Through the
agreement, the developer shall commit to accommodate drainage from 60%
of the school site impervious area within the project's drainage system, and
b. Submit a sign package for the SR 60 and 16' Street commercial/office sites,
which must comply with and be more restrictive than the SR 60 Corridor
Plan requirements, and be approved by the Planning and Zoning
Commission, and
C. Provide a final design for the transit stops, acceptable to Traffic Engineering.
MARCH 9, 1999
50
0 1*
8. Prior to the issuance of the first certificate of completion or the first certificate of
occupancy for Phase I, the developer shall:
a. Pave 741 Avenue from SR 60 to the project entrance, or provide an
alternative paved access from SR 60 to the golf course clubhouse area, as
approved by the Public Works Director, and
b. Install the driving range buffer along the west side of the driving range, and
C. Establish a pedestrian easement on the Phase I final plat which facilitates a
pedestrian connection between the equestrian facility and the overall project's
internal pedestrian system, and
d. Signalize the SR 60/74th Avenue intersection or verify that such signalization
has been provided.
9. Prior to the issuance of the first C.O. or certificate of completion for Phase IA, the
developer shall:
a. Install the buffer along the east boundary of the elementary school site, and
b. Pave 161 Street from the project's 16' Street entrance to 741 Avenue, and
C. Provide drainage within the project for the stormwater run-off from the 161
Street improvements, and
d. Construct the required buffer along the West Lake Estate's 161' Street
frontage (under Option #1), unless 16' Street is shifted south and no new
right-of-way is acquired from West Lake Estates lots (Option #2).
10. All preliminary PD plan/plats shall be subject to the following conditions:
a. All of the Town Center blocks and all non -single family uses north of 16th
shall be subject to and shall demonstrate compliance with the SR 60 Corridor
Criteria, and
b. Final architectural and streetscape designs for implementing Future Land Use
Policy 18. 1, shall be acceptable to the Planning and Zoning Commission, and
C. All buildings at street corners in the Town Center shall be designed to be
accessible from both streets, and
d. Except for the daycare building, all buildings in the Town Center shall be 2
or 3 stories or have a vertical mass similar to a 2 or 3 story building, or unless
— otherwise approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission, and
e. All single-family phases shall include submittal of a plan book of the single-
family units, demonstrating that proposed units will meet Policy 18.1
criteria, and
f. Commercial/office uses in the Town Center shall be limited to 127,500 sq.
ft. of floor area; commercial/office uses in the SR 60 entrance area shall be
limited to 42,500 sq. ft. of floor area, and
MARCH 9, 1999
51
BOOK 100 r4F:57
I
BOOK 103 PAGE 573
g. All streets, lanes, and pedestrian systems, shall be privately owned and
maintained but shall be open to the public with no gates. However, gates
may be allowed within the equestrian area on pedestrian/animal paths where
it is necessary to contain animals.
h. The streetscape shall be consistent on both sides of any street, even between
different use types, and
i. A minimum of 20% of the total number of single homes must be built at the
minimum 7.5' frontyard setback as measured to the home or porch, and
j. No more than 20% of the total number of single-family homes can be set
back more than 10' from the front property line, as measured to the home or
front porch, and
k. Front porches are required on all single-family detached homes, and
1. No more than 33% of the perimeter lots and golf course lots can exceed the
15' front porch maximum setback.
11. The developer shall file with the County Planning Division an annual report on the
anniversary date of the Board of County Commissioners approval of the conceptual
PD plan in accordance with the annual report information specified in this report.
The report shall be filed annually for 20 years from the date of the first preliminary
PD plan approval or until project build out, whichever occurs first.
12. The institutional portion of all ALF/Total Care facilities within the project shall be
limited to the equivalent of 50 residential units.
13. One hotel facility is allowed in the project and shall be limited to 65 rooms, and shall
be located in Town Center only.
14. Prior to the issuance of an LDP for the Equestrian Facility, the developer shall
dedicate 30' of right-of-way for 81' Street without compensation to create the 60' local
road minimum.
15. Prior to issuance of an LDP for any phase adjacent to 18' Street in Greenbrier
Estates, the applicant shall either dedicate the right-of-way necessary to complete the
60' local road minimum or have the 18' Street half street right-of-way abandoned.
16. Prior to the issuance of the first Certificate of Occupancy for any unit in Phase 7, 16'h
Street shall be paved from 74d' Avenue to the project's easternmost 16th Street entry.
17. Prior to the issuance of the first Certificate of Occupancy for the equestrian facility,
741 Avenue shall be paved from the project entrance on 741h Avenue south to 12'
Street, and 121 Street shall be paved from 74* Avenue west to the westernmost
equestrian facility driveway.
18. The developer's agreement will set the timing for the paving of 1611 Street from the
westernmost project entrance to 82nd Avenue, and shall set an alignment for 12'
Street east of 74'h Avenue.
19. The developer shall comply with Emergency Services letter of Agreement dated
February 17,1999.
MARCH 9,1999
52
•
1. Application
2. Location Map
3. Plans (separate package)
4. Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Element Objective 18 and Policies
5. Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes
6. Rezoning Ordinance
Community Development Director Bob Keating gave a comprehensive overview
explaining the process and the recent Comprehensive Plan amendment. He called the project
the antithesis of urban sprawl and cited other traditional neighborhood designs in the state
which have been successful. He recommended approval of the request and adoption of the
rezoning ordinance subject to the conditions enumerated in the Memorandum.
Planning Director Stan Boling explained in depth the designation PDTND and
reviewed the above memorandum using the location map (p. 124 of the backup) displayed
on the ELMO. He advised that there were still many important details to be worked out.
Staff have taken the approach that this is a small DRI (development of regional impact) and
thus have followed more stringent requirements. He specified there were two things to keep
in mind at this hearing: a rezoning request and a conceptual plan. The Board will be looking
at a development agreement in the future which will be brought to them by Public Works at
which time the road work issues will be addressed. He advised that the amenities for this
neighborhood will be open to the public and community.
Current Development Senior Planner John McCoy recounted the process and cited
older models of traditional neighborhood designs such as Georgetown and Charleston. He
also focused attention on the TND Criteria (item 23 in Memorandum above) and on the
Overall Conceptual Planned Development Plan found in the plan booklet (filed with the
backup of the meeting). He discussed buffers, the proposed site for an elementary school
within the development, and concerns of impact on the adjacent Westlake Estates. He
reported that staff had coordinated with the developers, the School Board, and the Westlake
Estates neighbors resulting in increased setbacks. He pointed out that the School Board will
have a 7 -year window of opportunity to commence construction of a school. He elucidated
the buffering on 16' Street and other existing roadways and discussed the roadway options
and buffering in detail, pointing out the requirement of approval by the Indian River Farms
Water Control District. He described traffic circulation and mentioned the traffic studies
MARCH 9, 1999
53
•
BOOK 103 PAGE 574
r
BOOK 103 PAGE 575
which had been done. He presented rights-of-way needs and advised paving requirements
for the thoroughfare plan roads within the area of TND. He indicated the development
would accelerate the need for improving the thoroughfare plan roads. Also, he generally
explained the phasing. He mentioned the hotel and ALF total care limits. He advised that
generally the setbacks are greater farther from town center and pointed out that there is less
density away from the town center. He called attention to the section in the memorandum
concerning the annual reports (#24). He closed his presentation with staff's recommendation
to approve the rezoning with the conditions enumerated in the memorandum and pointed out
that the first 9 conditions occur at the front end of the development. He once again stated
that this has been essentially treated as a DRI with the attendant requirements and offered
to answer any questions the Commissioners might have.
The Commissioners made inquiries concerning the streets which will go through the
TND, setbacks, buffering, impact on Westlake Estates, and other concerns, to which staff
responded.
Because of Commissioners' serious concerns about 16* Street and the impact on the
homes in Westlake Estates, Public Works Director James Davis discussed preliminary ideas
on paving and canals in that area.
Commissioners presented several alternative suggestions which would create less
impact on the Westlake Estates' homeowners and Director Davis cautioned that the
suggested culverting of the canal was a very costly solution and the intersection of 16t` Street
and 74th Avenue would then be off -set. Ultimately, he thought relocating the canal would
be less costly than culverting at $110/foot.
The Chairman declared a 5 -minute recess at 10:10 a.m. and the meeting was
reconvened at 10:18 a.m. with all Commissioners and staff present.
There were no further questions of staff and the Chairman opened the public hearing
and asked if anyone wished to be heard in this matter.
Attorney Bruce Barkett appeared for the applicant and pointed out that the
application was not only supported by staff but also by the Planning and Zoning
Commission. He offered to answer any questions the Commissioners might have. He
pointed out that any costs attendant to paving the roadways would be those of the County,
not the developer.
MARCH 9,1999
54
•
Larry Eichelberger, 7435 16 Manor South, Westlake Estates, was one of the
homeowners who would be severely impacted by the planned TND and paving of 16 Street.
He felt it unfair to take property from him and other homes in his immediate area and felt the
property for the roadway should come from the developers of the project. He believed the
roadway on the south side of the canal would be better for everyone. He had no problem
with the project, just the location of the road/canal and its deleterious affect on his property.
Mike Diaz, 7481 N. 16 Manor, Westlake Estates, complained that neighbors had
been notified after the fact and were told how things would be done. He advised of two lots
in his neighborhood sold by the County upon which a house has since been built and one is
under construction. He claimed the purchasers were not told (when they asked) they would
be losing part of that property to this development. He suggested 8" and lTh Streets be made
thoroughfares, not 16 Street. He asked the Board to be fair to his neighborhood.
Robert White, 7300 2& Street, Village Green, advised that he serves on the SR -60
Corridor Plan On -Going Review Committee and was 100% behind this project. He stated
that the Utilities Director had advised that the necessary infrastructure was in place from that
perspective.
Will Barker, 722016 Street, asked how much paving 16 Street would cost him as
a homeowner.
Director Davis responded that there is no current assessment project for 16 Street.
It is not an assessment project at this point in the Public Works Department and it would be
up to the Board whether an assessment project is done in the future.
Mr. Barker commented that he thought the roads are fine as they are.
Marian Greene, 742716 Manor South, Westlake Estates, stated thatl6 Street was
planned in 1982 as a thoroughfare and in 1992 her house was built; nothing was said 10
years ago. She asked if the 16 Street bridge would be rebuilt
Director Davis advised that the bridge is programmed to be reconstructed but not in
a very short time frame. As the area develops, it will need to be done.
Bob Hennessey, 1933 Tamara Trail (77' Avenue), advised that his condominium
group was going to feel an immediate impact when this project gets underway. There is no
deceleration lane on SR -60 at 77' Avenue; it is very dangerous now and there will be more
traffic in the future.
Director Davis advised that a signal at 70 Avenue and other roadway modifications
will begin the end of the year. Planned six-laning SR -60 in the future should also help.
MARCH 9, 1999
•
55
BOOK DS PAGE 5 6 6
BOOK 103 F'AGE577
Brian Heady, Vero Beach, advised that the "devil is in the details". He was not
opposed to the project, but was opposed to "seizing" other peoples' property to accommodate
a new development. He reported that he was at the School Board Meeting; there had been
no agreement to put an elementary school in the project, but the real future need is for a
middle school.
Vice Chairman Adams stressed that the improvement to 16' Street will be done by
the County not the developer. That must be kept in mind because the County would need
to purchase property if the road is moved (from the original dedication).
Julie Stroh, whose home is 98% completed on 74' Avenue property they purchased
1%2 years ago, stated that she had asked a lot of questions about what development was
anticipated prior to purchasing the lot from the County. She was unhappy that it was not
disclosed to her that the County staff was having discussions with the developers of this
project. Another concern was installation of a traffic light at 74' Avenue and 16'h Street and
backup of traffic at that light. Leaving the road on the south side of the canal, she felt, would
alleviate some of the traffic backup. She also was concerned about the location set aside for
the school and where the buffering would be located. She felt the best design would have
had the golf course surrounding the development giving buffering to the surrounding
properties. She believed that, because the proposed development was still in the design
stage, it would be easy to change the design. She also felt the number of units should be
scaled back.
Director Keating pointed out that the 1199 units puts them into DRI requirements.
He then explained DRI requirements and stated that the proposed development does not
exceed the allowable density.
Director Boling stated the development is at about 95% of the allowed density.
Mike Wright, 741116` Manor South, West Lake Estates, has been a lifelong resident
of Indian River County and lived in West Lake Estates for the past 10 years. He was
opposed to the proposed project since it exceeded his expectations of what could be placed
on that property. He took issue with the designation of 16* Street as an E -W collector road.
He thought the County's thoroughfare plan was not cast in stone and saw no need for 16t`
Street to go through between 66t` Avenue and 82 d Avenue. He told of a meeting with the
developers, at which time the developers told them they had requested the County abandon
16* Street as part of their development and the County denied the request. They said they
wanted to be a good neighbor, minimize the impact, and would be putting in a landscape
MARCH 9, 1999
56
buffer along the south side of Westlake Estates. They had said that a wall was also doable.
At the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting, the wall had been sized down to the 3
most western lots of Westlake Estates. Now there is talk of moving the canal and no plan
to buffer from the road. He suggested moving the canal to the north of the road as a buffer
for the Westlake Estates homeowners. He called this a good solution as it would minimise
the property the County would have to purchase from the developer. He asked that the
rezoning be tabled until all the interested parties could meet and resolve the 16t` Street
problem.
Chuck Mechlin, representing On Site Management Group Inc., had been involved
in other developments in the county: Stonebridge, Cypress Lake, and Collier Club. They
realized the 16' Street issue would be a major impact on the neighbors in Westlake Estates
and had discussed the possibility of abandoning 16' Street. They realized, however, there
is a plan and growth system in the county that must be complied with, so they began to work
with staff to come up with a concept that would be appropriate. They still want to do that
to the best of their ability for their own development and the Westlake Estates neighbors.
They are willing to try to work out problems. Today's matter is for approval of the concept.
He felt the proposed semi -private golf course would be another quality asset to the
community. He asked for the Board's approval.
Director Boling thought that the public trust and communication issues were
important. He felt staff had tried, but may have failed to communicate sufficiently with the
homeowners. He wanted to point out that staffhad conversations with people from Westlake
Estates throughout the process. Staff met with members of the Westlake Estates Property
Owners and the developers on January 15' to look at the 16' Street issue. At that time, staff
was using a policy developed in 1985, which is in the LDRs, to have street improvements
where there is a canal on the south side, to take property from the north side. That is what
staff discussed with the Westlake property owners and the developer in January. He further
explained that at the PZC meeting, staffrealized that Westlake owners still had concerns, and
that is when staff explored other alternatives which have been presented to the Board.
Mike Diaz stated that the communications presented by the County were after -the -
fact and the people of Westlake Estates were being told, "This is how it is going to be done."
He believed the County is supposed to work for the people, not the people work for the
County. He felt there should be a balance.
MARCH 9, 1999
57
BOOK 108 PAGE 57
BOOK 108 PAGE 79
It was determined that no one else wished to be heard and the Chairman closed the
public hearing.
Chairman Macht asked if the conceptual approval were granted today, what was left
for modification and to what degree.
Director Boling referred to the many conditions set forth in the recommendation and
stressed that one of those was working out the 161 Street improvements in a developer's
agreement that would come back before the Board for approval. He stated that the location
of the school and buffering were included as part of today's conceptual proposal.
Commissioner Stanbridge asked if the school is built would it be deed -restricted so
they cannot go outside the parameter of the setbacks and easements already established, and
Director Boling responded in the affirmative, adding that the School Board would take the
property subject to those restrictions and obligations including the buffering conditions. The
window of opportunity for the School Board is 2007-2014 which was arrived at between the
developer and the School Board staff.
Vice Chairman Adams understood that if the School Board did not build a school, the
property would revert to recreational/open space, and Director Boling confirmed her
understanding and added that it cannot be a church site.
Commissioner Tippin commented that he helped write the restrictions in 1985 and he
is very conservative. As a member of the Regional Planning Council he resisted this new
TND concept, because it is quite a drastic change. He has gone to visit some of these already
established TNDs in other locations and he admitted to having changed his viewpoint. This
is different and somewhat scary, but he would support this request.
MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Tippin, SECONDED
BY Commissioner Adams, to approve the concept, which
includes the rezoning, with the understanding that the 16' Street
situation will be seriously revisited.
Commissioner Tippin suggested that the Board consider moving the canal and/or
curving the road.
Under discussion, Vice Chairman Adams found it interesting that there was only one
sticking point. She complimented staff on their efforts and commented that this TND is
getting back to the basics of a neighborhood. She predicted it would be fun to watch it
MARCH 9, 1999
58
0 it
unfurl. Although site plan details will go to P & Z. the Commission will need to take care
of the 16' Street concerns.
Commissioner Stanbridge called it a very innovative plan and she thought the County
ought to be innovative with the 161 Street solutions.
Commissioner Grim commented that she wanted to protect the established
neighborhood at West Lake Estates and thought the Board should be sure to do that.
The Chairman CALLED THE QUESTION and the motion
carried unanimously. (Ordinance #99-005 adopted subject to
conditions as set forth in the recommendation of the above
memorandum.)
ORDINANCE NO. 99- 0 5
AN ORDINANCE OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, AMENDING THE
ZONING ORDINANCE AND THE ACCOMPANYING ZONING MAP FROM
RM -8 AND A-1 TO PDTND FOR APPROXIMATELY 602.99 ACRES OF LAND
GENERALLY LOCATED SOUTH OF SR 60, NORTH OF 8'T" STREET,
BETWEEN 661 AVENUE AND 821 AVENUE; AND DESCRIBED HEREIN,
AND PROVIDING FOR AN 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
consistent with the Comprehensive Plan of Indian River County, and the county land development
regulations, including but not limited to the Planned Development (PD) Process and Standards for
Development chapter, 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 property situated in Indian River County, and legally
described in EXHIBIT A (attached) be changed from RM -8 and A-1 to PDTND, and that the PD
conceptual plan (see EXHIBIT B, attached) will control and regulate development on the subject
land.
MARCH 9, 1999
Fi7
BOOK 1U pAGF ��
BOOK
All with the meaning and intent as set forth in the land development regulations, and the
approved conceptual plan as may be amended pursuant to the provisions of the Planned
Development (PD) Process and Standards for Development chapter of the land development
regulations.
Approved and adopted by the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County,
Florida, on this qday of M a r c h , 1999.
103 PAGE 58
This ordinance was advertised in the Vero Beach Press -Journal on the L4 day of
February , 1999 for a public hearing to be held on the9 day of March 1999 at which
time it was moved for adoption by Commissioner T i o n i n , seconded by Commissioner
Adams , and adopted by the following vote:
Chairman Kenneth R. Macht A y e
Vice Chairman Fran B. Adams A v e
Commissioner Caroline Ginn Aye
Commissioner Ruth Stanbridge A y e
Commissioner John W. Tippin A y e
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this #umnyty,
by Kenneth R.
Macht as Chairman of the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River Florida, and by
PATRICIA NSI. FIIGGEyeputy Clerk, respectively Clerk of the Board of County Commissioners of Indian
River County, Florida, who are personally known to me.
jll7JllJlJIJJHJlIJNJHibli:iliNrlidll�iJl�Ilh .
r • Alice E. Wbite ;
•o�
NOW public,Soft dFlu
aNO.CCST6832 '
�n Mycrmmsacica Exp. W13R000
IJOb3 Nt �A"'r . rLL E;.y,y Sen ee &
�ir»7»»1�»riis»>,t»>,»>yr�sss►»7
Notary Public
Printed Name:
Commission No.:
Commission Expiration:
Acknowledgment by the Department of State of the State of Florida this day of
1999.
Effective upon filing with the Department of State.
This ordinance was filed with the Department of State on the following date: MAR 1 7 1999
MARCH 9, 1999
.0
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Inaa� Rive Ga AGoroved Date
OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
Admin V 3 y
Legal
Budget
Desi. rl
By:
Risk mgr.
eth R Macht, Chairman
ATTEST BY:
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this #umnyty,
by Kenneth R.
Macht as Chairman of the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River Florida, and by
PATRICIA NSI. FIIGGEyeputy Clerk, respectively Clerk of the Board of County Commissioners of Indian
River County, Florida, who are personally known to me.
jll7JllJlJIJJHJlIJNJHibli:iliNrlidll�iJl�Ilh .
r • Alice E. Wbite ;
•o�
NOW public,Soft dFlu
aNO.CCST6832 '
�n Mycrmmsacica Exp. W13R000
IJOb3 Nt �A"'r . rLL E;.y,y Sen ee &
�ir»7»»1�»riis»>,t»>,»>yr�sss►»7
Notary Public
Printed Name:
Commission No.:
Commission Expiration:
Acknowledgment by the Department of State of the State of Florida this day of
1999.
Effective upon filing with the Department of State.
This ordinance was filed with the Department of State on the following date: MAR 1 7 1999
MARCH 9, 1999
.0
•
DESCRIPTION
•
THE EAST 20.00 ACRES OF TRACT 10 AND ALL OF TRACTS 14 AND 15. SECTION
I. TOWNSHIP 33 SOUTH. RANGE 38 EAST. INDIAN RIVER COUNTY. FLORIDA:
AND
TRACTS I. 2. 3. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10 AND 15 SECTION 12. TOWNSHIP 33 SOUTH.
RANGE 38 EAST. INDIAN RIVER COUNTY. FLORIDA. LESS HOWEVER THE WEST
17.60 ACRES OF SAID TRACT 6 AND THE EAST 28.98 ACRES OF SAID TRACT 9.
AND
TRACTS 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7 AND 12. SECTION 7. TOWNSHIP 33 SOUTH. RANGE
39 EAST. INDIAN RIVER COUNTY. FLORIDA. LYING NORTH OF THE MAIN CANAL.
ALL OF THE ABOVE SHOWN ON THE PLAT OF THE INDIAN RIVER FARMS
COMPANY SUBDIVISION. ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF. AS RECORDED IN
PLAT BOOK 2. PAGE 25. OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF ST. LUCIE (NOW INDIAN
RIVER) COUNTY. FLORIDA.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
POINTE WEST
MARCH 9, 1999
61
DAVID M. JONES
PROFESSIONAL SURVEYOR 6 MAPPER
2345 14TH AVENUE
(561)567-9875 VERO BEACH . FL 32960
BOOK 103 PAGE
N
Ulf 1FFU'qI
I rfill�1141if1111Ieq
Yi t tE t tar s
SS
! r i Is !r �s CC r e .( lttttl. i
E �rl E , jit t 11 IF IF t i a, IL ttttttf a
ttttttf tft
ss a a
MARCH 9, 1999
r1
U
W
BOOK 103 PAGE 583
n
V
9.A.2. ORDINANCE NO. 99-006 - AMENDMENT TO ZONING
ORDINANCE AND ZONING MAP FROM RS -6 AND RM -6 TO RM -8
FOR PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF 41ST STREET
AND WEST SIDE OF INDIAN RIVER BOULEVARD - SCHWERIN
REALTY COMPANY - ±29.5 ACRES (Quasi -Judicial)
PROOF OF PUBLICATION OF ADVERTISEMENT FOR HEARING
IS ON FILE IN TBE OFFICE OF TBE CLERK TO THE BOARD
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of February 19, 1999:
TO: James E. Chandler
County Administrator
HEAD CONCURRENCE
Rftert M. Keating, A1CP
THROUGH: Sasan Rohan, AICP S -//
Chief, Long -Range Planning
FROM: John Wachtel ax
Senior Planner, Long -Range Planning
DATE: February 19,1999
RE: Schwerin Realty Company and Others Request to Rezone Approximately 29.5
Acres from RM -6 and RS -6 to RM -8 (RZON 98-10-0061)
It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal consideration by the Board of County
Commissioners at its regular meeting of March 9, 1999.
This request is to rezone approximately 29.5 acres to RM -8, Multiple -Family Residential District
(up to 8 units/acre). The western 28.8 acres of the site are currently zoned RM -6, Multiple -Family
Residential District (up to 6 units/acre), while the eastern 0.7 acres of the site are currently zoned
RS -6, Single -Family Residential District (up to 6 units/acre).
Somewhat irregularly shaped, the subject property is depicted on attachment 2 and is generally
located near the northwest comer of the intersection of 41 "' Street (South Gifford Road) and Indian
River Boulevard. The purpose of this request is to secure the zoning necessary to develop the site
with a residential use at a density that is consistent with its comprehensive plan land use designation.
On November 12, 1998, the Planning and Zoning Commission voted 5 to 0 to recommend that the
Board of County Commissioners approve this request to rezone the subject property to RM -8.
MARCH 9, 1999
63
BOOK 0 FACE 5,`i'
BOOK 103 PAGE 585
The subject property and all surrounding property consist of citrus groves and -are zoned either RM -6
or RS -6. The boundary between the RM -6 and RS -6 zoning districts is perpendicular to 41' Street
and is located approximately 780 feet west of the 41' Street/Indian River Boulevard intersection.
The subject property and all surrounding properties north of 41' Street are designated M-1, Medium -
Density Residential -1, on the county future land use map. The M-1 designation permits residential
uses with densities up to 8 units/acre. As part of the county's evaluation and appraisal process,
properties south of the subject property, across 41' Street, were recently redesignated from M-1 to
CA, Commercial/Industrial, on the county future land use map. The C/I designation permits various
commercial and industrial zoning districts. In the future, the county plans to rezone that property
to the MED, Medical, zoning district.
The subject property is not designated as environmentally important or environmentally sensitive
by the comprehensive plan. No wetlands or native upland plant communities exist on site.
According to Flood Insurance Rating Maps, the subject property does not contain any flood hazard
areas.
The site is within the Urban Service Area of the county. Wastewater service is available to the site
from the Central Region Wastewater Treatment Plant, while potable water service is available to the
site from the North County Reverse Osmosis Plant.
The site can be accessed by both Indian River Boulevard and 41' Street. Classified as an urban
principal arterial on the future roadway thoroughfare plan map, the segment of Indian River
Boulevard that abuts the subject property is a four lane road with approximately 200 feet of public
road right-of-way. No improvements to this portion of Indian River Boulevard are currently
programmed.
The site is also bounded by 41' Street, an urban collector road on the future roadway thoroughfare
planmap. A paved two lane road, 41' Street has approximately 100 feet of public road right-of-way.
No improvements to this portion of 41' Street are currently programmed.
In this section, an analysis of the reasonableness of the rezoning request will be presented.
Specifically, this section will include:
• an analysis of the request's impact on public facilities;
• an analysis of the request's consistency with the county's comprehensive plan;
• an analysis of the request's compatibility with the surrounding area; and
• an analysis of the request's potential impact on environmental quality.
MARCH 9, 1999
9 it
•
This site is located within the county Urban Service Area, an area deemed suited for urban scale
development. The Comprehensive Plan establishes standards for: Transportation, Potable Water,
Wastewater, Solid Waste, Drainage and Recreation. The adequate provision of these services is
necessary to ensure the continued quality of life enjoyed by the community. The Comprehensive
Plan and Land Development Regulations (LDRs) also require that new development be reviewed
to ensure that the minimum acceptable standards for these services and facilities are maintained.
Policy 3.2 of the Future Land Use Element states that no development shall be approved unless it
is consistent with the concurrency management system component of the Capital Improvements
Element. For rezoning requests, conditional concuntricy review is required.
Conditional concurrency review examines the available capacity of each facility with respect to a
proposed project. Since rezoning requests are not projects, county regulations call for the
concurrency review -to be based upon the most intense use of the subject property based upon the
requested zoning. For residential rezoning requests, the most intense use (according to the County's
LDRs) is the maximum number of units that could be built on the site, given the size of the property
and the maximum density under the proposed zoning. The site information used for the concurrency
analysis is as follows:
1. Size of Area to be Rezoned:
2. Existing Zoning Districts:
3. Proposed Zoning District:
4. Most Intense Use of Subject Property
Under Existing Zoning Districts:
5. Most Intense Use of Subject Property
Under Proposed Zoning District:
- Transportation
f29.5 acres
RM -6, Multiple -Family Residential District (up to
6 units/acre) and RS -6, Single -Family Residential
District (up to 6 units/acre)
RMA Multiple -Family Residential District (up to
8 units/acre)
177 Single -Family Units
236 Single -Family Units
As part of the concurrency review process, the applicant has submitted a Traffic Impact Analysis
(TIA). The county's Traffic Engineering Division has reviewed and approved that TIA. A TIA
reports the number of peak hour/peak season/peak direction trips that would be generated by the
most intense use of the subject property under the proposed zoning district, and assigns those trips
to impacted roads. Impacted roads are defined in section 910.09(4)(b)3 of the county's LDRs as
roadway segments which receive five percent (5%) or more of the project traffic or fifty (50) or more
project trips, whichever is less.
According to the approved TIA, the existing level of service on impacted roads would not be
lowered by the traffic generated by development of 236 single-family units on the subject property.
- Water
With the proposed zoning, the subject property could accommodate 236 residential units, resulting
in water consumption at a rate of 236 Equivalent Residential Units (ERU), or 59,000 gallons/day.
This is based upon a level of service of 250 gallons/ERU/day. Development on the subject property
would be served by the North County Reverse Osmosis Plant which currently has a remaining
capacity of approximately 2,400,000 gallons/day and can accommodate the additional demand
generated by the proposed rezoning.
MARCH 9, 1999
65
BOOK I U-3, FAGE
F1
LJ
A
F'
BOOK 103 FACE587
- Wastewater
Based upon the most intense use allowed under the proposed zoning, development of the property
will have a wastewater generation rate of approximately 236 Equivalent Residential Units (ERU),
or 59,000 gallons/day. This is based upon the level of service standard of 250 gallons/ERU/day.
County wastewater service is available to the site from the Central Regional Wastewater Treatment
Plant, which currently has a remaining capacity of more than 1,300,000 gallons/day and can
accommodate the additional wastewater generated by the subject request.
- -Solid Waste —
Solid waste service includes pick-up by private operators and disposal at the county landfill. The
county's adopted level of service standard for landfill capacity is 1.97 cubic yards/person/ year. With
the county's average of approximately 2.3 persons/unit, a 236 unit residential development would
be anticipated to house approximately 543 people (2.3 X 236). For the subject request to meet the
county's adopted level of service standard of 1.97 cubic yards/person/year, the landfill must have
enough capacity to accommodate approximately 1,070 (543 X 1.97) cubic yards/year.
A review of the solid waste capacity for the active segment of the county landfill indicates the
availability of more than 830,000 cubic yards. The active segment of the landfill has a 2 year
capacity, and the landfill has expansion capacity beyond 2010. Based on the analysis, staff
determined that the county landfill can accommodate the additional solid waste generated by the site
under the proposed zoning district.
- Drainage
All developments are reviewed for compliance with county stormwater regulations which require
on-site retention, preservation of floodplain storage and minimum finished floor elevations. In
addition, development proposals must meet the discharge requirements of the county Stormwater
Management Ordinance. Any development on the subject property will be prohibited from
discharging any runoff in excess of the pre -development rate.
In this case, the minimum floor elevation level of service standard does not apply, since the property
does not He within a floodplain. On-site retention and discharge standards, however, do apply to this
request. With the most intense use of this site, the maximum area of impervious surface under the
proposed zoning classification will be approximately 20.65 acres. The estimated runoff volume,
based on that amount of impervious surface and the 25 year/24 hour design storm, will be
approximately 882,350 cubic feet. In order to maintain the county's adopted level of service, the
applicant will be required to retain approximately 241,930 cubic feet of runoff on-site. With the soil
characteristics of the subject property, it is estimated that the pre -development runoff rate is
149.61 cubic feet/second.
Based upon staffs analysis, the drainage level of service standards will be met by limiting off-site
discharge to its pre -development rate of 149.61 cubic feettsecond, and requiring retention of 241,930
cubic feet of runoff for the most intense use of the property.
As with all development, a more detailed review will be conducted during the development approval
process.
- Recreation
A review of county recreation facilities and the projected demand that would result from the most
intense development that could occur on the property under the proposed zoning district indicates
that the adopted levels of service would be maintained. The following table illustrates the additional
park demand associated with the proposed development of the property and the existing surplus park
acreage.
MARCH 99 1999
M.
PARK INFORMATION
LOS (Acres per 1,000 Population)
Project Demand (Acres)
Surplus Park Acreage
4.0
2.1712
232
Based upon the analysis conducted, staff has determined that all concurrency -mandated facilities,
including drainage, roads, solid waste, recreation, water, and wastewater, have adequate capacity to
accommodate the most intense use of the subject property under the proposed zoning district.
Therefore, the concurrency test has been satisfied for the subject request.
Rezoning requests are reviewed for consistency with all policies of the comprehensive plan.
Rezonings must also be consistent with the overall designation of land uses as depicted on the Future
Land Use Map, which include agriculture, residential, recreation, conservation, and commercial and
industrial land uses and their densities. Commercial and industrial land uses are located in nodes
throughout the unincorporated areas of Indian River County.
The goals, objectives and policies are the most important parts of the comprehensive plan. Policies
are statements in the plan which identify the actions which the county will take in order to direct the
community's development. As courses of action committed to by the county, policies provide the
basis for all county land development decisions. While all comprehensive plan policies are
important, some have more applicability than others in reviewing rezoning requests. Of particular
applicability for this request are the following objectives and policies.
- Future Land Use Element Objective 1
Future Land Use Element Objective 1 states that the county will have a compact land use pattern
which reduces urban sprawl. Since the proposed rezoning is to increase the allowed density of land
within the urban service area, the request works to create a more compact land use pattern within the
urban service area. By increasing the allowed density of land currently within the urban service area,
as opposed to expanding the urban service area, the proposed rezoning reduces the chances urban
sprawl will occur. For these reasons, the request is consistent with Future Land Use Element
Objective 1.
- Future Land Use Element Policies 1.13 and 1.14
Future Land Use Element Policy 1.14 states that the M-1, Medium -Density Residential -1, land use
designation is intended for residential uses with densities up to 8 units/acre. In addition, Future Land
Use Element Policy 1.13 states that these residential uses must be located within the urban service
area.
Since the subject property is located within an area designated as M-1 on the county's future land
use plan map and is located within the county's urban service area, and the proposed zoning district
would allow residential uses no greater than the 8 units/acre permitted by the M-1 designation, the
proposed request is consistent with Policies 1.13 and 1.14.
- Future Land Use Element Policy 2.2
Future Land Use Element Policy 2.2 states that the county shall encourage and direct growth into
the urban service area through zoning and LDRs. Since the proposed rezoning would allow and
encourage more development on the subject property and the subject property is within the urban
service area, the request implements Future Land Use Element Policy 2.2.
MARCH 911999
67
BOOK ll.�U FAGt ��`J
r_
BOOK 108 PAGE 99
- Future Land Use Element Objective 4
Future Land Use Element Objective 4 states that the county will reduce the number and length of
trips on county roads.
The site is located adjacent to or near several of the county's largest employment centers, including
the US 1/37' Street Hospital Node and the Vero Beach Municipal Airport. Many people who work
in those employment centers live in moderately -priced, low to medium density housing. The RM -8
zoning district is intended for such uses. Therefore, the proposed rezoning will increase the
opportunity for people who work in those areas to live near their jobs, thus reducing the length of
their trips to and from work. For this reason, the request implements Future Land Use Element
Objective 4.
- Transportation Element Objective 11 and Policy 11.1
Transportation Element Objective 11 and Policy 11.1 state that the county will increase densities in
the urbanized area and along major transportation corridors in order to facilitate future mass transit
provision. Since the proposed rezoning will increase the allowed density along and near several
major transportation corridors, this request implements Transportation Element Objective 11 and
Policy 11.1.
As part of its consistency analysis, staff compared the proposed request to all the objectives and
policies in the plan and found no conflicts. Therefore, the request is consistent with the
comprehensive plan.
Because the subject property is nearly surrounded by either major roads or other multiple -family
zoning districts, compatibility is not a major concern with respect to this request. Although several
citrus groves currently abut the subject property, the county anticipates that those groves will
eventually be converted to residential uses.
Staff s position is that multiple -family residential development is appropriate for the site and that
such development would be compatible with surrounding land uses. Located adjacent to the US
1/37" Street Hospital node and near the Vero Beach Municipal Airport, the subject property is
particularly well suited to meet the demand for multiple -family housing generated by those
employment centers. In effect, the proposed rezoning would increase the opportunity for people to
live near their place of employment.
With most of the site already zoned for multiple -family uses, this request is primarily for a density
increase (consistent with the comprehensive plan). Since the density increase meets the concurrency
test and is consistent with the site's future land use designation, the request is not anticipated to
negatively impact surrounding areas. For these reasons, staff feels the requested zoning district
would be compatible with adjacent residential development.
Being a citrus grove, the site has been altered. Since the subject property contains no
environmentally important land, such as wetlands or sensitive uplands, development of the site is
anticipated to have little or no impact on environmental quality. For this reason, no adverse
environmental impacts associated with this request are anticipated
MARCH 9, 1999
68
Based on the analysis, staff has determined that the requested zoning district is compatible with
surrounding areas, is consistent with the comprehensive plan, meets all concurrency criteria, will
have no negative impacts on environmental quality, and meets all applicable rezoning criteria. Most
importantly, the subject property is located in an area deemed suited for medium -density multiple -
family residential uses. For these reasons, staff supports the request.
Based on the analysis, staff and the Planning and Zoning Commission recommend that the Board
of County Commissioners approve this request to rezone the subject property to RM -8.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Rezoning Application
2. Location Map
3. Approved minutes of the November 12, 1998 Planning and Zoning Commission meeting.
4. Rezoning Ordinance
County Attorney Vitunac pointed out this was a quasi-judicial matter and asked to
swear in all those who would be giving testimony. Directors Keating and Boling were
sworn.
Community Development Director Bob Keating advised that this was a less
controversial matter than the prior one and reviewed the request and information set forth in
the above Memorandum. He reviewed the criteria, advised of its consistency with the
Comprehensive Plan, and recommended rezoning the property to RM -8.
Director Keating responded to some questions of Commissioner Ginn about zoning
of the surrounding property.
The Chairman opened the public hearing and asked if anyone wished to be heard in
this matter.
Bruce Barkett, representing the applicant, called this a straightforward application
which had the support of the Planning and Zoning Commission and staff. He briefly
explained the request and pointed out that it is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and
has no compatibility issues. He offered to answer questions.
Commissioner Ginn asked if there was a 20% density bonus if this property is used
for affordable housing, and Director Keating advised that would be at the discretion of the
MARCH 911999
BOOK 108 PAGr 590
BOOK 103 PAGE59i
Board and the applicant would have to go through the planned development process to get
any density bonus. It is not a by -right allowance.
Commissioner Ginn asked if past actions could set a precedent and have a legal
bearing on density bonuses, and County Attorney Vitunac thought it is a legal problem if the
Board has established a course of always giving the bonus once the applicant meets the basic
elements. He would have to research it to give a better answer.
Chairman Macht recalled the reason density bonuses were given previously was
because it was incorporated in the recommended package and not really presented as an
optional item.
Commissioner Ginn mentioned there were three projects on south Indian River
Boulevard that received 20% density bonuses and she was concerned about traffic impact
in other properties that are currently designated RM -6.
Director Keating stated that staff has looked at the Comprehensive Plan and they have
an overall transportation element. They will make certain that the future traffic circulation
system can accommodate the proposed land use allowances. Also, from an MPO standpoint,
they will be considering a scope of services for the MPO's long-range transportation plan
update through the year 2025 at their next MPO meeting.
It seemed to Chairman Macht that the 20% density bonus would be site-specific and
involved the ability to handle the traffic. He felt that an across-the-board precedent would
not prevail.
County Attorney Vitunac advised that he would like to analyze the last three density
credits and advise the Commission how that happened and whether it would be binding in
the future. There is time to look at the whole issue regardless of this zoning request. The
applicant has apparently met all the zoning criteria - this is quasi-judicial. The Board may
later have a right to give a density bonus in the future but that is extraneous to what is before
them.
It was determined that no one else wished to be heard and the Chairman closed the
public hearing.
MARCH 9. 1999
70
41 0
ON MOTION by Commissioner Adams, SECONDED BY
Commissioner Stanbridge, the Board unanimously adopted
Resolution # 99-006 amending the Zoning Ordinance and the
Accompanying Zoning Map from RS -6 and RM -6 to RM -8, for
the property located on the north side of 41' Street and the west
side of Indian River Boulevard.
ORDINANCE NO. 99- 0 6
AN ORDINANCE OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, AMENDING THE ZONING
ORDINANCE AND THE ACCOMPANYING ZONING MAP FROM RS -6 AND RM -6 TO RM -8,
FOR PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF 41 sr STREET AND THE WEST SIDE
OF INDIAN RIVER BOULEVARD, AND DESCRIBED HEREIN, AND PROVIDING FOR
EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, the planning and Zoning Commission, sitting as the local planning agency on
such matters, has held a public hearing and subsequently made a recommendation regarding this
rezoning request; and
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, did
publish its Notice of Intent to rezone the hereinafter described property; and
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners has determined that this rezoning is in
conformance with the Comprehensive Plan of Indian River County; and
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners has held a public hearing pursuant to this
rezoning request, at which parties in interest and citizens were heard;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED, by the Board of County Commissioners of Indian
River County, Florida, that the zoning of the following described property situated in Indian River
County, Florida, to -wit:
That part of the south %z of the south %z of the NE 1/4 of section 26, township 32 south, range
39 east being more particularly described as: commencing at the SW comer of said SE 1/4
of the NE 1/4; thence run N 00°00'01" E along the west line of said SE 1/4 of the NE 1/4 a
distance of 50.00 feet to the north right-of-way of 41' Street and point of beginning; thence
run N 00°00'01" E a distance of 612.49 feet to the north line of said south %z of the south %z;
thence run S 89°50'32" E a distance of 698.78 feet; thence run S 04'14'23" E a distance of
614.98 feet to the north right-of-way of said 41' Street; thence run N 89'50'32" W along said
right-of-way a distance of 743.88 feet to the point of beginning.
Said parcel contains 10.15 net acres.
And
That part of the north %a of the southwest 1/4 of the northwest 1/4 of section 25, township 32
south, range 39 east lying west of the west right-of-way of Indian River Boulevard being
more particularly described as commencing at the northwest comer of the southwest 1/4 of
the northwest 1/4; thence run south 00°08'57' west a distance of 400.01 feet to the
intersection of the west right-of-way of said Indian River Boulevard with the west line of
said southwest 1/4 of northwest 1/4; thence run southeasterly along a curve concave to the
northeast having a central angle of 02°5828", a radius of 6903.96 feet an arc distance of
358.42 feet to the south line of said north %z of the southwest 1/4 of the northwest 1/4; thence
run north 89'4925" west along said south line a distance of 242.49 feet to the west line of
said southwest 1/4 of the northwest 1/4; thence run north 00 °08'57" east a distance of 263.78
feet to said intersection of said west right-of-way and point of beginning.
MARCH 9, 1999
71
BOOK , PAGE 092
BOOK
ORDINANCE NO. 99- 0 6
103 PAGE 503
And
The south %z of the north Y2 of the southeast 1/4 of the northeast 1/4 of section 26, township
32 south, range 39 east lying west of Indian River Boulevard and being more particularly
described as commencing at the northwest comer of the southeast 1/4 of the northeast 1/4
of section 26, township 32 south, range 39 east, thence run south 00°00'02" west along the
west line of said southeast 1/4 of northeast 1/4 a distance of 331.25 feet to the point of
beginning; thence run south 89°55'35" east a distance of 1269.30 feet to the west right-of-
way of Indian River Boulevard; thence run southeasterly along a curve concave to the
northeast having a central angle of 00°44'42", a radius of 6903.96 feet an arc distance of
89.77 feet to the intersection of the eastline of said southeast 1/4 of the northeast 1/4; thence
run south 00°08'57" west a distance of 263.78 feet to the south line of the north %z of the
southeast 1/4 of the northeast 1/4; thence run north 89053154" west a distance of 1327.00 feet
to the west line of said southeast 1/4 of the northeast 1/4; thence run north 00°00'02" east
along said west line a distance of 331.25 feet to the point of beginning.
And
The north %i of the north %z of the southeast 1/4 of northeast 1/4 of section 26, township 32
south, range 39 east lying west of Indian River Boulevard and being more particularly
described as beginning at the northwest comer of said southeast 1/4 of northeast 1/4. Thence
nm south 89 ° 5T 16" east along the north line of said southeast 1/4 of northeast 1/4 a distance
of 1005.72 feet to the west right-of-way of Indian River Boulevard; thence run southeasterly
along a curve concave to the northeast through a central angle of 3'31'08", a radius of
6903.96 feet an arc length of 424.03 feet, thence run north 89°55'35" west a distance of
1269.30 feet to the west line of the southeast 1/4 of the northeast 1/4; thence run north
00°00'02" east a distance of 331.25 feet to the point of beginning.
Be changed from RS -6 and RM -6 to RM -8.
All with the meaning and intent and as set forth and described in said Land Development
Regulations.
This ordinance shall become effective upon filing with the Department of State.
Approved and adopted by the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, on
this 9'b day of March, 1999.
This ordinance was advertised in the Press-Joumal on the 20 day of February, 1999 for a public
hearing to be held on the 9`h day of March, 1999 at which time it was moved for adoption by
Commissioner Adams , seconded by Commissioner S t a n b r i d g e
and adopted by the following vote:
Chairman Kenneth R. Macht Aye
Vice -Chairman Fran B. Adams Aye
Commissioner Caroline D. Ginn Aye
Commissioner Ruth M. Stanbridge AY e
Commissioner John W. Tippin Aye
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
BY: A�zr_%..06�
Kenneth R. Macht, Chairman
ATTEST BY:
-'—�ey K. Ban; Cler -�
Indian (live Ca ACWOvto Date
Admin.
Legal
(�'">C t -
Budget
Dept
Risk Mgr.
This ordinance was filed with the Department of State on the following date:
MARCH 9, 1999
72
9.C. PUBLIC NOTICE ITEMS - ITEMS SCHEDULED FOR MARCH
16,1999 AND APRIL 6,1999
March 16,1999
1. County- initiated requestto amend the comprehensive -Plan
to redesignate the following publiclyowned wnedernes to C-1. Publicly
Owned Conservation -1 (zero density) and rezone those �ro�erties to
Con -L Public Lands Conservation District (zero density):
A. f8 Acres located on the east side ofSR AIA, iust north 0
the town oflndian River Shores;
B. :�37Acres located at the northeast corner of 8th Street and
Indian River Boulevard; and
C. X15.8 Acres located west of St. Christopher's Harbor
Subdivision (Legislative
2. County -initiated request to amend the Future Land Use
andln& overnmental Coordination Elements ofthe Com,prehensive
Plan (Legislative
April 6,1999:
L. John W. Mitchell and others' request to rezone f2 acres
located at the northwest corner of 77th Street WobartRoad) and US -
1 from CH. Heavy Commercial District to CL, Limited Commercial
District (.Quasi Judicial
The Chairman read the following Memorandum of March 3, 1999 into the record:
TO: James E. Chandler
County Administrator
D TMENT HEAD CONCURRENCE:
Obert M. Keating, P �
Community Develop ent Dir for
MARCH 99 1999
73
BOOK 103 PAGE 594
pr
BOOK 108 PAGE 95
THROUGH: Sasan Rohani, AICP 5 - Ato -
Chief of Long -Rang Planning
FROM: John Wachtel
Senior Planner, Long -Range Planning
DATE: March 3, 1999
SUBJECT: Notice of Scheduled Public Hearings
It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal consideration by the Board of County
Commissioners at its regular meeting of March 9, 1999.
Please be advised that the following public hearings have been scheduled for Board consideration
at its March 16, 1999 meeting:
1. County initiated request to amend the comprehensive plan to redesignate the following
publicly owned properties to C-1, Publicly Owned Conservation- 1(zero density), and rezone
those properties to Con -1, Public Lands Conservation District (zero density):
A. f8 acres located on the east side of SR AIA, just north of the town of Indan River
Shores;
B. ±37 acres located at the northeast corner of 8" Street and Indian River Boulevard;
and
C. f 15.8 acres located west of St. Christopher's Harbor Subdivision (Legislative).
2. County -initiated request to amend the Future Land Use and Intergovernmental Coordination
Elements of the Comprehensive Plan (Legislative).
Please be advised that the following public hearing has been scheduled for Board consideration at
its April 6, 1999 meeting:
John W. Mitchell and others' request to rezone f2 acres located at the northwest corner of
77`h Street (Hobart Road) and US 1 from CH, Heavy Commercial District to CL, Limited
Commercial District (Quasi -Judicial).
The above referenced public hearing dates are provided for the Board of County Commissioners
information. No action is needed.
NO ACTION REQUIRED OR TAKEN.
11-G.1- FIRST CHURCH OF GOD, INC. - DEVELOPER'S
AGREEMENT - RIGHT-OF-WAY ICINGS HIGHWAY PHASE H
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of March 3, 1999:
MARCH 9, 1999
74
so 0
TO: James Chandler
County Administrator
THROUGH: James W. Davis, P.E.
Public Works Director
FROM: Terry B. Thompson, P.E.
Capital Projects Manager
SUBJECT: Phase II Kings Highway Improvement Developer's Agreement between
Indian River County and First Church of God, Inc.
DATE: March 3, 1999
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
An additional twenty feet (20') of right-of-way is needed along the most side of Kings
Highway adjacent to the First Church of God development. The attached developer's
agreement provides for the purchase of needed right-of-way and the construction of
drainage facilities on the church site.
The ponds on the church site have been designed to accept the runoff from King's
Highway (one acre equivalent pond area) and runoff from the church site (four acre
equivalent pond area). Based on these equivalent areas, the County will pay 20% of the
monthly pond maintenance cost.
The cost of the right-of-way and County's portion of the drainage improvements is
$100,450 as outlined in the agreement.
RECOMMENDATIONS AND FUNDING
Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners approve the attached
Developer's Agreement.
ATTACHMENT
Developer's Agreement
Vice Chairman Adams questioned Public Works Director James Davis on the cost and
future costs to the County under this agreement.
Public Works Director James Davis explained in detail the costs as set forth in the
agreement and explained the economics. He mentioned that the value of the land was similar
to that in past agreements of this nature. He also spoke of the environmental and aesthetic
values of having a large retention pond versus smaller ones and advised of the County's
responsibilities in maintaining the pond. In response to Vice Chairman Adams' question
about timing, Director Davis advised that this is part of Phase 2 of the Kings Highway
MARCH 9,1999
75
BOOK 103 Fa1GE 5 iia
BOOK D8 PAGF5,97
project. He added that coming up this summer, the row of Australian pines alongside Kings
Highway would be taken down by the County in order to widen the road thus the deadline
on paragraph 8 of the agreement.
Vice Chairman Adams was concerned about getting into a time scheduling
requirement in a development order that the County is unable to meet.
Director Davis stated he hoped to clear the right-of-way this summer. He then
advised of a minor deletion on the first page, paragraph 4 (first line) of the Agreement: "at
the CHURCH's sole cost and expense". Further in the agreement, the costs are specifically
enumerated.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Ginn, SECONDED BY
Commissioner Tippin, the Board unanimously approved the
Developer's Agreement between Indian River County and First
Church of God, Inc. and authorized the Chairman to execute
same, as corrected and as recommended by staff.
DEVELOPER'S AGREEMM IS ON=
IN TAE OFFICE OF TAE CLERK TO TBE BOARD
11.G.2. OPTIONAGREEMENT FORPURCHASE OFPARCEL FOR
COUNTY FLEET MANAGEMENT COMPLEX (JOINT WITH INDIAN
RIVER COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT) FROM ANNETTE R.
ROBERTS, TRUSTEE
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of March 311999:
TO: James E. Chandler,
County Administrator
FROM: James W. Davis, P.E.,
Public Works Directoz
SUBJECT: Joint Indian River County/School District of Indian River
County Fleet Management Complex/Fueling Depot/Bus Storage and
Related Facilities - Land Acquisition
DATE: March 3, 1999
MARCH 9, 1999
76
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
Hansen Engineers, Engineering Consultant for the Joint
County/School District Fleet Management Complex, has completed an
analysis of the possible use of existing County property along 41st
Street (South Gifford Road) for a Fleet Management facility. Due
to old landfill practices, the County property is not suitable for
a joint Fleet Management Complex. The consultant, under the
contract Scope of Work, must analyze two additional sites if
necessary. An existing approx. 25 acre site zoned industrial is
for sale one-quarter of a mile west of the County Road and Bridge
Division property south of 410t Street. The property is listed at
$430,000 or approx. $17,200/acre. It meets the size, shape, and
location requirements of the School District and County. The
School District Board, on Feb. 23, 1999, approved proceeding with
the purchase of this property.
County staff has prepared an option agreement to reserve the
property while certain site suitability studies are conducted. The
option agreement includes:
1) An option payment of $10,000 by the County. This will give
the County until June 30, 1999 to study the property for site
suitability.
2) Purchase price of $366,900 or approximately $14,676/acre.
This price must be substantiated by an appraisal.
3) Allow County and School District to perform Environmental Site
Assessments.
4) Seller must survey property and resolve any title defects.
Seller must provide title insurance commitment.
5) Closing shall be on or before July 31, 1999, unless extended.
6) Other applicable standard conditions.
ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS
Since no other existing County nor School District property with
proper land use classification exists, staff must secure a site to
proceed. The following alternatives are presented:
Alternative No. 1
Approve execution of the Option Agreement. The School
District will purchase 15-20 acres of this site and the
County will purchase 5-10 acres. The exact amounts have
yet to be determined.
Alternative No. 2
Deny approval and proceed to look for other
sites.
MARCH 9, 1999
77
BOOK IU PAGt0
BOOK 103 PAGE 599
RECONIlKENDATIONS AND FUNDING
Staff recommends Alternative No. 1 whereby the Option Agreement is
approved. Funding to be by School District and County (Local
Option Sales Tax).
1) Option Agreement
2 Letter from Steven W. Knight, Hanson Engineers to Jim Davis
dates Oct. 15, 1998
MOTION WAS MADE by Vice Chairman Adams,
SECONDED by Commissioner Ginn, to approve alternative No.
1. (Approve the Option Agreement - the School District to
purchase 15-20 acres of the site and the County to purchase 5-
10 acres.)
Under discussion, Commissioner Ginn asked if staff had looked at the airport for a
site so property would not have to be taken off the tax rolls for this project, and Public
Works Director James Davis advised that had been considered but is not possible. Because
of a verbal communication he had just received from Greg Smith during the earlier public
hearing, he suggested that their approval on this motion be contingent on the School
District's Board re -affirming their desire to participate.
Vice Chairman Adams suggested it be left to Director Davis' discretion to clarify the
intentions of the School Board, and, if necessary, bring it back to the Commission.
Director Davis mentioned that it was necessary for the School District to also sign off
on the option. He recalled the vote at the February 231 School Board meeting was 3-2 to
approve the purchase.
Vice Chairman Adams felt that whether the School District participates or not, the
County needs to move forward with a new complex, and Director Davis stated he would not
purchase the 25 acres should the School District not join with the County.
Chairman Macht recalled the County would only need about 5 acres.
There was discussion on delaying approval and Chairman Macht asked if a deferral
to next week would create a problem, and Director Davis advised that it would not, that they
would still have time to do due diligence on this site by June 30, 1999.
MARCH 9. 1999
78
THE MOTION WAS AMENDED, and the SECOND
concurred, to leave the motion on the table, but to table the vote
to next week.
The Chairman CALLED THE QUESTION and the motion
carried unanimously. The matter was TABLED.
Brian Heady of Vero Beach asked to be heard advising that he had some information
the Board should hear.
County Attorney Vitunac counseled that once the Board had voted to table, there
should be no further discussion.
Chairman Macht asked Mr. Heady to be brief.
Mr. Heady presented backup documents from the School Board's agenda. He
believed there was publicly -owned property at the airport adjacent to the parcel under
consideration. He questioned the advisability of buying privately -owned property for this
purpose and taking it off the tax rolls. He also cautioned about getting into another
relationship with the School District suggesting the Commissioners examine prior
cooperative ventures with the School District.
Chairman Macht advised Mr. Heady that the relationship with the School District has
been cordial and continuing. He further advised that the County did not have the freedom
to use the property at the airport to which Mr. Heady had referred and it was appropriate to
purchase property for a joint use.
Director Davis advised that the property to which Mr. Heady referred was old landfill
property, and the Department of Environmental Protection has indicated the County cannot
build on it.
11.H.1. PURCHASE WATERCADD HYDRAULIC MODELING
SOFTWARE
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of March 2, 1999:
MARCH 9, 1999
79
BOOK 108 FAGE 0®
BOOK 108 PAGE 601
DATE: MARCH 2, 1999
TO: ,TAMES E. CHANDLER
COUNTY ADN NISTRATOR
FROM: DONALD R. HUBBS, P.E. �—I
;;
DIRECTOR OF UM TTY S
PREPARED MICHAEL C. HOTCHKISS, P.E.
AND STAFFED ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEER
BY: DEPARTMENT OF UTHM SERVICES
SUBJECT: REQUEST TO PURCHASE WATERCADD HYDRAULIC MODELING
SOFTWARE
BACKGROUND
The approved fiscal year 1998/1999 budget included purchase of a computer program for
hydraulically modeling water distribution/wastewater collection systems. We are now requesting
authorization to purchase the software package and acquire training for Utilities Department
personnel.
Presently, all hydraulic modeling is computed using a software program known as Kentucky Pipe.
Viewing the model (or modification to the model due to changes in the system) requires
coordinating a data file with a system nodal map. This is a very time consuming and awkward
process that sometimes results in errors.
At the time of purchase (around 1991), Kentucky Pipe was known to be the industry standard for
hydraulic modeling. Since then several vendors have developed more "user friendly" software
packages that utilize graphical features for developing and viewing models. These modern software
programs also allow hydraulic models to be developed by exporting GIS shape files.
Two of the most popular programs that offer the newest technologies are WaterCadd and H2ONet.
WaterCadd uses an object-oriented architecture, which allows the user to edit design parameters by
clicking and dragging graphical objects with a mouse. H2ONet allows graphical modifications
through the AutoCadd commands.
County staff questioned several engineering consulting firms, as well as other municipal utility
departments (Palm Beach County, Seacoast Utilities, Town of Jupiter, etc.) on their experience with
the available software packages. The consensus was that the two software packages reviewed were
basically comparable. The County's master -planning consultant, Brown and Caldwell, surveyed
engineers throughout their organization for a preference between the two modeling programs. In
general their opinion was that H2ONet was more suitable for the researcher while WaterCadd was
easier to use.
In addition, WaterCadd received the "Editors' Choice" award from Cadence magazine, a well -
noted journal that evaluates computer aided design software. Based on the above, WaterCadd was
chosen over H2ONet due to the simplicity of operation and the quick -edit features.
MARCH 9,1999
80
•
C:
ANALYSIS
The price of hydraulic modeling programs (along with training) reviewed by the County is as
follows (see attached cost estimates from vendors):
WaterCadd 2 user license -2,000 pipe limit
MONO 2 user license -2,000 pipe limit
$7,745.00
$7,227.80
It should be noted that Kentucky Pipe is in the process of developing a new version of their
hydraulic modeling software for considerably less money than the other two -referenced programs.
However, their GIS exporting features are in the early stages of development and have not been
tested.
Even though the H2ONet purchase price is less than WaterCadd, H2ONet runs inside another
program called AutoCadd. The AutoCadd platform costs an additional $3,500.00 which would
bring the total cost of the software package to $10,727.00 for any user which is not currently
licensed to run AutoCadd. The WaterCadd price also includes water quality training for one student
in addition to training for developing hydraulic models for two students.
It should further be noted that H2ONet also requires a $1,000 annual contract per user after the first
year of ownership for support maintenance, while the WaterCadd price includes free lifetime
technical and engineering support.
RECOMMENDATION
The staff of the Department of Utility Services recommends that the Board of County Commission
authorize the Department of Utility Services to purchase WaterCadd hydraulic modeling software .
and schedule training for use of, as presented
ON MOTION by Commissioner Ginn, SECONDED BY
Commissioner Tippin, the Board unanimously authorized the
Department of Utility Services to purchase WaterCadd
hydraulic modeling software and schedule training for its use,
as recommended in the Memorandum.
11.H.2. UTILITY CHLORINATION SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS -
CAMP DRESSER AND WKEE. INC. -WORK AUTHORIZATION NO.
9
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of February 24, 1999:
MARCH 9, 1999
81
BOOK 103 PAGE 602
Fr -1
BOOK 103 PAGE 60
DATE: FEBRUARY 24, 1999
TO: JAMES E. CHANDLER
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
FROM: DONALD R. HUBBS,
�yEDIRECTOR OFUTII.ITES
PREPARED AND GENE A. RAUTH (aAx-
STAFFED BY: OPERATIONS MANAGER
SUBJECT: UTILITY CHLORINATION SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS
BACKGROUND and ANALYSIS
On December 22, 1998, the Board of County Commissioners considered an agenda item
for the above -referenced subject. During that meeting the Board approved stars
recommendation to develop a work authorization with the County's water consultant,
Camp Dresser and McKee, Inc. for disinfection system analysis (see attached agenda
item). The enclosed Work authorization No. 9, with Camp Dresser and McKee, Inc. in the
amount of $8800.00, will provide analysis of alternative disinfection systems or additions
of potential safety measures for the North and South County Reverse Osmosis Water
Treatment Plants. (see attached work authorization). This analysis is required for
compliance, with the regulatory requirement that all facilities affected by the Accidental
Release Prevention (ARP) program prepare and submit a Risk Management Plan (RMP)
no later than June 21, 1999. As presented to the Board, the staff of the Department of
Utility Services is now returning to the Board with the appropriate work authorization for
water plant RMP analysis. If approved by the Board, the scheduled completion date for
work authorization No. 9 is April 1, 1999.
RECOMMENDATION
The staff of the Department of Utility Services recommends that the Board of County
Commissioners approve the attached Work Authorization No. 9 with Camp, Dresser and
McKee Inc., in the amount of $8,800.00 as presented.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Adams, SECONDED BY
Commissioner Ginn, the Board unanimously approved Work
Authorization No. 9 with Camp Dresser and McKee, Inc. in the
amount of $8,800, as recommended in the Memorandum.
MARCH 9, 1999
WORK AUTHORVATION IS ON FILE
IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO TBE BOARD
82
I I.H.3. LIFT STATION REHABILITATION - TREASURE COAST
CONTRACTING - FINAL CHANGE ORDER AND PAY REQUEST
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of February 24, 1999:
DATE: FEBRUARY 24, 1999
TO: JAMES E. CHANDLER
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
FROM: — DONALD R HUBBS, F.E. -- H
DIRECTOR OF UTILITY S
PREPARED AND GENE A. RAUTH F�-
STAFFED BY: OPERATIONS MANAGER
SUBJECT: LIFT STATION REHABILITATION
FINAL CHANGE ORDER & PAY REQUEST
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY PROJECT NO. US -97 -21 -CS
BACKGROUND
On September 10, 1996 the Board of County Commissioners approved the 96/97 Fiscal
Year Budget which included the rehabilitation of six wastewater lift stations.
1. #131, Vista #1
2. #192, Sebastian #2
3. #180, Sebastian Middle School Main
4. #132, Vista Gardens
5. #166, County Road 512
6. #19, Landfill Main
On September 9, 1997, the Board of County Commissioners approved and awarded Bid
#7062, with the exception of item number 6, lift station #19 Landfill Main, to Treasure
Coast Contracting in the amount of $59,345.00.
On November 18, 1997, the Board of County Commissioners approved a contract with
Treasure Coast Contracting for the rehabilitation of 5 lift stations, in the amount of
$59,345.00.
1. #131, Vista #1
2. #192, Sebastian #2
3. #180, Sebastian Middle School Main
4. #132, Vista Gardens
5. #166, County Road 512
The project is now complete and the County is prepared to make final payment to
Treasure Coast Contracting.
ANALYSIS
The original awarded contract amount was $59,345.00. Due to pre-existing field
conditions of the five lift stations, prior to refurbishment, additions to the contract in the
MARCH 9, 1999
83
�
BOOK 08 F -AGE 604
BOOK 103 FACE
amount of $4,000.00 were required. These additions were for replacement of lift station
lids and various piping improvements not originally anticipated in the 96/97 fiscal year
budget. Approval of the above outlined change will result in a
revised contract amount of $63,345.00. Funding for this project is from Account No.
471-000-169-469.00. The contractor has been received partial payment in the amount of
$53,410.50 and is now requesting final payment in the amount of $9,934.50.
$59,344.50 Original Bid Amount
+$ 4,000.00 Change Order Amount
-$53.410.00 Partial Payment to Contractor
$ 9,934.50 Final Payment to Contractor
$63,345.00 Construction Contract Total
RECOMMENDATION
The staff of the Department of Utility Services recommends that the Board of County
Commissioners approved the attached change order, approve final payment to Treasure
Coast Contracting in the amount of $9,934.50 and authorize Chairman to execute same
as submitted.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Adams, SECONDED BY
Commissioner Grin, the Board unanimously approved change
order and final payment to Treasure Coast Contracting in the
amount of $9,934.50 and authorized the Chairman to execute
same, as recommended in the Memorandum.
CHANGE ORDER AND FINAL PAY REQUEST w1I.L BE PLACED ON FILE
IN THE OFFICE OF TBE CLERK TO THE BOARD
WHIId EXECUTED AND RECEIVED
B.A. CHAIRMAN MACHT - Y2K PHENOMENON COMMENT -
APPOINTED TO WORK WITH STAFF ON Y2K COMPLIANCE
Chairman Macht hoped the Commissioners had an opportunity to read the materials
he had distributed from the conference he recently attended. As just a small sample of what
the County faces, he advised that he has determined it will cost $185,000 to bring the
Library's computer system to Y2K compliance (hardware and software). Having gone to
the conference and having worked with staff, he asked their concurrence that he be the
"point -man" in dealing with staff on Y2K matters.
There was CONCURRENCE among the Commissioners that Chairman Macht work
with staff on Y2K matters.
MARCH 9, 1999
84
9 . 0
•
•
U.B. SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL DISTRICT
The Chairman announced that immediately upon adjournment of the meeting the
Board would reconvene sitting as the Board of Commissioners for the Solid Waste Disposal
District.
Those Minutes are being prepared separately.
There being no fiurther business, upon motion duly made and seconded, the Chairman
adjourned the meeting at 11:39 a.m.
ATTEST:
Jeffrey arton, Clerk
Minutes approved+�w:��
MARCH 9, 1999
85
BOOK M PAGE 606