HomeMy WebLinkAbout3/16/19996
MINUTES ATTACHED i
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
A G E N D A
TUESDAY, MARCH 16,1999 - 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
Jeffrey K. Barton, Clerk to the Board
9:00 a.m. 1. CALL TO ORDER BACKUP
PAGES
2. INVOCATION Rev. Henry Burson
Northside Church of God
3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - Comm. Kenneth R. Macht
4. ADDITIONS to the AGENDA/EMERGENCY ITEMS
1. Add Item 7.M., Out -of -County Travel for Vice Chauman Adams to Attend the FACo 1999 Legislative Session.
2. Add Item 7.N., Resolution 99-023 in Support of a Partnership with Florida Inland Navigational District (FIND) to Move the Old
Sebastian Train Station onto Duck Point and Turn the Building and the Point over to the County for a River&ont Park.
3. Add Item I I.B.1„ Ericsson Y2K Contract Upgrade.
5. PROCLAMATION and PRESENTATIONS
None
6. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A. Regular Meeting of February 16, 1999
B. Regular Meeting of February 23, 1999
7. CONSENT AGENDA
A. Received & Placed on File in Office of Clerk to
the Board: Report of Convictions, February, 1999
B. Approval of Warrants
(memorandum dated March 4,1999) 1-10
C. Annual Financial Report
(memorandum dated March 8, 1999) 11-28
D. Acceptance of Modification to Clerk of Court
Surety Bond
(memorandum dated March 10, 1999) 29-31
E. Consideration of Economic Development Community
Development Block Grant (CDBG) Consultant
Selection Committee Recommendation
(memorandum dated March 9, 1999) 32-33
BOOK 108 FACE 07
BOOK 108 PAGE 608
BACKUP
7. CONSENT AGENDA (cont'd•): PAGES
F. Bid Award: IRC #9044 / Painting of County
Administration & Health Buildings
(memorandum dated March 3, 1999) 34-41
(continued from meeting of 3-9-99)
G. Reject all bids for Bid #9043
Purchase of a Reconditioned Reelmaster Gang
Mower
(memorandum dated March 4,1999) 42-45
H. Approval for Ruth Stanbridge to attend seminar,
County Government Law, in Orlando, FL 46-47
I. Adoption of a Resolution in Support of Florida
Forever as a Successor Program to Preservation 2000
(memorandum dated March 9, 1999) 48-53
J. Sole Brand / Sole Source Designation
Powers Process Controls
(memorandum dated March 5, 1999) 54
K. Payments to Vendors of Court Related Costs
(memorandum dated March 5, 1999) 55
L. Authorize Chairman to Sign Change Order for Wet
Well Lift Station Rehabilitation 56
8. CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS and
GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES
Sheriff Gary C. Wheeler: Annual Law Enforcement Block
Grant and Request for Public Hearing Prior to Obligating
Funds
(letter dated March 8, 1999) 57-64
9:05 A.M. 9. PUBLIC ITEMS
A. PUBLIC HEARINGS
1. County Initiated Request to Amend the
Comprehensive Plan to Redesignate f8
Acres from L-2 to C-1, and to Rezone those
f8 Acres from RM -6 to Con -1; to Amend
The Comprehensive Plan to Redesignate
±37 Acres from M-2 and C-2 to C-1, and to
Rezone those ±37 Acres from RS -1 to Con -1;
and to Amend The Comprehensive Plan to
Redesignate t 15.8 Acres from C-2 to C-1,
and to Rezone Those ±1 5.8 Acres from RS -1
to Con -1 (Legislative)
(memorandum dated February 25, 1999) 65-101
2. County Initiated Request to Amend the Text
of the Future Land Use and Intergovernmental
Coordination Elements of the Comprehensive
Plan (Legislative)
(memorandum dated March 5, 1999) 102-166
r 6
BACKUP
9:05 A.M. 9. PUBLIC ITEMS (cont'd.):
B. PUBLIC DISCUSSION ITEMS PAGES
1. Recommendation of the Parks and Recreation
Advisory Committee Regarding the Babe
Ruth Baseball/Spirit of Youth Baseball League 167
2. Request by Francis M. Coffey to Comment
Regarding the Beach Preservation Project
(letter dated March 5, 1999) 168
C. PUBLIC NOTICE ITEMS
None
10. COUNTY ADMIMSTRATOR'S MATTERS
None
11. DEPARTMENTAL MATTERS
A. Community Development
None
B. Emergency Services
None
C. General Services
Administration Building Space Needs Study
(memorandum dated March 10, 1999) 169
(copies of report will be provided separately)
D. Leisure Services
None
E. Office of Management and Budget
None
F. Personnel
None
G. Public Works
1. Gifford Park Picnic Pavilion
Final Payment
(memorandum dated March 4, 1999) 170-172
2. Joint Participation Agreement with
Florida Department of Transportation -
Paved Shoulders and Resurfacing of 581
Ave. from 69`x' St. to CR510 - Request for
Additional Deposit
(memorandum dated March 8,1999) 173-177
3. Joint IRC / School District of IRC Fleet
Management Complex/Fueling Depot/Bus
Storage and Related Facilities - Land
Acquisition
(memorandum dated March 3, 1999) 178-197
(continued from meeting of 3/9/99)
4. Security for South County Park
(memorandum dated March 10, 1999) 198-200
5. Artificial Reef Grant Agreement OFMAS-122
with Fla. Dept. of Environmental Protection
(memorandum dated March 5, 1999) 201-222
BOOK JOS PAGE
BOOK
11. DEPARTMENTAL MATTERS (cont'd.):
H. Utilities
1. Master Planning Consultant RFP #9037
(memorandum dated March 5,1999)
i0a FACE 1
2. Utility Chlorination System Improvements
(memorandum dated February 26, 1999)
I. Human Services
None
12. COUNTY ATTORNEY
A. Summerplace Seawall Settlement
(backup will be provided separately)
BACKUP
PAGES
223-224
225-235
B. Interim Agreement & Memorandum of Agreement
(MOA) for the development of a Habitat Conserva-
tion Plan for Sea Turtles
(memorandum dated March 10, 1999) 236-237
(additional backup will be provided separately)
13. COMMISSIONERS ITEMS
A. Chairman Kenneth R. Macht
B. Vice Chairman Fran B. Adams
C. Commissioner Caroline D. Ginn
D. Commissioner Ruth Stanbridte
E. Commissioner John W. Ti
ppin
14. SPECIAL DISTRICTSBOARDS
A. Emergency Services District
1. Approval of Minutes - meeting of 2/9/99
2. Approval of Minutes - meeting of 2/16/99
3. Authorization to Submit an EMS Matching
Grant Application for the FY 1999-2000 State
EMS Office Grant Cycle for the Purchase of Two
Ambulances for use at Emergency Services
Station #8 and #11
(memorandum dated March 1, 1999) 238-247
0 It
BACKUP
14. SPECIAL DISTRICTSBOARDS (cont'd.): PAGES
A. Emergency Services District (cont'd.):
4. Authorization to Submit an EMS Matching
Grant Application to the state EMS Office for
the FY 1999-2000 Grant Cycle to Purchase Ten
(10) LifePacTwelve Lead Monitor/Defibrillators
on a Sole Source Purchase Basis and Funding
Approval for Grant Match
(memorandum dated March 3, 1999) 248-257
B. Solid Waste Disposal District
None
C. Environmental Control Board
None
15. ADJOURNMENT
Anyone who may wish to appeal any decision which may be made at this meeting will need
to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made which includes the testimony and
evidence upon which the appeal will be based.
Anyone who needs a special accommodation for this meeting may contact the county's
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) coordinator at 567-8000 x408 at least 48 hours in advance
�t meetin .
Meeting may be broadcast live on TCI Cable Channel 13 - rebroadcast various times
throughout the week
Falcon Cable Channel 35 - rebroadcast Friday evening
BOOK 10Ft GE -
INDEX TO M MUTES OF REGULAR MEETING
OF BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
MARCH 16,1999
1. CALL TO ORDER ............................................... 1-
2. INVOCATION ................................................. .1-
3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ...................................... .1-
4. ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA .................................. .1-
5. PROCLAMATIONS AND PRESENTATIONS ......................... 2-
6.A. AND 6.B. APPROVAL OF MINUTES ............................ .2-
7. CONSENT AGENDA ........................................... .2-
7.A. Reports .................................................. 2-
7.B. List of Warrants ............................................ 2-
7.C. Annual Local Government Financial Report for FY 1997-98 ......... .9-
7.D. Acceptance of Modification to Clerk of Court Jeffrey K. Barton's Surety
Bond.................................................. .10-
7.E. Consideration of Economic Development Community Development Block
Grant (CDBG) Consultant Selection Committee Recommendation
(Berryman & Henniger) .................................... .11-
U. Bid #9044 - Painting of County Administration and Health Buildings
(Lucas Waterproofing Co.) ................................. .12-
7.G. Bid #9043 - Reject all Bids - Purchase of Reconditioned Reelmaster Gang
Mower (Parks Division) (Express Reel Grinding of Vero Beach) .... -13-
7.H. Out -of -County Travel for Commissioner Stanbridge to Attend County
Government Law Seminar in Orlando, FL ...................... .15 -
MARCH 16, 1999
-1-
BOOK 103 PAGE
BOOK 103 PAGE 613
7.I. Resolution 99-022 - In Support of Florida Forever as a Successor Program
to Preservation 2000 ...................................... .16-
7.J. Indian River County Jail Water Controls - Sole Brand/Sole Source
Designation - Powers Process Controls ........................ .18-
7.K. Payments to Vendors of Court Related Costs .................... .19-
7.L. Change Order for Wet Well Lift Station Rehabilitation - Treasure Coast
Contracting - Project US -97 -21 -CS ........................... .20-
7.M. Out -of -County Travel for Vice Chairman Adams to Attend the FACo 1999
Legislative Session ....................................... .21-
7.N. Resolution 99-023 in Support of a Partnership with Florida Inland
Navigational District (FIND) to Move the Old Sebastian Train Station onto
Duck Point and Turn the Building and the Point over to the County for a
Riverfront Park (Vickers Grove Property) ...................... .22-
8. SHERIFF GARY WHEELER - ANNUAL LAW ENFORCEMENT BLOCK
GRANT AND REQUEST FOR PUBLIC HEARING PRIOR TO OBLIGATING
FUNDS - MOBILE COMPUTING PROJECT ........................ .24-
9.A.1. PUBLIC HEARING - ORDINANCE 99-007 AMENDING THE FUTURE LAND
USE ELEMENT OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN BY CHANGING THE
LAND USE DESIGNATION FOR AN f 8 ACRE TRACT LOCATED ON THE
EAST SIDE OF SR-AlA JUST NORTH OF THE TOWN OF INDIAN RIVER
SHORES (IRWIN TRACT) FROM L-2 TO C-1; BY CHANGING THE LAND
USE DESIGNATION FOR A f 37 ACRE TRACT LOCATED AT THE
NORTHEAST CORNER OF 8TH STREET AND INDIAN RIVER BOULEVARD
(FLINN TRACT) FROM M-2 AND C-2 TO C-1; AND BY CHANGING THE
LAND USE DESIGNATION FOR A f 15.8 ACRE TRACT LOCATED WEST
OF ST. CHRISTOPHER'S HARBOR SUBDIVISION (GREEN SALTMARSH)
FROM C-2 TO C-1 AND ORDINANCE 99-008 AMENDING THE ZONING
ORDINANCE AND THE ACCOMPANYING ZONING MAP FROM RM -6 TO
CON -1 FOR PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF STATE ROAD
AlA JUST NORTH OF THE TOWN OF INDIAN RIVER SHORES (IRWIN
TRACT) (AMENDMENT NO. LUDA 98-07-0252) ................... .25 -
MARCH 16, 1999
• z It
9.A.2. PUBLIC BEARING - ORDINANCE 99-009 AMENDING THE TEXT OF THE
FUTURE LAND USE AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL COORDINATION
ELEMENTS OF THE INDIAN RIVER COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
(AMENDMENT #CPTA 98-07-0253) .............................. .46-
9.B.1. PUBLIC DISCUSSION ITEM - BABE RUTH BASEBALL/SPIRIT OF YOUTH
BASEBALL LEAGUE - RECOMMENDATION OF THE PARKS AND
RECREATION ADVISORY COMMITTEE ......................... .69-
9.B.2. PUBLIC DISCUSSION ITEM - FRANCIS M. COFFEY - COMMENTS
REGARDING THE BEACH PRESERVATION PROJECT .............. .73-
11.B.1. ERICSSON Y2K CONTRACT UPGRADE .................... .77-
11.C. ADMINISTRATION BUILDING SPACE NEEDS STUDY - SPILLIS CANDELA
& PARTNERS, INC. - ......................................... .79-
11.G.1. GIFFORD PARK PICNIC PAVILION - JIM WRIGHT CONSTRUCTION
- FINAL PAYMENT - PROJECT 9424A ............................ .91-
11.G.2. PAVED SHOULDERS AND RESURFACING OF 58TH AVENUE FROM
691H STREET TO CR -510 - JOINT PARTICIPATION AGREEMENT WITH
FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION - REQUEST FOR
ADDITIONAL DEPOSIT ....................................... .92-
11.G.3. JOINT INDIAN RIVER COUNTY/SCHOOL DISTRICT FLEET
MANAGEMENT COMPLEXIFUELING DEPOT/BUS STORAGE AND
RELATED FACILITIES - LAND ACQUISITION - ANNETTE R ROBERTS,
TRUSTEE - HANSEN ENGINEERS ............................... .93-
11.G.4. SOUTH COUNTY PARK SECURITY - SHERIFF'S SARGEANT MARK
SMITH.................. ...................................95 -
MARCH 16, 1999
-3- BOOK 10 8.,, F'AGE 614
BOOK 108 PAGE E
11.G.5. ARTIFICIAL REEF GRANT AGREEMENT OFMAS-122 - FLORIDA
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION - ARTIFICIAL
FISHING REEF PROGRAM .................................... .96-
11.11.1. RFP#9037 - MASTER PLANNING CONSULTANT (ENGINEER OF
RECORD) - POST, BUCKLEY, SCHUH & JERNIGAN ............... .98-
11.H.2. UTILITY CHLORINATION SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS - GLACE &
RADCLIFFE................................................. .99-
12.A. AND B. SUMMERPLACE SEAWALL SETTLEMENT AND INTERIM
AGREEMENT AND MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT (MOA)
FOR DEVELOPMENT OF HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN
FOR SEA TURTLES - (SEA TURTLE SURVIVAL LEAGUE VS.
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY) - (KING /PARVUS /MCCOY
/SRvJPSON /STRAND /TRIMARCHE /GERSTNER) CARIBBEAN
CONSERVATION CORP. - DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION .................. .101-
14.A. EMERGENCY SERVICES DISTRICT ............................ .112 -
MARCH 16, 1999
40 0
March 16, 1999
REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMSSIONERS
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 16, 1999, at 9:00 a.m. Present were Kenneth R Macht, Chairman; Fran B.
Adams, Vice Chairman; John W. Tippin; Caroline D. Ginn; and Ruth Stanbridge. Also
present were James E. Chandler, County Administrator; Charles P. Vitunac, County
Attorney; and Patricia "PT' Jones, Deputy Clerk.
1. CALL TO ORDER
Chairman Macht called the meeting to order.
2. 11WOCATION
Commissioner Ginn delivered the Invocation.
3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Chairman Macht led the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag.
4. ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA
Commissioner Adams requested additions to today's Agenda:
1. Item 7.M., Out -of -County Travel for Vice Chairman Adams to attend the
FACo 1999 Legislative Session.
2. Item 7.N., Resolution 99-023 in Support of a Partnership with Florida Inland
Navigational District (FIND) to Move the Old Sebastian Train Station onto
Duck Point and Turn the Building and the Point over to the County for a
Riverfront Park (Vickers Grove Property).
MARCH 16, 1999
-1- BOOK 103 FAGS 61
r � �
BOOK 103 PAGE 617
County Administrator Chandler requested the addition of Item 1 LB. 1., Ericsson Y2K
Contract Upgrade.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Adams,
SECONDED by Commissioner Tippin., the Board
unanimously added the above items to the Agenda.
5. PROCLAMATIONS AND PRESENTATIONS
None.
6.A. AND 6.B. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
The Chairman asked if there were any corrections or additions to the Minutes of the
Regular Meetings of February 16, 1999 and February 23, 1999. There were none.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Adams,
SECONDED by Commissioner Stanbridge, the
Board unanimously approved the Minutes of the
Regular Meetings of February 16, 1999 and
February 23, 1999, as written.
7. CONSENT AGENDA
7.A. REPORTS
Received and placed on file in the Office of the Clerk to the Board:
1. Report of Convictions, February, 1999
7.B. LIST OF WARRANTS
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of March 4, 1999:
TO: HONORABLE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
DATE: MARCH 4. 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.
MARCH 169 1999
Approval is requested for the attached list of warrants, issued by the Clerk
to the Board, for the time period of March 3 to March 4, 1999.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Adams,
SECONDED by Commissioner Stanbridge, the
Board unanimously approved the list of Warrants as
issued by the Clerk to the Board for the period from
March 3, 1999 through March 4, 1999, as
recommended by staff.
CHECK NAME
NUMBER
0019855 KRUCZKIEWICZ, LORIANE
0019856
BREVARD COUNTY CLERK OF THE
0019857
ORANGE COUNTY CLERK OF
0019858
ST LUCIE COUNTY CLERK OFITHE
0019859
VELASQUEZ, MERIDA
0019860
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY CLERK OF
0019861
INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE
0019862
VERO BEACH FIREFIGHTERS ASSOC.
0019863
INDIAN RIVER FEDERAL CREDIT
0019864
COLONIAL LIFE & ACCIDENT
0019865
NACO/SOUTHEAST
0019866
SALEM TRUST COMPANY
0019867
OKEECHOBEE CO., PMTS DOMES REL
0019868
WISCONSIN SUPPORT COLLECTIONS
0256473
LUNA SEA BED & BREAKFAST MOTEL
0256870
STUDSTILL, MICHAEL & SANDRA
0258151
A A FIRE EQUIPMENT, INC
0258152
ADVANCED GARAGE DOORS, INC
0258153
AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION
0258154
APPLE INDUSTRIAL SUPPLY CO
0258155
AUTO SUPPLY CO OF VERO BEACH,
0258156
COMMONWEALTH TECH
0258157
A T & T
0258158
AGENCY FOR HEALTH CARE
0258159
ATLANTIC COASTAL TITLE CORP
0258160
AUTO PARTS OF VERO, INC
0258161
ARCHITECTS & DESIGNERS
0258162
AMERICAN REPORTING
0258163
APOLLO ENTERPRISES
0258164
ADAM'S MARK HOTEL
0258165
B & B INDUSTRIAL SUPPLY
0258166
SOLING, STAN
0258167
BRUGNOLI, ROBERT J PBD
0258168
BARTON, JEFFREY K -CLERK
0258169
BARTON, JEFFREY R -CLERK
0258170
BERGGREN EQUIPMENT CO, INC
0258171
BARTON, JEFFREY K
0258172
BAKER & TAYLOR INC
0258173
BRODART CO
0258174
BERGER, HARRIS
0258175
BOYNTON PUMP & IRRIGATION
0258176
BOYD PUBLISHING COMPANY
0258177
BELLO, JUAN ESQ
0258178
BEST BUY COMPANY, INC
0258179
BOOKS ON TAPE INC
0258180
BAKER & TAYLOR ENTERTAINMENT
0258181
BEAZER HOMES, INC
0258182
BOBCAT OF ORLANDO
0258183
BLUE CROSS/BLUE SHIELD OF
0258184
BELLSOUTH PUBLIC COMMUNICATION
0258185
BUSINESS REFERENCE SERVICES
1919-03-04
1999-03-04
1999-03-04
1999-03-04
1999-03-04
1999-03-04
1999-03-04
1999-03-04
1999-03-04
1999-03-04
1999-03-04
1999-03-04
;1999-03-04
1999-03-04
11999-03-04
1999-03-04
:1999-03-04
:1999-03-04
1999-03-04
:1999-03-04
11999-03-04
X1999-03-04
1999-03-04
1999-03-04
1999-03-04
1999-03-04
1999-03-04
1999-03-04
1999-03-04
1999-03-04
CHECK
AMOUNT
138.50
694.79
135.20
724.98
200.00
3,331.98
650.00
1,992.00
82,631.76
257.69
5,589.93
596.21
167.25
23.08
.00 VOID
.00 VOID
358.75
65.00
735.50
602.24
186.31
500.00
44.20
62,049.23
56.00
264.44
124.78
393.60
122.63
495.00
230.13
15.00
1,300.00
2,198.00
1,688.00
76.85
890.85
102.61
1,521.36
2,000.00
117.79
315.00
10,204.50
459.98
348.00
56.34
500.00
89.28
11,266.08
47.18
1,421.25
MARCH 16, 1999
-3- BOOK Pr1Gt
L
CHECK
NAME
CHECK
NUMBER
I
DATE
0258186
BEAM, BETTY
1999-03-04
0258187
BURKE, DONNIE
1999-03-04
0258188
BLACKS , COLE
1999-03-04
0258189
BREVARDD MED
1999-03-04
0258190
RHABILITATION
BROWN, INA
1999-03-04
0258191
BOOS, ROGER
1999-03-04
0258192
BAIN BOOK COMPANY
1999-03-04
0258193
BELLSOUTH
1999-03-04
0258194
CARTER ASSOCIATES, INC
1999-03-04
0258195
CENTRAL AUDIO & VISUAL, INC
1999-03-04
0258196
CHANDLER EQUIPMENT CO, INC
1999-03-04
0258197
COLD AIR DISTRIBUTORS
1999-03-04
0258198
COMMUNICATIONS INT'L INC
1999-03-04
0258199
CORBIN, SHIRLEY E
1999-03-04
0258200
COS, DAVID B
1999-03-04
0258201
CROOM CONSTRUCTION CO
1999-03-04
0258202
CATFANCY MAGAZINE
1999-03-04
0258203
CONGRESSIONAL QUARTERLY BOOKS
1999-03-04
0258204
COASTAL REFINING & MARKETING
1999-03-04
0258205
CLINIC PHARMACY
1999-03-04
0258206
COPELAND, LINDA
1999-03-04
0258207
CLARKE, DOROTHEA
1999-03-04
0258208
COALITION FOR THE HOMELESS OF
1999-03-04
0258209
CHIVERS NORTH AMERICA
1999-03-04
0258210
COMMONWEALTH LAND TITLE CO
1999-03-04
0258211
CUES, INC
1999-03-04
0258212
CROSSROADS ANIMAL HOSPITAL
1999-03-04
0258213
CYBERGUYS
1999-03-04
0258214
CARTER, CYNTHIA L
1999-03-04
0258215
CUSTOM PUBLISHING SERVICES INC
1999-03-04
0258216
CAMPBELL, STEPHANIE
1999-03-04
0258217
CRAWFORD, SANDY
}999-03-04
0258218
CENTER FOR EMOTIONAL AND
1999-03-04
0258219
COLUMBIA HOUSE
1999-03-04
0258220
CONRADO, STEFANIE
1999-03-04
0258221
COMMUTERS LIBRARY
1999-03-04
0258222
COFFIN. WILLIAM
1999-03-04
0258223
COPPER ELECTRONIC INC
1999-03-04
0258224
C H A I N
1999-03-04
0258225
CORPORATE RAIDER
1999-03-04
0258226
DEMCO INC
1999-03-04
0258227
DISCOVERY BOOK COMPANY
1999-03-04
0258228
FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS
1999-03-04
0258229
DOCTOR'S CLINIC
1999-03-04
0258230
DON SMITH'S PAINT STORE, INC
1999-03-04
0258231
DUVAL FORD
1999-03-04
0258232
DATA SUPPLIES, INC
1999-03-04
0258233
DOGFANCY MAGAZINE
1999-03-04
0258234
DAVIDSON TITLES, INC
1999-03-04
0258235
DATA FLOW SYSTEMS, INC
1999-03-04
0258236
DELRAY STAKES & SHAVINGS INC
1999-03-04
0258237 DIROCCO CONSTRUCTION
0258238 DILLARD, CASSIS
0258239 E -Z BREW COFFEE SERVICE, INC
0258240 ELLIS K PHELPS AND CO, INC
0258241 ERRETT, NANCY
0258242 EVANS, FLOYD
0258243 El. X, INC
0258244 ECKERD DRUG CO
0258245 FIRST AMENDMENT FOUNDATION
0258246 FLORIDA COURT REPORTERS
0258247 FLORIDA FIRE CHIEFS
0258248 FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY
0258249 FRASER ENGINEERING & TESTING
0258250 FLOWERS BAKING COMPANY OF
0258251 FLORIDA TIRE RECYCLING, INC
0258252 FLORIDA MUNICIPAL INSURANCE
0258253 FLORIDAFFINITY, INC
0258254 FENIMORE, CHARLES
0258255 FETLSMERE POLICE DEPARTMENT
0258256 F & W PUBLICATIONS INC
0258257 FGFOA
0258258 FREIGHTLINER TRUCKS OF SOUTH
0258259 FLORIDA CONFERENCE OF CIRCUIT
0258260 FLORIDA HIGHWAY PATROL
0258261 GALE GROUP, THE
0258262 GATOR LU"ER COMPANY
0258263 GENEALOGICAL PUBLISHING
0258264 GOODKNIGHT LAWN EQUIPMENT, INC
0258265 GRAYBAR ELECTRIC CO INC
0258266 GOODYEAR AUTO SERVICE CENTER
0258267 GROVE, KEITH T DDS, MS VMD
0258268 GARD DISTRIBUTING CO
0258269 GINN, CAROLINE D
MARCH 16, 1999
0
1999-03-04
1999-03-04
1999-03-04
1999-03-04
1999-03-04
1999-03-04
BOOK 103 PAGE 619
CHECK
AMOUNT
105.58
103.77
187.97
100.00
68.83
500.00
30.00
39.99
7,843.75
999.00
384.00
18.71
12,269.50
1,008.00
120.07
500.00
25.97
128.70
10,697.67
243.49
216.00
23.49
4,170.85
44.64
20.65
3,484.29
15.00
40.70
3.00
456.00
92.70
15.00
389.00
23.94
167.37
92.50
87.00
177.51
15.00
617.00
406.10
1,113.79
124.91
117.00
62.82
11,248.00
875.05
25.97
1,291.21
2,298.96
330.00
500.00
9.01
28.00
97.50
75.60
12.50
126.85
10.37
33.00
120.60
325.00
21,484.88
1,030.00
79.91
1,788.00
68,132.00
10,442.50
45.00
25.00
160.19
40.00
843.46
400.00
25.00
103.63
78.51
112.25
778.37
200.37
2,193.16
15.00
630.00
130.42
•
CHECK
NAME
CHECK
CHECK
NUMBER
DATE
AMOUNT
0258270
GOLD STA# OF THE TREASURE
1999-03-04
2,016.00
0258271
GREENW000 PUBLISHING GROUP
1999-03-04
39.00
0258272
GRILL REPILL, INC
1999-03-04
113.00
0258273
H W WILE N CO
1999-03-04
33.28
0258274
HARBOR BRANCH OCEANOGRAPH, INC
1999-03-04
5,885.00
0258275
HUNTERA SUPPLIES
1999-03-04
2,376.45
0258276
HARRISON CCANY, PUBLISHERS
1999-03-04
188.65
0258277
HICKMAN,,GUY MD, FAROS
1999-03-04
300.00
0258278
HOGS , DR H
1999-03-04
500.00
0258279
HAILEE D T SEED CO
1999-03-04
282.00
0258280
_
ANIMAL HOSPITAL
1999-03-04
112.00
0258281-
LHIGHLAND�
HARRIS WTHERMAN & ASSOCIATES
1999-03-04
14,000.00
0258282
HOLIDAY BUILDERS
1999-03-04
2,500.00
0258283
HASENAUER, KRIS
1999-03-04
37.50
0258284
HTE INC
1999-03-04
240.00
0258285
HALL -MARK FIIJE APPARATUS, INC
1999-03-04
1,865.62
0258286
HEALTHSOUTHA PINES
1999-03-04
210.00
0258287
HANSEN, SUiAtT
1999-03-04
174.00
0258288
HUNTRESS MARINE INC
1999-03-04
27.18
0258289
INSTRUMENTATION SERVICES, INC
1999-03-04
510.00
0258290
INDIAN RIVER ACE HARDWARE
1999-03-04
67.84
0258291
INDIAN RIVER BATTERY, INC
1999-03-04
1,911.70
0258292
INDIAN RIVER BLUE PRINT, INC
1999-03-04
257.56
0258293
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
1999-03-04
49.50
0258294
COUNTY UTILITY
INDIAN11CALS,
1999-03-04
1,097.65
0258295
INDIAN FARMS WATER
1999-03-04
2,076.00
0258296
INSURARVICING &
1999-03-04
275.00
0258297
INDIAN ALL -FAH, INC
1999-03-04
670.50
0258298
IRC EMHEALTH INSURANCE-
1999-03-04
103,406.88
0258299
INDIANCOUNTY SHERIFF'S
1999-03-04
225.00
0258300
INTERNLIVIDEO PROTECTS
1999-03-04
254.30
0258301
INDIAN HAND
1999-03-04
14.40
0258302
JIFFY CENTER
1999-03-04
4.20
0258303
JONES INC
1999-03-04
2,272.86
0258304
KEATING, ROBERT M
1999-03-04
106.82
0258305
KELLY TRACTOR CO
1999-03-04
405.38
0258306
K S M EN INEERING & TESTING
'1999-03-04
675.00
0258307
KIRBY AUCO SUPPLY FT PIERCE
1999-03-04
484.10
0258308
KT MOWER & EQUIPMENT
1999-03-04
46.21
0258309
KLINK, R#CHARD
1999-03-04
1,023.00
0258310
KIRSCHNER, LOUIS
1999-03-04
34.50
0258311
LENGE OF FLORIDA, INC
1999-03-04
2,600.00
0258312
Lo
OWH CENTERS, INC
1999-03-04
514.16
0258313
LANDRUM, GREGORY C PSY D
1999-03-04
650.00
0258314
L B SMITH, INC
1999-03-04
495.14
0258315
LIGHT SOURCE BUSINESS SYSTEMS
1999-03-04
1,187.50
0258316
LFI VERO BEACH, INC
1999-03-04
4,884.49
0258317
LAERDAL MEDICAL CORPORATION
1999-03-04
268.00
0258318
LESCO, INC
1999-03-04
1,559.40
0258319
LIVE OAK LAWN SUPPLY INC
1999-03-04
7,680.10
0258320
LITMAN, ARY W PH.D
1999-03-04
2,012.50
0258321
LOWE'S H CENTERS, INC
1999-03-04
13.02
0258322
LEXIS LAI PUBLISHING
1999-03-04
52.63
0258323
LEVINE, AURENCE S, PSY.D,
1999-03-04
1,400.00
0258324
LUNA, JORGE
1999-03-04
87.55
0258325
LIGHT IMPRESSIONS CORP
1999-03-04
197.69
0258326
MARPAN SUPPLY CO, INC
1999-03-04
13.00
0258327
MCCOLLUM, NATHAN
1999-03-04
20.59
0258328
MATRX MEDICAL, INC
1999-03-04
56.39
0258329
MAP LINK] INC
1999-03-04
128.08
0258330
MEDICAL CORD SERVICES, INC
1999-03-04
193.00
0258331
MORNINGS AR, INC
1999-03-04
137.50
0258332
MCDADE TERWORKS, INC
1999-03-04
36,752.12
0258333
M LEE TH PUBLISHERS LLC
1999-03-04
177.00
0258334
MEREDITH CORP, BOOK GROUP
1999-03-04
17.48
0258335
MARTIN COUNTY PETROLEUM
1999-03-04
1,846.83
0258336
MELCHIO4, NICK
1999-03-04
200.00
0258337
MOSS, ROGER
1999-03-04
136.48
0258338
MCGUIRE,IGEORGE SEAN
1999-03-04
41.47
0258339
MOSS, MARY
1999-03-04
59.23
0258340
MAXWELL, DANIEL
1999-03-04
117.17
0258341
MEYER, JOYCE L
1999-03-04
500.00
0258342
MAROONE DODGE
1999-03-04
18,085.00
0258343
NATIONWIDE ADVERTISING
1999-03-04
414.27
0258344
NOLTE, DAVID C
1999-03-04
4,960.00
0258345
NOCUTS, INC
1999-03-04
19.70
0258346
NEVOR, NICK
1999-03-04
123.60
0258347
NEELY, EMILY
1999-03-04
32.18
0258348
NATIONSBANK, N A
1999-03-04
10.15
0258349
OFFICE PRODUCTS & SERVICE
1999-03-04
2,188.04
0258350
OXMOOR HOUSE
1999-03-04
29.91
0258351
OMNIGRAPHICS, INC
1999-03-04
52.60
0258352
O'NEIL, LEE & WEST
1999-03-04
8,808.24
MARCH 16, 1999
-5-
•
BOOK Jua FAGS,
MARCH 169 1999
BOOK �.� PAGE 621
CHECK
NAME
CHECK
CHECK
NUMBER
DATE
AMOUNT
0258353
ORLANDO HAND SURGERY ASSOC.
1999-03-04
1,775.70
0258354
ORACLE JUNCTION BOOK SHOP
1999-03-04
80.00
0258355
ORIGIN
1999-03-04
119.03
0258356
PARAGON ELECTRIC, INC
1999-03-04
2,222.00
0258357
PETTY CASH
1999-03-04
159.37
0258358
PHILLIPS, LINDA R
1999-03-04
45.50
0258359
POSTMASTER
1999-03-04
15,000.00
0258360
PROCTOR CONSTRUCTION
1999-03-04
1,500.00
0258361
PETTY CASE
1999-03-04
106.91
0258362
PHYSIO CONTROL
1999-03-04
184.40
0258363
PORT PETROLEUM, INC
1999-03-04
259.70
0258364
PRESS JOURNAL
1999-03-04
522.00
0258365
PAGE, LIVINGSTON
1999-03-04
45.00
0258366
PINEWOODS ANIMAL HOSPITAL
1999-03-04
15.00
0258367
PANGBURN, TERRI
1999-03-04
24.00
0258368
PRESS JOURNAL/STUART NEWS
1999-03-04
335.16
0258369
PRAXAIR DISTRIBUTION
1999-03-04
239.70
0258370
PROFESSIONAL CASE MANAGEMENT
1999-03-04
123.75
0258371
PROMEDIX CORP
1999-03-04
274.50
0258372
PARADISE ENTERPRISES
1999-03-04
2,000.00
0258373
PARKER, DEBBIE
1999-03-04
100.43
0258374
PARKER, VIRGIL AND
1999-03-04
1,150.00
0258375
PAYNE, JAMES
1999-03-04
126.65
0258376
RIFKIN, SHELDON H PHD
1999-03-04
850.00
0258377
ROSELAND VOLUNTEER FIRE DEPT
1999-03-04
20.00
0258378
RUSSELL CONCRETE, INC
1999-03-04
570.00
0258379
ROBINSON EQUIPMENT COMPANY,INC
1999-03-04
120.30
0258380
RICHMOND HYDRAULICS INC
1999-03-04
142.50
0258381
REED ELSEVIER NEW PROVIDENCE
1999-03-04
285.00
0258382
RECORDED BOOKS
1999-03-04
17.85
0258383
RUBBER STAMP EXPRESS & MORE
1999-03-04
108.72
0258384
RAY TECH ENTERPRISES INC
1999-03-04
5,165.00
0258385
RSR
1999-03-04
2,218.86
0258386
ROMO, ERNESTO
1999-03-04
300.00
0258387
SEBASTIAN VOLUNTEER FIRE DEPT
1999-03-04
34.00
0258388
SOUTHERN EAGLE DISTRIBUTING,
1999-03-04
325.53
0258389
SUNRISE FORD TRACTOR CO
1999-03-04
144.38
0258390
ST LUCIE PAPER & PACKAGING,INC
1999-03-04
1,843.09
0258391
SIMON & SCHUSTER
1999-03-04
813.49
0258392
SIGNS IN A DAY
1999-03-04
48.15
0258393
SHADY OAK ANIMAL CLINIC
1999-03-04
36.50
0258394
SAFETY EQUIP COMPANY
1999-03-04
556.80
0258395
SOUTHERN SEWER EQUIPMENT SALES
1999-03-04
200.00
0258396
SELIG CHEMICAL IND
1999-03-04
59.81
0258397
SOLINET
1999-03-04
397.76
0258398
SUPERIOR PRINTING
1999-03-04
45.75
0258399
SYSCO FOOD SERVICES OF
1999-03-04
548.77
0258400
STEWART MINING INDUSTRIES INC
1999-03-04
21,204.16
0258401
SEBASTIAN POLICE DEPARTMENT
1999-03-04
25.00
0258402
SOUTHEASTERN EMERGENCY EQUIP
1999-03-04
683.10
0258403
SOUTHEAST LIBRARY BINDERY,INC
1999703-04
296.09
0258404
SYSTEMATIC SERVICES, INC
1999.03-04
1,330.00
0258405
SIGNAGE SPECIALIST
1999-03-04
148.70
0258406
SKALA, ERIC
1999-03-04
77.25
0258407
STAGE & SCREEN
1999-03-04
27.39
0258408
SELF -FUNDING ACTUARIAL
1999 03-04
500.00
0258409
STILLER, MARSHA
1999 03-04
2.00
0258410
SHIELDS, VANESSA
1999 03-04
50.21
0258411
SCHWEY, PAUL MATTHEW
1999 03-04
36.00
0258412
SHERATON GAINESVILLE
1999-03-04
138.00
0258413
SHELL FLEET CARD
1999-03-04
19.06
0258414
SEBASTIAN POWER CENTER RENTAL
1999-03-04
3,282.50
0258415
SAMARITAN CENTER
1999t03-04
3,358.33
0258416
STEWART, SARAH LYNN
1999$03-04
50.21
0258417
SOUTHWESTERN SUPPLIERS INC
1999-03-04
20,012.74
0258418
SAWYER, RUTH
1999-03-04
30.00
0258419
SMITH, BRUCE
199903-04
500.00
0258420
ST LUCIE DEVELOPMENT CORP
1999-03-04
500.00
0258421
TREASUREICOAST REFUSE CORP
1999-03-04
231.68
0258422
TERRA
1999-03-04
39.20
0258423
THOMSON INANICAL PUBLICATION
1999-03-04
727.50
0258424
TINDALE LIVER & ASSOC., INC
1999-03-04
-3,295.89
0258425
THOMPSON PUBLISHING GROUP, INC
1999-03-04
247.00
0258426
TRUGREEN CHEMLAWN
1999 03-04
35.00
0258427
TREASURE COAST COURT
199903-04
-_ 175.00
0258428
TREASURE:COAST HUMAN RESOURCE
1999 03-04
25.00
0258429
T A P SOD
1999 03-04
1,214.40
0258430
ULVERSCRQFT LARGE PRINT
1999 03-04
719.60
0258431
UNI -CHEM CARP
1999-03-04
201.43
0258432
US FILTER DISTRIBUTION GROUP
1999-03-04
72.66
0258433
UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT
1999-03-04
12.00
MARCH 169 1999
n
u
CHECK NAME
NUMBER
0258434 UNIPSYCH BENEFITS OF FL,INC
0258435
VELDE FORD, INC
0258436
VERO BEACH VOLUNTEER FIRE
0258437
VERO BEACH, CITY OF
0258438
VERO BEACH, CITY OF
0258439
VERO CHEMICAL DISTRIBUTORS,INC
0258440
VERO LAKE ESTATES FIRE
0258441
VERO BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT
0258442
VERO BEARING & BOLT
0258443_
VOLUNTEER ACTION CENTER
0258444
VANTAGE EQUIPMENT CO
0258445
VERO C04ISION CENTER
0258446
VOORBEESI DONALD
0258447
VICKERS, REGINALD
0258448
WAL-MART STORES, INC
0258449
WAL-MART STORES, INC
0258450
WAL-MART STORES, INC
0258451
WILLHOFF, PATSY
0258452
WORKERS COMPENSATION SEMINARS
0258453
WILSON, MARGARET F
0258454
WALKER, KEITH
0258455
WRITER'S BOOKSTORE, THE
0258456
WOLFE, ERIN
0258457
WILSON, SUSAN B
0258458
WALGREEN'S PHARMACY
0258459
WILLIAMS, JOHN J, DDS, PA
0258460
WRIGHT, MAGGIE
0258461
XEROX
0258462
YE OLDE GENEALOGIE SHOP
0258463
YOUTH VOLUNTEER CORPS
0258464
ZIEGLER, MICHAEL R
0258465
DURLING, RICHARD
0258466
BOND, MARION
0258467
KELLOGG, FLORENCE A
0258468
CLAUD, KATHLEEN
0258469
RYAN, WM J
0258470
HICKS, RAYMOND
0258471
OLIVER, DELOISE
0258472
MACHT, KENNETH R
0258473
SIPP, GEORGE
0258474
DOHERTY, DOROTHY M
0258475
WILCOX, WARREN
0258476
BILL BRYANT & ASSOC
0258477
KEATING, ROBERT M
0258478
PROCTOR CONSTRUCTION CO INC
0258479
CAMP, EDGAR
0258480
HOLIDAY BUILDERS
0258481
RIGGINS, LA DONNA
0258482
IGLEHART, SALLY B
0258483
S R SMITH & SONS
0258484
WILLIAMS, REBECCA
0258485
HENSICK, WILLIAM B
0258486
ROBERTS, BONITA D
0258487
MARENCHIN, JOAN
0258488
BAER JR, JOHN F
0258489
NEIRA, MAURICIO A
0258490
GHO VERO BEACH INC
0258491
FORBES, SAMONA D
CHECK
DATE
1999-03-04
1999-03-04
1999-03-04
1999-03-04
1999-03-04
1999-03-04
1999403-04
1999-03-04
1999-03-04
1999-03-04
1999-03-04
1999.03-04
1999..03-04
1999-.03-04
1999-03-04
1999-03-04
1999-03-04
1999-03-04
1999-03-04
1999-03-04
1999-03-04
1999-03-04
1999-03-04
1999-03-04
1999-03-04
1999-03-04
1999-03-04
1999-03-04
1999-03-04
1999-03-04
1999-03-04
1999-03-04
1999-03-04
1999-03-04
1999-03-04
1999-03-04
1999=03-04
1999-03-04
1999-03-04
1999-03-04
CHECK
AMOUNT
2,116.80
1,586.08
44.00
352.50
1,253.91
112.25
23.00
100.00
217.46
100.00
326.07
500.00
1,000.00
45.00
153.14
495.76
154.98
130.00
150.00
3.00
45.00
22.25
27.03
103.00
8.19
225.00
61.80
1,450.00
145.80
4,548.97
392.04
294.88
1,250.00
105.02
52.52
28.30
16.39
38.88
•90.44
65.51
5.73
27.15
81.66
29.87
357.08
102.56
29.37
5.20
64.33
41.55
91.62
50.58
50.74
60.11
51.65
53.57
206.76
24.28
0258492
OGILVIE, JASON
1999-03-04
82.09
43.16
0258493
MGB CONSTRUCTION INC
1999-03-04
0258494
PERUGINI CONSTRUCTION
1999-03-04
17.38
0258495
NELSON, SELENA
1999-03-04
60.13
0258496
ROMANO, DONNA
1999-03-04
1.79
0258497
BARR, BRUCE
1999-03-04
49.12
1999103-04
51.89
0258498
WELCH, STEPHANIE
1999-03-04
100.00
0258499
RCL DEVELOPMENT INC
56.63
0258500
SEAGER, ROBERT G
1999-03-04
0258501
FLEIS, EDWARD
1999-03-04
31.99
0258502
JONES, HELEN G
1999-03-04
54.21
0258503
WARNICK, GREGG
1999-03-04
20.66
0258504
CATHERINE & ROBERT CAIRNS EST
1999-03-04
67.00
0258505
MILARSKY, JEREMY F
1999-03-04
44.65
0258506
DUCK POND ROSEMAN JOINT VENTUR
1999-03-04
106.26
0258507
GULLIA, JOSEPH
1999-03-04
6.03
0258508
VETERSNECK, MICHAEL
1999-03-04
41.53
0258509
MANIGOLD, FORREST F
1999-03-04
74.76
0258510
NOGGLE, WILLIAM E
1999-03-04
24.46
0258511
ADES, EDWARD D
1999-03-04
28.97
0258512
FEY, JEFFREY T
1999-03-04
24.97
0258513
CAMERON CORP
1999-03-04
71.22
0258514
ACTION SIGNS
1999-03-04
35.25
0258515
DIX, DEEDRA C
1999-03-04
23.74
0258516
WELLINGTON HOMES
1999-03-04
36.14
MARCH 16, 1999
-7-
r�
BOOK 103 PAGE 622
BOOK 108 PAGE 623
CHECK
NAME
CHECK
CHECK
NUMBER
DATE
AMOUNT
0258517
HINZMAN, FRANK D
1999-03-04
28.71
0258518
MORRIS, CHRISTINA K
1999-03-04
45.73
0258519
AMERIT HOMES
1999-03-04
94.92
0258520
BYRNE, MICHAEL
1999-03-04
2.99
0258521
LARGE, ANDREW
1999-03-04
14.42
0258522
IRISH, GEORGE E
1999-03-04
68.42
0258523
GORMAN, ERIC
1999-03-04
78.94
0258524
THOMPSON, HEATHER
1999-03-04
13.41
0258525
TAYLOR, LEE ANN
1999x03-04
37.79
0258526
GABRIELS CHICK & RIBS
199903-04
25.03
0258527
RIVER PARR PLACE
1999i-03-04
620.84
0258528
TURNER, CAROL
1999 03-04
10.73
0258529
DUNCAN, WILLIAM
199903-04
87.33
0258530
WEINSHEIMER, KIM & MIKE
1999 03-04
31.44
0258531
ROSALES, C
1999=03-04
61.03
0258532
DESLIEN, S
1999 03-04
22.67
0258533
THOMAS, JENN PER
1999 03-04
4.40
0258534
MINISH, JONA
1999 03-04
105.75
0258535
JACKSON, JON
1999 03-04
7.10
0258536
GIORGIO, DA
1999 03-04
42.68
0258537
HOGAN, JAME9
1999-03-04
39.81
0258538
MILES, JOHNNIE R
1999-03-04
28.19
0258539
JOHNSON, LARRY
1999-03-04
7.05
0258540
PROCTOR CONSTRUCTION
1999-03-04
122.75
0258541
SCHLITT, CHRISTOPHER
1999-03-04
52.19
0258542
HOLIDAY BUILDERS
1999-03-04
100.00
0258543
BERRUCCI, ROBERT A
199-03-04
84.43
0258544
HUBLER, KIMBERLY
1 99-03-04
70.29
0258545
RIGHTON, HARRY
1 99-03-04
36.84
0258546
HALL, THOMAS OR SANDY
1 99-03-04
25.21
0258547
BRUNO, ROBERT
1 99-03-04
40.10
0258548
MC CLAY, ROBIN
1 99-03-04
34.74
0258549
GHO VERO BEACH INC
1999-03-04
68.48
0258550
JACOBS, CRYSTAL
1999-03-04
78.87
0258551
CORNERSTONE SELECT HOMES INC
1999-03-04
88.91
0258552
ANGELONE, RICHARD J
1999-03-04
67.17
0258553
SANBORN, DONALD J
1999-03-04
1.07
0258554
ANDERSON, SCOTT G
1999-03-04
21.21
0258555
JONES, KEVIN R
1999-03-04
18.38
0258556
HAVENS JR, B NORRIS
1999-03-04
21.48
0258557
BICHLER, GRETCHEN
1999-03-04
28.36
0258558
PICCIOLO, MATTHEW
1999-03-04
69.20
0258559
SODEN, DAVID D
1999-03-04
30.57
0258560
GASKIN SR, REV JOHN W
1999-03-04
68.65
0258561
BAUER, DEBBIE
1999-03-04
28.30
0258562
OAR ISLAND ASSOC
1999-03-04
71.70
0258563
SEA OAKS INVESTMENT LTD
1999-03-04
59.60
0258564
SIMPSON, JAMES & NORMA
1999-03-04
32.74
0258565
AMERITREND HOMES
1999-03-04
28.31
0258566
TOMLIN, SHARON
1999-03-04
98.24
0258567
SCIARA, CARL
1999-03-04
47.12
0258568
BORKENHAGEN, VIRGINIA
1999-03-04
73.58
0258569
SHAPIRO, DAVID & LINDA
1999-03-04
63.87
0258570
HILL, ROLAND
1999-03-04
20.47
0258571
ASSOCIATES REALTY
1999-03-04
39.11
0258572
TARGET RETAIL
1999-03-04
57,694.00
798,682.36
MARCH 16, 1999
-8-
0
•
7. C. ANNUAL LOCAL GOVERNMENT FINANCIAL REPORT FOR FY1997-98
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of March 8, 1999:
TO: THE HONORABLE MEMBERS OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS
DATE: MARCH 8, 1999
SUBJECT: ANNUAL FINANCIAL REPORT
i
FROM: EDWIN M. FRY, JR., FINANCE DIRECTOR
Section 218.32, Florida Statutes, requires that each unit of local government submit a financial report
covering its operations during the previous fiscal year. The report must be submitted within 45 days
after the completion of the audit report, but no later than 12 months after the end of the fiscal year.
The Indian River County Annual Local Government Financial Report for the fiscal year 1997 - 1998
has been prepared and is ready to be submitted to the Department of Banking and Finance in
Tallahassee. The report is to be signed by the Chief Financial Officer and the Chairman of the Board
of County Commissioners.
I respectfully request the Board of County Commissioners authorize the Chairman to sign the
County's Annual Local Government Financial Report for the fiscal year 1997 - 1998.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Adams,
SECONDED by Commissioner Stanbridge, the
Board unanimously approved the County's Annual
Local Government Financial Report for the Fiscal
Year 1997-1998 and authorized the Chairman_ to
execute same, as recommended by staff.
MARCH 16, 1999
COPY OF REPORT IS ON FILE IN TBE
OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD
BOOK JOS
-9-
•
BOOK 103 PAGE 625
7.D. ACCEPTANCE OFMODIFICATION TO CLERK OF COURT JEFFREYK
BARTWS SURETYBOND
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of March 10, 1999:
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
MEMORANDUM
To: Board of County Commissioners
From: Alice E. White, Executive Aide
Date: March 10, 1999
Subject: Acceptance of modification to Clerk of Court Surety Bond
Please authorize the Chairman to sign the modification rider to the Surety Bond
for Jeff Barton, Clerk of Court. It was reduced from $250,000 to $100,000 as
specified by the Board of County Commissioners.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Adams,
SECONDED by Commissioner Stanbridge, the
Board unanimously approved the modification rider
to the Surety Bond for Jeff Barton, Clerk of Court
as recommended by staff.
ORIaNAL BOND IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE
OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD
MARCH 16, 1999
-10-
0 0
.7
ZE. CONSIDERATTONOFECONOMICDEVELOPMENT COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT 6M--BQ CONSULTANT SELECTION
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATTON (BERRYMAN & H MGER
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of March 9, 1999:
TO: James E. Chandler
County Administrator
DM ION HEAD CONCURRENCE:
Z
Robert M. Keating, 4
CP ;
Community Development erector
THROUGH: Sasan Rohani, AICP S' -,,0'1-
Chief, Long -Range Planning
FROM: Peter J. Radke 4;�- .
Economic Development Planner
DATE: March 9, 1999
SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT (CDBG) CONSULTANT SELECTION
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal consideration by the Board of County
Commissioners at its regular meeting of March 16, 1999.
On January 19, 1999, the Board of County Commissioners, at an advertised public hearing, formally
chose the Economic Development Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) category and
authorized community development staff to apply for an Economic Development CDBG. The Board
also authorized staff to initiate the process to select a consultant to prepare the CDBG application
and administer the grant, if awarded.
Based on the Board of County Commissioners' actions at its January 19, 1999 meeting, county staff
prepared a Request for Proposals (RFP) to hire a consultant to prepare the CDBG application and
administer the grant. Four proposals were received by the county for review.
A consultant selection committee, consisting of Jason Brown, Budget Analyst; William Collins,
Deputy County Attorney; and Peter Radke, Economic Development Planner, reviewed the submitted
proposals and attended the presentations of three of the four consulting firms. Due to a scheduling
conflict, Fred Fox Enterprises, Inc. withdrew its proposal from consideration by the selection
committee.
Based on each firm's written proposal and presentation, the consultant selection committee ranked
the three consulting firms separately for each service being requested (application preparation
services and grant administration services) by the county. The three consulting firms were ranked
as follows:
Final Ranking
Application Preparation Services
Administration Services
Bergman and Henniger
Berryman and Henniger
Clark, Roumelis & Associates
Clark, Roumelis & Associates
Government Funding Specialist
1 Government Funding Specialist
MARCH 169 1999
-11-
•
800F iuH FAGS 626
BOOK
PAGE627
As indicated in its proposal, Berryman and Henniger will prepare the application at no charge to the
county. If the application receives funding, Berryman and Henniger will get a percentage of the
grant funds, up to 8%, for administering the project. If the project does not get funded, there will
be no cost to the county for the consultant having prepared the application.
Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners approve the consultant selection
prioritization list and authorize staff to begin contract negotiations with the number one ranked firm.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Adams,
SECONDED by Commissioner Stanbridge, the
Board unanimously approved the consultant
selection prioritization list and authorized staff to
begin contract negotiations with the number one
ranked firm, as recommended by staff.
7. F. BID #9044 - PAnyTnyG OF CoyNTYADNrnyISTRATroNAND HEALTH
BUILDINGS (LUCAS WATERPROOFING Co.�
(CONTINUED FROM MEETING OF MARCH 9, 1999)
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of March 3, 1999:
DATE:
Match 3,1999
TO:
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
THRU:
James E Chandler, County Administrawr
Tom Frame, General services Direciofr4ii+OWX
FROM:
yZ
—Fran Boynton -Powell, Purchasing Manager Pr
SUBJECT:
Bid Award: IRC #9044/ Painting of Comity Administration & Health Buildings
Building and Grounds Division
BACKGROUND IIVFORMATIox
Bid Opening J>ntc:
February 26,1999 at 2..00 PM
n 17,1999
S to.
Twenty six (26) Vendors
RRg9ies:
Six (6) Vendors
Five (5) Vendors
TOMBLucas 1D
Waterproofing Co.
547,500.00
Vao Beach F1
R.E. Stale Painting
547,840.00
Veto Beach, Fl
ExteriorCoatingbyM� 556,110.00
VBeach,
McPayles Painting hr—
564,171.15
Wen Palra Hench, Fl
Russell Fgyne Painting
566.042.70
Veto Bcacb6 Fl
special Coating System
5861000.00
Ocala, Fl
MARCH 16, 1999
•
r• • t.r_ •1.111111�.
SOURCE OF FUNDS Building Alts
001-220-519-041.25
ESTIMATED BUDGET $52,300.00
•
Staff recommends that the bid be awarded to Lncns waterproofing Company as the lowest most responsive and
responsible bidder meeting specz&=oas as set forth in the Invitation to Hid. (See attached Department Memo).
In addition, staff requests autbarhm ion for the Clatizman to execute the original contract doconiem when the
attadud sample Contract has been reviewed and app ped as to form by the Canmy Attorney.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Adams,
SECONDED by Commissioner Stanbridge, the
Board unanimously awarded Bid #9044 to Lucus
Waterproofing Company, as recommended by staff.
BID DOCUMENTS ON FILE 1N THE
OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO TBE BOARD
7. G. BID #9043 - REJECT ALL BIDS -PURCHASE OF RECONDITIONED
REELMASTER GANG MOWER (PARKsmyISION) (EXPRESSREEL
GRINDING OF VERO BEACH)
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of March 4, 1999:
DATE: March 4, 1999
TO: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
THRU: James E. Chandler, County Administrator
Tun Davis, Director of Public Wor
Fran Powell, Purchasing Manager
FROM: Jim Romanek, Parks Superintendent
SUBJECT: Reject all bids for Bid #9043
Purchase of a reconditioned reelmaster gang mower
Parks Division/Public Works
BACKGROUND 1NFORMATION
On January 25, 1999 a formal bid opening was held in the Purchasing Office for the purchase of
one (1) new latest model reelmaster transport ram lift five (5) gang mower. This bid (9043) was
advertised in the Press Journal and mailed to twenty (20) prospective bidders. At the bid
opening, only two bids were received and both exceeded the budgeted amount of $13,000.00.
The Purchasing staff called both vendors who responded and asked what revisions could be
made to the mower units specifications in order to bring the pricing more in line. Suggestions
were to change from a transport lift to a universal lift on the gang mower. This change to the
specifications would significantly decrease the mobility of the mower and require that it be
MARCH 16, 1999
-13-
•
6
BOOK 03 FAGS 8
BOOK 108 PAGE &9
stored outside. The other change would be to downsize to smaller gang mower. Due to the
amount of acreage we are required to maintain on a regular basis, the size and cutting width of
the gang mower needs to stay the same. Purchasing did ask if they sold reconditioned units and
they said no, only new factory made models.
ANALYSIS
A local vendor, Express Reel Grinding sells reconditioned mowers and they can provide a five
(5) gang mower to our specifications within the budgeted amount. The transport frame is a
refurbished Toro unit with new reels and blades. This unit comes with a full two-year
warranty. (See attached vendor quotation.)
Staff recommends that both responses to IRC Bid 9043 for the new reelmaster gang mower are
rejected and authorize the purchase one (1) reconditioned unit from Fxnress Reel Grinding of
Yero Beach in an amount not to exceed $13,000.00.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Adams,
SECONDED by Commissioner Stanbridge, the
Board unanimously rejected both responses to Bid
#9043 for the new reelmaster gang mower and
authorized the purchase of 1 reconditioned unit from
Express Reel Grinding of Vero Beach in an amount
not to exceed $13,000, as recommended by staff.
MARCH 16, 1999
•
ZH. OUT-oF-COUNTT TRAVEL FOR COMMISSIONER STANBRIDGE To
ATTEND CoUNTY GoyERNMENT LA wSEmvvAR IN ORI.ANDo FL
The Board reviewed the following:
��IEs�►
G0 so 'A OG
'T MME moo
ti y
;MEMOOti
Florida Counties
Foundation
Presents
COUNTY
GOVERNMENT LAW:
Structure, Authority &
Responsibility
April 16,1999
Orlando Airport Marriott
Orlando, Florida
County
COmmiss ers
Cer111121 Oa
Why You Should Attend
S To broaden your knowledge of county
government form and function
To learn about the state agency process
and how it relates to local government
4- To better understand your role and
responsibilities as a county
commissioner
4 To interact and exchange information
with your peers
Who Should Attend
4 Commissioners participating in the
County Commissioners Voluntary
Certification Program
4, Commissioners with a special interest in
county government structure
Fee
The fee for this workshop is $90. This
includes moming and afternoon
refreshments, lunch and all materials.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Adams,
• SECONDED by Commissioner Stanbridge, the
Board unanimously approved out -of -county travel
for Commissioner Stanbridge to attend the County
Government Law Seminar in Orlando, Florida on
April 16, 1999.
MARCH 16, 1999
-15-
11
BOOK i FAGS j
BOOK MPAGE 631
ZL RESOLUTION 99-022 - IN SUPPORT OF FLORIDA FOREVER ASA
SUCCESSOR PROGRAM TO PRESERVATION 2000
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of March 9, 1999:
TO: Margaret Gunter
FROM: Chairman Fran B. Adams
DATE: March 9, 1999
SUBJECT: Agenda Item Under Consent
BCC Meeting March 16, 1999
ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION IN SUPPORT OF FLORIDA FOREVER AS A
SUCCESSOR PROGRAM TO PRESERVATION 2000.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Adams,
SECONDED by Commissioner Stanbridge, the
Board unanimously adopted Resolution 99-022
supporting the establishment of FLORIDA
FOREVER as a successor program to
PRESERVATION 2000.
RESOLUTION NO. 99-22
A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, SUPPORTING THE
ESTABLISHMENT OF FLORIDA FOREVER AS A SUCCESSOR
PROGRAM TO PRESERVATION 2000; AND PROVIDING FOR AN
EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, Preservation 2000 has been the State of Florida's premier land preservation program,
which has acquired and, therefore, saved much of Florida's best remaining natural land; and
WHMEAS, Florida's population continues to grow by more than 700 people per day, and accounts for
the rapid conversion of forests, wetlands, farms, wilderness and other green space; and
WHEREAS, we must protect and restore water resources for natural systems and human use, as well
as for habitat for plants, animals and fisheries; and
WHEREAS, it is important to provide exceptional opportunities for outdoor recreation for all
Floridians and visitors in order to enhance Florida's economy and quality of life; and
WHEREAS, we must ensure the effective long-term management of public lands; and
WHEREAS, Florida's native plant and animal species do not yet have sufficient habitat for survival,
and Florida's wild lands are being invaded by non-native plant and animal species; and
WHEREAS, land acquisitions under Preservation 2000 have provided significant environmental
protection, but have not yet completed the job o setting aside enough land and water areas to meet Florida's
pressing natural resource needs; and
WHEREAS, in anticipation of the expiration of Preservation 2000, a successor program to be known
as Florida Forever has been proposed as a new land conservation program to further the protection of Florida's
exceptional wild lands; and
MARCH 16, 1999
•
WHEREAS, Florida Forever would provide funding for land acquisition and management to meet
Florida's critical needs to continue to preserve our remaining wild lands, protect our crucial water resources,
provide local recreational opportunities, manage publicly owned conservation and recreation lands, and restore
major ecosystems in Florida:
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA that the Board hereby urges the Legislature of the State of Florida
to support the authorization of the 10th series of Preservation 2000 bonds, and support the creation of Florida
Forever, a new land and water conservation program that will continue Florida's long tradition of land acquisition
conservation.
The Board also requests the Clerk to furnish copies of this Resolution to the members of the Indian River
County Legislative Delegation.
This Resolution shall become effective immediately upon adoption.
The resolution was moved for adoption by Commissioner Adams , and the motion was seconded by
Commissioner Stanbridge, and, upon being put to a vote, the vote was as follows:
Chairman Kenneth R. Macht
Aye
Vice Chairman Fran B. Adams
Aye
Commissioner Caroline D. Ginn
Aye
Commissioner John W. Tippin
Aye
Commissioner Ruth M. Stanbridge
Aye
The Chairman thereupon declared the resolution duly passed and adopted this 16th day of March,1999.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
INDIAN COUNTY, FLORIDA
Kenneth Rk Macht, Chairman
Charles P. Vitunac, County Attorney
•
MARCH 169 1999
-17- BOOK UPAGE P�
BOOK 103 PAGE 6,33
7.1 INDLwRIVER COUNTYJAIL WATER CONTROLS- SOLEBRAND/SOLE
SOURCE DESIGNATION- POWERS PROCESS CONTROLS
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of March 5, 1999:
TO: Honorable Board of County Commissioners
THRU: James E. Chandler
County Administrator
THRU: Tom Frame, Director ��carvJi,�
Department of General Services
FROM: Lynn Williams, SupP4ten t
Buildings & Grounds
SUBJECT: Sole Brand/Sore--Source Designation
Powers Process Controls
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS:
March 5, 1999
The water controls, ie. lavatory, shower, etc. originally
installed in all phases of the Indian River County Jail Inmate
Housing Units have been a continuing source of maintenance problems
and complaints. Buildings & Grounds spends an average of $5,000 to
$7,000 per year on replacement cartridges for these repairs.
Approximately two years ago, we purchased materials to retrofit one
cell block with the Powers Process Controls. They are less
susceptible to water quality issues and more vandal resistant than
the current controls. No failures of the Powers Controls have
occurred during the evaluation and eliminated water related
complaints in "test block".
ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS:
Buildings & Grounds budgeted $39,900 in Fiscal Year 1998-99
(Inmate Housing) in the Jail. The remaining two pods have been
proposed in the final segment of projects in the Optional Sales Tax
funding request.
Powers Process controls is the Sole Manufacturer and provider
for this type control. They are selling directly to the County.
The Indian River County Purchasing Manual, Section 3.6 & 3.7 allows
for Sole Source and Sole Brand Designations and procurement by the
Board of County Commissioners under certain circumstances. Staff'
feels the circumstances stated above are justification for this
designation and in the best interest of the County.
RECOMMENDATION AND FUNDING:
It is recommended that Powers Process Controls be designated
as Sole Source and Sole Brand for water controls at the Indian
River County Jail in accordance with the Indian River County
Purchasing Division.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Adams,
SECONDED by Commissioner Stanbridge, the
Board unanimously approved Powers Process
Controls as sole source and sole brand for water
controls at the Indian River County Jail in
accordance with the Indian River County Purchasing
Division, as recommended by staff.
MARCH 16, 1999
ZK PAYMENTS TO VENDORS OF COURT RELATED COSTS
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of March 5, 1999:
TO: Board of County Commissioners
FROM: Terrence P. O'Brien, Assistant County Attorney J4 D
DATE: March 5, 1999
SUBJECT: Payments to Vendors of Court Related Costs
The Office of the County Attorney has processed and approved payment to the following vendors
for the weeks of March 1, 1999. Listed below are the vendors names and the amount of each
court related costs.
Sheldon H. Rifkin, Ph. D.
Clinical Evaluation
850.00
Marsha Stiller/Martin Co. Clerk
Record Research
2.00
American Reporting
Transcription
103.60
American Reporting
Transcription
118.00
Sandy Crawford
Record Research
15.00
NationsBank
Record Research
10.15
American Reporting
Transcription
92.00
Gregory C. Landrum, Psy.D.
Clinical Evaluation
650.00
Floyd Evans
Court Interpreter
12.50
Medical Record Services, Inc.
Record Research
193.00
Linda Copeland
Transcription
216.00
Jiffy Photo
Photos
4.20
Gregory Landrum, Psy.D.
Clinical Evaluation
750.00
Esquire Reporting
Transcription
279.00
Shirley E. Corbin
Transcription
66.50
Shirley E. Corbin
Transcription
31.50
Shirley E. Corbin
Transcription
94.50
Shirley E. Corbin
Transcription
24.50
Peggy Goilnick
Transcription
42.00
Peggy Gollnick
Transcription
189.00
Barbara Schopp
Transcription
157.50
Shirley E. Corbin
Transcription
210.00
Linda R. Phillips
Transcription
154.00
Linda R. Phillips
Transcription
101.50
Unishippers
Shipping
13.50
Robert J. Brugnoli, Ph.D.
Expert Witness
150.00
Ralph Mora, Ph.D.
Clinical Evaluation
500.00
Brabara G.Schopp
Transcription
94.50
Floyd F. Evans
Court Interpreter
25.00
Celeste L. Hartsfield
Transcription
87.50
Kenneth L. Director, Ph.D.
Clinical Evaluation
450.00
Hew Horizons of the TC
Record Research
12.21
Esquire Reporting
Court Reporter
1,743.75
Celeste L. Hartsfield
Transcription
59.50
American Reporting
Transcription
50.00
Medical Record Services
Record Research
150.20
American Reporting
Transcription
13.85
Paul H. Evans
Witness Reimbursement
109.76
Paul H. Evans
Express Mail
11.75
William J. Connelly
Airport Shuttle
98.00
Medical Record Services
Record Research
10120
Unishippers
Shipping
8.85
Jeff Bogenrief
Witness Reimbursement
46.60
Michael D. Bell, M.D.
Expert Witness
1,125.00
Travel by Pegasus
Witness Travel
472.00
Geneva McAlpin William
Witness Reimbursement
225.00
Michael I. Kelley
Expert Witness
3,025.00
R B Meadows & Associates
Investigator
1,485.00
TOTAL
$14,424.62
NO ACTION REQUIRED OR TAKEN.
MARCH 169 1999
-19- BOOK � FACE 63
BOOK 103 PAGE 6,.3-
U CHANGE ORDER FOR WET WELL LIFT STATIONREHABILITATION -
TREASURE COAST CONTRACTING - PROJECT US -97 -21 -CS
The Board reviewed the following Change Order:
�In.arwitom on rc%crw mjei CHANGE ORDER 1
PROJECT: Wet Wel- -ift Station Rehabilitation DATE OF ISSUANCE:
OwNER.Indian River County Utilities Dept.
1840 25th Street
(NAa a syero Beach, • FL 32960 �.
CONTRACTOR: rac�iRqas1nc.
CONTRACTFOR: Lift Station Rehabilitation
OWNER'S Peajec No. US -97 -21 -CS
ENGUMM Indian River County Utilit:
ENGJNEEIVs Ptojeec No. US -97 -21 -CS
You aee diesac d to make the foUowint eyeaettes is the Cbna= Doeatmeem
Additional pining modifications, lift station did replacements,
Purpose of Cbante Order Final prof ect reconeilation
AmdLmm (List doc mem =WPw t chaW)proj ect reconciliation starmary, Treasure Coast
letter of request
CHANGE IN CONMULT PRICE
orwod Comma rdce
i 59,345.00
Pter{oess ChUW Oedas No—;.-_ to Na
T— N/A
Coax m Peine Pdorte this CbxgP Oaks
S 59,345.00
Net basub(deamU4 of this Chaeta Order
S +4000.00
CHANGE IN CONTRACT' TJME:
OdsW Comm
120
.mwdm
Neta hup fmo pte+rioa: Chaelte Oedecs
N/A
4M
Ce ismu Time PdW to this am" Order
r
120
Net toessmes (deetaase) of this Chante Ceder
130
Conaaa Pune Wft sdi appeorod Chante Osdess CMUM Thee Trish &A appeared Chaate Oedas
S 63,345.00 250
ON MOTION by Commissioner Adams,
SECONDED by Commissioner Stanbridge, the
Board unanimously approved the Change Order for
the Wet Well Lift Station rehabilitation with
Treasure Coast Contracting, as recommended by
staff. _
CHANGE ORDER IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE
OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD
MARCH 16, 1999
-20-
• 0
•
7.M. OUT -OF -COUNTY TRAVEL FOR VICE CHADZMANADAMS TO ATTEND
THE FACO 1999 LEGISLATIVE SESSION
The Board reviewed a letter of February 16, 1999 and a Memorandum of March 12,
1999: FLORIDA
ASSOCIATION P.O. Box 549/ Tallahassee, Florida 32307
OF COUNTIES Phone: 8.70192:%4.10o Suncor: d92-4300 FAV:11.7()/488--'
gI TIU!MP" ' ,. (L
February
February 16, 1999
The Honorable Fran Adams F o t-• i!~tk+v. _
Indian River County Commissioner
1840 25th Street
Vero Beach, FL 32960 -
Dear Commissioner Adams: Risk "+'gt•
Other
Thank you for agreeing to serve as a Commissioner -Lobbyist during the 1999 Legislative
Session. With the implementation of Revision 7 on the agenda, commissioner presence
during the legislative session is crucial. As a result, FAC has made a concerted effort to
organize commissioner teams during each week of the session. It is very important that
our victory on Article V funding is not eroded in the implementation phase. In addition,
there are several other key issues to be deliberated on Capitol Hill this year such as FRS
and eminent domain.
Your willingness to volunteer is very much appreciated. Based on scheduling needs and
the response you provided, you have been assigned the following week(s) to be in
Tallahassee assisting with the lobbying efforts: •
Week 6: April 5 - 9
Commissioners are responsible for their own transportation, lodging and meals while in
Tallahassee. For your convenience, the FAC has reserved two rooms per week, through
session, at the DoubleTree Hotel located at 101 S. Adams Street (just down the block
from the FAC office). The room rate will be $109 a night. When calling to make
reservations (8501224-5000) you will need a credit card number to hold the room and the
following confirmation number(s): 115625. Please note if your plans change a
cancellation notice is required two days in advance
At least a week prior to your travel, please have your staff submit your travel plans
to Leigh Root at the Association office. This is so FAC can cancel any hotel nights that
have not been reserved and plan for any transportation needs you may have to and from
the Tallahassee airport.
To: Board of County Commissioners
From: Fran B. Adams, Vice Chairman
Date: March 12, 1999
Subject: Out of County travel to Tallahassee April 6-9, 1999
I have agreed to serve as a Commissioner -Lobbyist during the 1999 Legislative
Session to take our concerns to Tallahassee before the Legislature. I
respectfully request that the Board approve out of county travel for me to go to
Tallahassee April 6-9, 1999.
MARCH 16, 1999
C]
-21- BOOK �� PAGE 9��
r
0
BOOK 108 WE&37
ON MOTION by Commissioner Adams,
SECONDED by Commissioner Stanbridge, the
Board unanimously approved out -of -county travel
for Commissioner Adams to serve as Commissioner -
Lobbyist during the 1999 Legislative Session in
Tallahassee, Florida on April 6 through 9, 1999.
7.N. REsOLaTIoN99-023 INSDPPORT OFA PARTNERSHIP WITHFLORIDA
INLAND NAVIGATIONAL DISTRICT (FIND) TO MOVE THE OLD
SEBASTIAN TRAINSTATION ONTO DUCKPOINT AND TURN THE
BUILDI1yGAND THE POINT OVER TO THE COUNTYFOR A RIVERFRONT
PARK (VICKERS GROVE PROPERTY)
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of March 10, 1999:
TO: Board of County Commissioners
FROM: Fran B. Adams
RE: Duck Point Park
DATE: March 10, 1999
Florida Indian Navigation District (FIND) is purchasing the Vickers Grove property
in north Indian River County for channel sand storage. On this property exists the
old Sebastian Train Station. FIND will move this building on to Duck Point and
possibly tum the building and Point over the County for a park.
We are in preliminary discussions with the FIND group, and I am seeking support
from the County Commission for the concept. The opportunities for the County are
multi - we will have a riverfront park, a historical building and a partnership with
FIND.
I seek the attached letter and resolution of support to go to Representative Sembler
as soon as possible to keep this project moving towards State support.
MARCH 16, 1999
-22-
•
LJ
ON MOTION by Commissioner Adams,
SECONDED by Commissioner Stanbridge, the
Board unanimously adopted Resolution 99-023
supporting a partnership with Florida Inland
Navigational District to move the Old Sebastian
Train Station onto Duck Point and turn the building
and the point over to the County for a river&ont
park.
RESOLUTION NO. "- 23
A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, SUPPORTING A PARTNERSHIP
WITH FLORIDA INLAND NAVIGATIONAL DISTRICT TO MOVE THE
OLD SEBASTIAN TRAIN STATION ONTO DUCK POINT AND TURN THE
BUILDING AND THE POINT OVER TO THE COUNTY FOR A
RIVERFRONT PARK; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners understands that the Florida Inland Navigational
District (FIND) is purchasing the Vickers Grove property in north Indian River County for channel sand storage;
and
WHEREAS, FIND will move the Old Sebastian Train Station building onto Duck Point and possibly
turn the building and the Point over to the County for a park; and
WHEREAS, the County would bice the opportunity to have this property function as a riverfront park
with a historical building, in partnership with FIND:
NOW, THEREFORE, BE rf RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA that the Board would appreciate support for this project from the
Florida Inland Navigational District and the State of Florida
The resolution was moved for adoption by CommissionerA d a m s , and the motion was seconded by
Commissioner Stanbridgeand, upon being put to a vote, the vote was as follows:
Chairman Kenneth R. Macht
Aye
Vice Chairman Fran B. Adams
Aye
Commissioner Caroline D. Ginn
Aye
Commissioner John W. Tippin
Aye
Commissioner Ruth M. Stanbridge
Aye
The Chairman thereupon declared the resolution duly passed and adopted this 16th day of March, 1999.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
ATTEST: Kenneth R. Macht, Chairman
Jere arton, Cler
APPROVED�i,gG
MARCH 169 1999
-23-
BOOK
�J
3 PACE 611-38
BOOK 103 FAGt 1o139
8. SHERIFF GARY WHEELER - ANNUAL LAW
ENFORCEMENT BLOCK GRANT AND REQUEST FOR
PUBLIC HEARING PRIOR TO OBLIGATING FUNDS -
MOBILE COMPUTING PROJECT
The Board reviewed a letter of March 8, 1999::
��jertf fW
GARY C. WHEELER • INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
MEMBER FLORIDA SHERIFFS ASSOCIATION
MEMBER OF NATIONAL SHERIFFS ASSOCIATION
4055 41st AVENUE VERO BEACH, FLORIDA 32980-1808 PHONE (561) 569-6700
March 8, 1999
The Honorable Kenneth R. Macht, Chairman
Indian River County Board of County Commissioners
1840 25th Street
Vero Beach, FL 32960
Dear Mr. Macht:
Attached are the acceptance documents for the annual Local Law Enforcement Block Grant for
$78,577. The 10% cash match of $8,731 will be covered by the Indian River County Sheriffs
Office forfeiture monies. The grant will be used to further the Sheriffs Office mobile computing
project (attached is the original application and budget worksheet).
Please accept this letter as our request to have the attached award placed on the consent agenda
for March 16, 1999. The award has been made pending return of the acceptance documents, as
attached
In addition, as part of the Special Conditions of Block Grants (No. 14., page 4 of 5), a public
hearing must be held prior to obligating fiords. Please accept this letter as our request to place
this item on the agenda for a future public hearing, pending the proper advertised notice. The
date of the public hearing will be that as set by the Board of County Commissioners.
Should you have any questions, please feel free to contact me or Sandy Shields at 569-6700,
extension 396.
Sincerely,
40",�—.LJL.4�
Gary C. wheeler, Sheriff
Sandy Shields of the Sheriff's Office requested the Chairman's signature on the
acceptance documents and noted that one -f the special conditions is a public hearing to be
scheduled in 3 to 4 weeks from today.
MARCH 16, 1999
-24-
• 0
ON MOTION by Commissioner Adams,
SECONDED by Commissioner Tippin, the Board
unanimously authorized the Chairman to execute the
acceptance documents and authorized the
advertisement of a notice for public hearing, as
recommended by staff.
COPIES OF DOCUMENTS ARE ON FILE IN TBE
OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO TBE BOARD
9.A.1. PUBLIC BEARING - ORDINANCE 99-007 AMENDING
THE FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT OF THE
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN BY CHANGING THE LAND
USE DESIGNATION FOR AN f 8 ACRE TRACT
LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF SR-AlA JUST
NORTH OF THE TOWN OF INDIAN RIVER SHORES
(IRWIN TRACT) FROM 11.,-2 TO C-1; BY CHANGING
THE LAND USE DESIGNATION FOR A f 37 ACRE
TRACT LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF
8TH STREET AND INDIAN RIVER BOULEVARD (FLINN
TRACT) FROM M-2 AND C-2 TO C-1; AND BY
CHANGING THE LAND USE DESIGNATION FOR A t
15.8 ACRE TRACT LOCATED WEST OF ST.
CHRISTOPHER'S HARBOR SUBDIVISION (GREEN
SALTMARSBI FROM C-2 TO C-1 AND ORDINANCE 99-
008 AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE AND THE
ACCOMPANYING ZONING MAP FROM RM -6 TO CON -
1 FOR PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF
STATE ROAD AlA JUST NORTH OF THE TOWN OF
INDIAN RIVER SHORES (IRWIN TRACT)
(AMENDMENT NO. LUDA 98-07-0252)
MARCH 16, 1999
-25-
C.
BOOK D3 pm E 640
6OGKC3 f'a1Gt
PROOF OF PUBLICATION OF ADVERTISEMENT FOR HEARING IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE
CLERK TO THE BOARD
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of February 25, 1999:
TO: James E. Chandler
County Administrator
D TMENT HEAD CONCURRENCE
U
Robert M. Keating, P
Community DevelopmJnt Dir or
THROUGH: Sasan Rohan, AICP 5 -17.
Chief, Long -Range Planning
FROM: John Wachtel 10/
Senior Planner, Long -Range Planning
DATE: February 25, 1999
RE: County Initiated Request to Amend The Comprehensive Plan to Redesignate t8
Acres From L-2 to C-1, And to Rezone Those f8 Acres From RM -6 to Con -1;
to Amend The Comprehensive Plan to Redesignate f37 Acres From M-2 And
C-2 to C-1, And to Rezone Those f37 Acres From RS -1 to Con -1; And to Amend
The Comprehensive Plan to Redesignate f15.8 Acres From C-2 to C-1, And to
Rezone Those f15.8 Acres From RS -1 to Con -1
PLAN AMENDMENT NUMBER: LUDA 98-07-0252
It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal consideration by the Board of County
Commissioners at its regular meeting of March 16, 1999.
This is a county initiated request involving three separate parcels, each of which contains
environmentally sensitive and important land now under some form of public ownership.
Attachments 3 and 4 show the location of the subject properties. Summarized in the table below,
this request involves changing both the land use designation and the zoning of each site. The
purpose of this request is to secure the necessary land use designation and zoning to reflect the
subject properties' public ownership and to ensure that the subject properties' environmental
significance will be preserved.
MARCH 16, 1999
SUBJECT PROPERTY 1
SUBJECT PROPERTY 2
SUBJECT PROPERTY 3
KNOWN AS
Irwin Tract
Flinn Tract
Green Saltmarsh
LOCATION
Bast side of SR AIA, just
north of the Town of Indian
River Shores
Northeast comer of 8'h
Street and Indian River
Boulevard
West of St. Christophers
Harbor Subdivision
SIZE IN ACRES
i - 8 1
37
-15.8
MARCH 16, 1999
Although the land use designation amendment portion of this request may be adopted at the March
16, 1999 Board of County Commissioners meeting, state law provides some special requirements
for county initiated rezoning requests that involve more than ten acres. At ±37 acres and ±15.8
acres, Subject Properties 2 and 3, respectively, must meet those special requirements. The most
relevant of those special requirements are the following:
• The Board must hold two advertised public hearings;
• One ofthe public hearings must be after 5:00 pm. on a weekday, unless four Commissioners
vote to conduct that hearing at another time of day; and
The second hearing must be held at least ten days after the first hearing and must be
advertised at least five days prior to the second hearing.
The March 16, 1999 Board of County Commissioners meeting meets the requirements for one of
the public hearings. Provided the advertising requirements are met, the second hearing can be held
on any weekday after March 26, 1999, at a time determined by the Board of County Commissioners.
The rezoning ordinance then can be adopted at the second hearing.
MARCH 16, 1999
-27-
BOOK h Pf�GE
•
SUBJECT PROPERTY 1
SUBJECT PROPERTY 2
SUBJECT PROPERTY 3
CURRENT
L-2, Low -Density
M-2, Medium -Density
C-2, Privately Owned
LAND USE
Residential -2 (up to 6
Residential -2 (up to 10
Estuarine Wetlands
DESIGNATION
units/acre)
units/acre); and C-2,
Conservation -2 (up to 1
Privately Owned Estuarine
unit/40 acres)
Wetlands Conservation -2
(up to 1 unit/40 acres)
PROPOSED
C-1, Publicly Owned or
C-1, Publicly Owned or
C-1, Publicly Owned or
LAND USE
Controlled Conservation -1
Controlled Conservation -1
Controlled Conservation -1
DESIGNATION
(zero density)
(zero density)
(zero density)
CURRENT
RM -6, Multiple -Family
RS -1, Single -Family
RS -1, Single -Family
ZONING
Residential District (up to 6
Residential District (up to 1
Residential District (up to 1
unitsfacre)
unitlacre)
unit/acre)
PROPOSED
Con -1, Public Lands
Con -1, Public Lands
Con -1, Public Lands
ZONING
Conservation District (zero
Conservation District (zero
Conservation District (zero
density)
density)
density)
ACQUISITION
Purchased
Purchased
Donated
METHOD
FUNDING
75% from the State's
Indian River County: 54%
Not applicable
METHOD
Conservation and Recreation
Lands (CARL) Program
Florida Inland Navigation
District: 25%
25% from the County's
Environmental Lands
St. Johns River Water
Program
Management District: 21%
OWNERSHIP
State of Florida: 100%
Indian River County: 50%
Indian River County: 100%
Indian River County 50 year
Florida Inland Navigation
management lease;
District: 25%
negotiating title agreement
St. Johns River Water
Management District: 25%
Although the land use designation amendment portion of this request may be adopted at the March
16, 1999 Board of County Commissioners meeting, state law provides some special requirements
for county initiated rezoning requests that involve more than ten acres. At ±37 acres and ±15.8
acres, Subject Properties 2 and 3, respectively, must meet those special requirements. The most
relevant of those special requirements are the following:
• The Board must hold two advertised public hearings;
• One ofthe public hearings must be after 5:00 pm. on a weekday, unless four Commissioners
vote to conduct that hearing at another time of day; and
The second hearing must be held at least ten days after the first hearing and must be
advertised at least five days prior to the second hearing.
The March 16, 1999 Board of County Commissioners meeting meets the requirements for one of
the public hearings. Provided the advertising requirements are met, the second hearing can be held
on any weekday after March 26, 1999, at a time determined by the Board of County Commissioners.
The rezoning ordinance then can be adopted at the second hearing.
MARCH 16, 1999
-27-
BOOK h Pf�GE
•
BOOK 10 J PAGE 6 43
On October 8, 1998, the Planning and Zoning Commission voted 7 to 0 to recommend that the
Board of County Commissioners approve the proposed land use amendment and rezoning. On
November 10, 1998, the Board of County Commissioners voted 5 to 0 to transmit the proposed land
use designation amendment request to the Florida Department of Community Affairs (DCA) for
their review.
Board of County Commissioners Responsibility
The Board of County Commissioners is now to decide the following:
• whether or not to adopt the proposed land use designation for all three subject properties;
• whether or not to adopt the proposed rezoning for Subject Property 1; and
• whether or not to hold the second rezoning public hearing for Subject Properties 2 and 3 at
9:05 am. at a regular Board of County Commissioners meeting.
ORC Report
Consistent with state regulations, DCA reviewed the proposed amendment and prepared an
Objections, Recommendations and Comments (ORC) Report (dated February 4, 1999), which
planning staff received on February 5, 1999. The DCA ORC Report did not contain any objections
or comments relating to the proposed amendment.
- Subject Property 1
Bounded on the east by the Atlantic Ocean and on the west by SR AIA, Subject Property 1 and
adjacent property to the north consist ofundeveloped native upland plant communities and are zoned
RM -6, Multiple -Family Residential District (up to 6 units/acre). West of Subject Property 1, across
SR AIA, is the entrance to the Island Club Subdivision. North of that entrance is the Jungle Trail
Conservation Area Stretching from the Indian River Lagoon to the Atlantic Ocean, the Jungle Trail
Conservation Area includes the property abutting Subject Property 1 on the north. Formerly referred
to as the Cairns Tract, the Jungle Trail Conservation Area consists of more than 100 acres of
environmentally important tropical maritime hammock and is zoned RM -6. That land was
purchased jointly by the state and the county for conservation purposes. Funds for the county's
portion of the purchase came from its Environmental Lands Acquisition Program, while state funds
came from the state Conservation and Recreation Lands (CARL) program. In the future, the county
plans to rezone the Jungle Trail Conservation Area to Con -1, Public Lands Conservation District
(zero density).
South of the Jungle Trail Conservation Area is the RS -6, Single -Family Residential District (up to
6 units/acre), zoned Island Club Subdivision. Land abutting the subject property on the south is
within the boundaries of the Town of Indian River Shores. That land is zoned R2A, Multiple -Family
Residential (up to 6 unitstacre), and contains the Baytree Condominiums.
- Subject Property 2
Located at the northeast comer of 8" Street and Indian River Boulevard, Subject Property 2 consists
of +21 acres of coastal oak hammock and ±16 acres of estuarine wetlands. The coastal oak
hammock generally is located near Indian River Boulevard, while the estuarine wetlands generally
are located along the Indian River Lagoon. Adjacent properties to the north also contain coastal oak
hammock along Indian River Boulevard and estuarine wetlands along the Indian River Lagoon.
While all of Subject Property 2 is zoned RS -1, Single -Family Residential District (up to 1 unit/acre),
only the eastern portions of adjacent properties to the north and south are zoned RS -1. The western
portions of those properties are zoned RM -10, Multiple -Family Residential District (up to 10
units/acre).
Currently under construction on land along Subject Property 2's south boundary is the River Park
Place Multiple -Family development. West of Subject Property 2, across Indian River Boulevard,
land is zoned RM -10 and contains the Kyles Run Apartments.
Although zoned RS -1 in the County Zoning A-das, environmentally important wetlands, such as
those along the Indian River Lagoon, are deemed to be zoned Con -2, wetland Conservation District
(up to 1 unit/40 acres).
MARCH 169 1999
-28-
- Subject Property 3
Located on the western edge of the south portion of the barrier island, just west of St. Christopher's
Harbor Subdivision, Subject Property 3 is nearly surrounded by the Indian River Lagoon. Zoned
RS -1 in the county zoning atlas, Subject Property 3 is undeveloped and consists entirely of
impounded estuarine wetlands. Nearby lands on the barrier island, to the east of Subject Property
3, are zoned RS -3, Single -Family Residential District (up to 3 units/acre), and consist of single-
family subdivisions and unplattel lots.
-Subject Property 1
Subject Property 1 and most land to the west, including the Island Club Subdivision, are designated
L-2, Low -Density Residential -2, on the county's future land use map. The L-2 designation permits
residential uses with densities up to 6 units/acre.
Land within the Jungle Trail Conservation Area, including land abutting Subject Property 1 on the
north and the remaining land to the west of Subject Property 1, are designated C-1, Publicly Owned
or Controlled Conservation 1 (zero density). The C-1 designation permits conservation and passive
recreational uses.
South of the subject property, land is designated MD, Moderate Density Residential, on the Town
of Indian River Shores' future land use map. The MD designation permits residential uses with
densities up to 6 unitstacre.
- Subject Property 2
With the exception of estuarine wetlands along the Indian River Lagoon, Subject Property 2 and all
surrounding properties are designated M-2, Medium -Density Residential -2, on the county's future
land use map. The M-2 designation permits residential uses with densities up to 10 unitstacre.
The estuarine wetlands along the Indian River Lagoon are designated C-2, Estuarine Wetlands
Conservation -2. The C-2 designation permits residential uses with densities up to lunit/40 acres on
site or off site density transfer credits of up to 1 unittacre.
- Subject Property 3
Subject Property 3 is designated C-2 on the county's future land use map. Nearby lands on the
barrier island, to the east of Subject Property 3, are designated L-1, Low -Density Residential -1, on
the county's future land use map. The L-1 designation permits residential uses with densities up to
3 units/acre.
- Subject Property 1
Containing one of the few remaining sizable maritime hammock/coastal strand communities in
Indian River County, Subject Property 1 has several environmentally significant features. One of
those features pertains to sea turtles. The coastal areas of northern Indian River County, including
Subject Property 1, and southern Brevard County have one of the highest sea turtle nesting densities
in this hemisphere. Therefore, Subject Property 1's *673 linear feet of undeveloped ocean frontage
combined with the adjacent Cairns Tract's *1,155 linear feet of undeveloped ocean frontage are
important to the preservation of several species of sea turtles.
Additionally, because Subject Property 1 is located in an area with a high probability of having
archaeological sites, shell middens and/or other archaeological sites may exist on the property.
Finally, eastern portions of Subject Property 1 are within a "VE" 100 year floodplain, with a
minimum base flood elevation requirement of seventeen feet NGVD.
- Subject Property 2
Providing habitat to several species of listed wading birds, Subject Property 2 consists of *21 acres
of coastal oak hammock and *16 acres of wetlands (impounded estuarine salt marsh) associated with
the Indian River Lagoon. The subject property is within an "AE" 100 year floodplain, with a
minimum base flood elevation requirement of six to seven feet NGVD.
- Subject Property 3
Subject Property 3 consists of *16 acres of impounded estuarine wetlands associated with the Indian
River Lagoon. Subject Property 3 also provides habitat for several species of listed wading birds.
Mangroves are the primary native vegetation on the site. The subject property is within an "AE" 100
year floodplain, with a minimum base flood elevation requirement of five feet NGVD.
MARCH 169 1999
-29- BOOK lUd PAGE 644
BOOK 108 PAGE 645
Utilities and Services
- Subject Property 1
Water lines extend to Subject Property 1 from the North County Reverse Osmosis Plant.
Wastewater lines extend to the site from the North Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant.
- Subject Property 2
Water lines extend to Subject Property 2 from the South County Reverse Osmosis Plant, while
wastewater lines extend to the site from the South Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant.
- Subject Property 3
Water lines extend to within a quarter mile of Subject Property 3 from the City of Vero Beach Water
Plant, while wastewater lines extend to within a quarter mile of the site from the City of Vero Beach
Wastewater Treatment Plant.
- Subject Property 1
Subject Property 1 can be accessed from SR AIA, a two-lane road with approximately 100 feet of
public road right-of-way. The segment of SR AIA adjacent to Subject Property 1 is classified as an
urban minor arterial road on the future roadway thoroughfare plan map and is programmed for
expansion to 120 feet of public road right-of-way by 2020.
- Subject Property 2
Subject Property 2 abuts Indian River Boulevard which is classified as an urban principal arterial
road on the future roadway thoroughfare plan map. This segment of Indian River Boulevard is a
four -lane paved road with approximately 150 feet of public road right-of-way. There are no plans
to expand Indian River Boulevard.
- Subject Property 3
Subject Property 3 cannot be accessed directly from an automobile. Island Drive, a private local
road, links the site to SR AIA. Classified as an urban minor arterial, that segment of SR AlA is a
two lane paved road with approximately 100 feet of public road right-of-way. That segment of SR
AIA is programmed for expansion to an urban principal arterial with 120 feet of public road right-
of-way by 2020.
In this section, an analysis of the reasonableness of the application will be presented. This section
will include the following:
• an analysis of the proposed amendment's impact on public facilities;
• an analysis of the proposed amendment's compatibility with surrounding areas;
• an analysis of the proposed amendment's consistency with the comprehensive plan;
• an analysis of the proposed amendment's potential impact on environmental quality; and
• an analysis of the applicable rezoning requirements.
Each site comprising this request 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, Stormwater Management, and Recreation
(Future Land Use Policy 3.1). The adequate provision of these services is necessary to ensure the
continued quality of life enjoyed by the community. To ensure that the minimum acceptable
standards for these services and facilities are maintained, the comprehensive plan requires that new
development be reviewed For land use designation amendment requests, this review is undertaken
as part of the conditional concurrency determination application process.
As per section 910.07(2) of the Concurrency Management Chapter of the County's Land
Development Regulations, projects which do not increase land use density or intensity are exempt
from concurrency requirements. For the bject request, ±21 acres of M-2 designated land, t8 acres
of L-2 designated land, and ±32 acres of C-2 designated land with a total development potential of
±275 units will be replaced with ±61 acres of C-1 designated land Since C-1 designated property
has a zero density, the proposed amendment will result in a decrease of ±275 units in the overall
development potential of the subject properties. Because of that overall decrease in land use
intensity of ±275 units, this land use amendment request is exempt from concurrency review.
MARCH 16, 1999
-30-
•
It is important to note that adoption of the proposed land use amendment will not impact any public
facilities or services.
Under the requested C-1 land use designation, thele will be no development on the subject properties
except for minor facilities associated with passive recreation activities. For that reason, the subject
request will enhance compatibility between the sites and surrounding land uses.
In contrast to the 1275 units allowed under the existing land use designations, development under
the requested land use designation will be limited to conservation uses and passive recreational uses.
In terns of traffic, noise, and aesthetics, the impacts associated with uses allowed under the proposed
C-1 land use designation will be significantly less than those that would occur with development
under the existing land use designations. In fact, the passive recreational uses allowed under the
requested zoning district will serve as an amenity for nearby residential uses.
For these reasons, staff has determined that the requested land use designation is compatible with
the surrounding area.
Land use amendment and rezoning requests are reviewed for consistency with all policies of the
comprehensive plan. As per section 800.07(1) of the land development regulations, the
"comprehensive plan may only be amended in such a way as to preserve the internal consistency of
the plan pursuant to Section 163.3177(2), FS." Amendments must also show consistency with the
overall designation of land uses as depicted on the Future Land Use Map, which includes
agricultural, residential, recreational, conservation, and commercial and industrial land uses and their
densities.
The goals, objectives and policies are the most important parts of the comprehensive plan. Policies
are statements in the plan which identify actions which the county will take in order to direct the
community's development. As courses of action committed to by the county, policies provide the
basis for all county land development related decisions—including plan amendment and rezoning
decisions. While all comprehensive plan objectives and policies are important, some have more
applicability than others in reviewing plan amendment and rezoning requests. Of particular
applicability for this request are the following policies and objectives.
- Future Land Use Element Policy 143
In evaluating a land use amendment request, the most important consideration is Future Land Use
Element Policy 14.3. This policy requires that one of four criteria be met in order to approve a land
use amendment request. These criteria are:
• The proposed amendment will correct a mistake in the approved plan;
• The proposed amendment will correct an oversight in the approved plan;
• The proposed amendment is warranted based on a substantial change in circumstances
affecting the subject property; or
• The proposed amendment involves a swap or reconfiguration of land use designations at
separate sites and that swap or reconfiguration will not increase the overall land use density
or intensity depicted on the Future Land Use Map.
The proposed land use amendment meets the policy's third criterion.
On February 13, 1990, when the comprehensive plan was adopted, the subject properties were in
private ownership. At that time, the sites were correctly designated for residential uses. Since then,
the sites have been purchased for conservation purposes. The acquisition of the sites by public
agencies constitutes a substantial change in circumstances affecting the subject properties and meets
the third criterion of Future Land Use Element Policy 14.3. Therefore, the proposed amendment is
consistent with Future Land Use Element Policy 14.3.
- Future Land Use Element Policies 1.5 and 1.6
Future Land Use Element Policy 1.5 states that the conservation land use designations are applied
to those areas which are vital or essential to the normal fimctions of ecosystems and have been
identified in the Conservation Element as meriting preservation. Future Land Use Element Policy
1.6 limits the use of C-1 designated land to conservation and passive recreational uses.
MARCH 16, 1999
•
-31-BOOK 1'3 PAGE 1
BOOK 103 SAGE
As publicly owned sites containing estuarine wetlands and native upland habitat, each of the subject
properties meets those criteria. For those reasons, the request is consistent with Future Land Use
Element Policies 1.5 and 1.6.
As part of the staff analysis, all policies in the comprehensive plan were considered. Based upon
that analysis, staff determined that the proposed land use designation amendment is consistent with
the comprehensive plan.
The sites' existing land use designations offer only limited environmental protections. Residential
development on the subject properties would be required to preserve only 15 percent of the upland
habitat of the sites. In contrast, under the proposed land use designation, the entire area of each site
would be preserved, and development would be limited to conservation and compatible passive
recreational uses.
Although the sites are publicly owned and could be developed as public parks under the existing land
use designations, the proposed land use designation provides the sites with additional protection
from development. By prohibiting most types of development on the sites, the proposed request will
ensure that the environmental quality of the sites will be preserved.
For these reasons, the proposed land use amendment is anticipated to positively impact the
environmental quality of the subject properties.
As noted in the Description and Conditions section of this staff report, state law requires that the
Board of County Commissioners hold two public hearings prior to approving county initiated
rezonings of more than ten acres. Although normally applied to ensure public participation when
the county initiates the rezoning of privately owned land, this requirement also applies to county
initiated rezonings of publicly owned land.
Because it meets the criteria set in state law, the portion of this request that would rezone Subject
Properties 2 and 3 requires two public hearings. The March 16, 1999 Board of County
Commissioners meeting will meet state requirements for one of the public hearings. The second
public hearing then must be held at least 10 days after the first hearing. Additionally, state law
requires that at lust one of the public hearings be held after 5:00 p.m. on a weekday, unless four
commissioners vote to conduct that hearing at another time of day.
In this case, several factors indicate that holding the second rezoning public hearing at 9:05 am. at
a regular Board of County Commissioners meeting would be sufficient to ensure public
participation. Those factors include the following:
• Although the state requirement for two public hearings is normally intended for rezonings
of privately owned land, the subject properties in this case are publicly owned; and
• The firture use of these properties already have been discussed at numerous public hearings
and public meetings, including Land Acquisition Advisory Committee meetings and other
meetings regarding the subject land use amendment and rezoning requests.
For those reasons, staff feels that it would be appropriate to hold the second rezoning public hearing
at 9:05 am. on April 6, 1999. That is the first Board of County Commissioners meeting that meets
the state requirement of at least 10 days between the first and second hearings.
Based on the analysis, staff has determined that the proposed amendment is consistent with the
comprehensive plan, compatible with all surrounding land uses, and will cause no adverse impacts
on the provision of public services. The proposed changes work to ensure the preservation of
environmentally sensitive and important habitat. For these reasons, staff supports the request.
Based on the analysis, staff and the Planning and Zoning Commission recommend that the Board
of County Commissioners take the follow actions:
1) Approve the request to redesignate Subject Properties 1, 2, and 3 to C-1;
2) Approve the request to rezone Subject Property 1 to Con -1; and
3) Schedule the second rezoning public hearing for Subject Properties 2 and 3 for 9:05 am., at
the regular commission meeting of April 6, 1999.
MARCH 16, 1999
-32-
•
LAND USE DESIGNATION AMENDMENT APPLICATION
REZONING APPLICATION
PROPERTYI
PROPERTY
PROPERTY3
lCgO%%'N AS
Irwin
Flinn
Green Saltmarsh
LOCATION
East side of SR A 1 A. just
\-E comer of 8 Street &
West of St. Christophers
north of the Town of Indian
Indian River Boulevard
Harbor Subdivision
River Shores
TAX ID #-
36-31-39-00000-0010-
07-33140-00000-0070-
28-33-40-00000-0030-
00001.0
00003.0
00008.0
1-39-00000-0030-
07-33-30-00000-0080-
28-33-40-00000-0040-
00001.1
00002.0
00001.0
SIZE LN ACRES
8
37
15.8
CURREINT
L-2, Low -Density
M-2. Medium -Density
C-2, Privately Owned
LAND USE
Residential -2 (up to 6
Residential -2 (up to 10
Estuarine Wetlands
DESIGNATION
unitstacre)
unitsiacre); C-2, Privately
Conservation -2 (up to 1
Owned Estuarine Wetlands
uni"O acres)
Conservation -2 (up to 1
unit 40 acres)
PROPOSED
C-1, Publicly Owned or
C-1, Publicly Owned or
C-1, Publicly Owned or
Lk.\'D USE
Controlled Conservation -I
Controlled Conservation -I
Controlled Conservation -
DESIGNATION
izero density)
(zero density)
I (zero density)
CURRENT
R\1 -o. `.I�inpie-Fanui%
RS -1. Single-Farntly
RS -1. Singie-Fattui..
ZONLNG
Residenal District (up to 6
Residential District (up to 1
Residential District i up to
units acre(
unit acre)
1 unit acre)
PROPOSED
Con -1. Public Lands
Con -1. Public Lands
Con -1. Public Lands
ZONLNG
Conservation District ( zero
Conservation District (zero
Conservation District -
densitvl
density)
(zero density)
REZONING APPLICATION
MARCH 16, 1999
-33- BOOK U PAGE
L
PROPERTYI
PROPERTY
PROPERTY3
KNOWN AS
Irwin
Flinn
Green Salimarsh
LOCATION
East side of SR A IA. just
NE comer of 8 Street &
West of St Christopher
north of the Town of Indian
Indian River Boulevard
Harbor Subdivision
River Shores
TAX ID 0
36-31-39-00000-0010-
07-33-1040000-0070-
28-33304)0000-0030-
00001.0
00003.0
00008.0
25-31-39-00000-0030-
07-33-30-00000-0080-
28-3340-00000-0040-
00001.1
00002.0
00001.0
SIZE LN ACRES
s
3"
15.8
CURRENT
L-2, Low -Density
M-2, Medium -Density
C-2, Privately Owned
LA.\'D USE
Residential -2 (up to 6
Residential -2 (up to 10
Estuarine Wetlands
DESIGNATION
unitsacre)
units/acre); C-2, Privately
Conservation -2 (up to 1
Owned Estuarine Wetlands
unit140 acres)
Conservation -2 (up to 1
unit 40 acres)
PROPOSED
C-1. Publicly Owned or
C-1, Publicly Owned or
C-1, Publicly Owned or
LAND USE
Controlled Conservation -I
Controlled Conservation -1
Controlled Conser•auon-
DESIGNATION
i zero density)
( zero desm (
I ( zero density )
CURRENT
R\I-o. \lult•.pie-Fanuh
RS -1. Single -Family
RS -1. Single-Famih
ZONING
Residential District ( up to 6
Residential District (up to I
Residential District (up to
units acre)
unitacre i
1 unit acre)
PROPOSED
Con -1. Public Lands
Con -1. Public Lands
Con -1, Public Lands
ZONL\G
Conservation District Izero
Conservation District (zero
Conservation District
density)
density)
(zero density)
MARCH 16, 1999
-33- BOOK U PAGE
L
••i
WE r
AtTAC1i1 3
LAND USE
MARCH 16, 1999
I
BOOK 103 PAGE6
Subject
Property
#1
-34-
0 0
'S
12Th ST
GOV. LOT 6 GO L
34 .,,•
b®
28331
32+ 3
e3 ' ..2 7 161 3G
�'�_ -�_ • mom
IMI .c
-Tn
'. • •'. = GOA' LOT GOV LO'
Man
b C R Om
os .
SUBJECT PROPERTY
> \ ,�..\ ..\\# 2
x(13 a
� :ard.S :JCC �•.
iii.—.—._.--------
02
C
i apppp•d mWae'
/ I
•� b
MARCH 16, 1999
LAND USE
ATI'AL7DI= .4
C
NOTE: C-2 9001ARIES
ARE CONTINGENT UPON
ENVIAONME%TAL SUAVE•S.
-35- BOOK JOB PAGE ��
BOOK 108 PAGE 5i
LANDWSE
ATfA(agM 3
MARCH 16, 1999
,d
•
Sow >AS
I
e0000
• awo
JO.O1�
• ..
. z
C f •O
Wbm
•
•
- e .
.
`
C�,
13 •
N R Ta
€
_ : a: •_
' As :' 7
a a
r
• Y 0. •
• •
_
TT)l'({
O\
I1 • •
i J•S•D
� • i
• a
Y• yi+;
10
•
•
.�a.
a s
ran.s
.■m,.r ars as
�,
•
• �
•
6
tae
E..:-:.�:.=�.._ ..•�. , .
LOT 1
33
_
-1
�
r
0/1
-14 a
'1as
Y
O
�
�
`p-
SLC ti G`
(
33 2&
31," F i
,..o law
. ,• _.s
�-
08
1
Is
1
37
•,� .,a.. .�
,.... 36
Mom
�Csw%m r ! �►.
ao>c
:• •
Daae r
Subject
ocw
°°°°"
LZc
ISO."
Property
LANDWSE
ATfA(agM 3
MARCH 16, 1999
9
•
Sow >AS
I
e0000
• awo
JO.O1�
• ..
. z
Wbm
V1-7
- e .
, . r
xz
_ : a: •_
' As :' 7
a a
r
• Y 0. •
• •
_
TT)l'({
�eO
j Q'
I1 • •
i J•S•D
� • i
• a
Y• yi+;
rood
a s
=
"iwi c
6
tae
E..:-:.�:.=�.._ ..•�. , .
LOT 1
33
3
.,� GM-.
LOT i
LANDWSE
ATfA(agM 3
MARCH 16, 1999
02
r
. 7
..r�a►uma.� Z
zoos
mmo.,
06
00W
%Aomen
G O V .._. /1 ...r. .�
MARCH 16, 1999
O8
•�" 02-
ZONING AnAcum ;
-37-
Subject
Property
#1
BOOK 103 FAGS 652
BOOK 103 mGE 5
I
•
ANE XE: U:OEVELOOEO a F21 2r%, •i ;A•_:
20:60 CON -1. SUBJECT TO SU4VEv
YENIiECATIO:.
12TH ST
34
" " ON -2
33 28 32 ...
23 i 24 26 i 30 1'! RM -8
._J5
•� ; ,
I Y ..
T•] RM -10
.. •, _ tea_ " _'. ��' �� 1 ` 1 ,'.• 3 7
av
aY�.. ' ;;;:;•. �,;.. .Ci"Z2 TCr•^r onnnrn^rv��9�%
imS
J T
j
� RS -1
E
J
COV OT
j V
W
>
Q•
.•STA :Amxt4s COP= PkA I •
�.• •
Z
. VWA am" OAtmfm
. V,
C0lm0
4 -
:i
! .
--
- — - ---- -----..j-��
� - —•
I 02
i!
f
-ax 1 A
I
• .
6. a
I
G -.LOT :3 ~•°
•
.
j. -RM-�o,
—
as
I • a
• o
ZoNlN
AYAQiWff 4
MARCH 16, 1999
-38-
I�
®•a
0
6LL � G`_J
1NDI_4N
RIVER
Subject
Propertti�
# 3 'A'
N
0 . L'rT 4
r4TE t 4EVEtv`oE^ 2.�E292-14T rET_A49S ao00D RS -1
A4E ZGVED :Cv-1. 5_B:E'. s�aVe• � +
it
MARCH 16, 1999
m I 1 �,_- .a' GOV. LOT 1
NIN
AT[eOUMr 4
-39-
•
2&
BOOK IOC+' PAGE654
BOOK 103 PAGE 055
County Attorney Vitunac advised that this hearing is legislative because the County
owns the properties.
Community DevelopmentDirectorBob Keating exphuned the amendments andnoted
that there are 2 actions required on each tract. The land use designation change can be
adopted today on each of the 3 parcels. However, the rezoning can take place only on the
Irwin tract as state law requires 2 public hearings on a County -initiated rezoning where the
parcel exceeds 10 acres. The second public hearings must be after 5 p.m. unless waived by
the Board. The Department of Community Affairs (DCA) has not filed any objections to any
of the requested redesignation or rezonings. The parcels are: (1) the Irwin tract which is
a part of the Jungle Trail Conservation Area, oceanfront, environmentally significant, and
purchased jointly with the State; (2) the Flinn tract which was purchased jointly with St.
John River Water Management District and FIND; and (3) the Green Saltmarsh tract which
was donated to the County.
The Chairman opened the public hearing and asked if anyone wished to be heard
regarding this matter. There being none, the Chairman closed the public hearing.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Stanbridge,
SECONDED by Commissioner Ginn, the Board
unanimously adopted Ordinance 99-007 amending
the Future Land Use Element of the Comprehensive
Plan by Changing the Land Use Designation for an
f 8 acre tract located on the East side of SR AlA
just north of the Town of Indian River Shores from
L-2 to C-1 (Irwin); by Changing the Land Use
Designation for a f 37 acre tract located at the
Northeast corner of 8'h Street and Indian River
Boulevard from M-2 and C-2 to C-1 Minn); and by
Changing the Land Use Designation for a f 15.8
acre tract located west of St. Christopher's Harbor
Subdivision from C-2 to C-1 (Green Saltmarsh).
MARCH 16, 1999
-40-
•
ORDINANCE NO. 99- 0 7
AN ORDINANCE OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, AMENDING THE FUTURE
LAND USE ELEMENT OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN BY CHANGING THE LAND USE
DESIGNATION FOR AN ±8 ACRE TRACT LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF SR Al A, JUST
NORTH OF THE TOWN OF INDIAN RIVER SHORES, FROM L-2 TO C-1; BY CHANGING
THE LAND USE DESIGNATION FOR A ±37 ACRE TRACT LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST
CORNER OF 8m STREET AND INDIAN RIVER BOULEVARD, FROM M-2 AND C-2 TO C-1;
AND BY CHANGING THE LAND USE DESIGNATION FOR A ±15.8 ACRE TRACT
LOCATED WEST OF ST. CHRISTOPHER'S HARBOR SUBDIVISION, FROM C-2 TO C-1;
AND PROVIDING SEVERABILITY AND EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners adopted the Indian River County
Comprehensive Plan on February 13, 1990, and
WHEREAS, the county received comprehensive plan amendment applications during its July
1998 amendment submittal window, and
WHEREAS, the Local Planning Agency held a public hearing on this comprehensive plan
amendment request on October 8, 1998 after due public notice, and
WHEREAS, the Local Planning Agency recommended approval of this comprehensive plan
amendment to the Board of County Commissioners, and
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County held a Transmittal
Public Hearing on November 10, 1998 after advertising pursuant to F.S. 163.3184(15)(b)l and (c),
and
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners approved the transmittal of this
comprehensive plan amendment to the Florida Department of Community Affairs for their review
and comment, and
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners announced at the transmittal public
hearing its intention to hold and advertise a final public hearing at the adoption stage of this plan
amendment, and
WHEREAS, the Florida Department of Community Affairs received this Comprehensive
Plan Amendment on November 25, 1998, for the State review pursuant to F.S. 163.3184(4), and
WHEREAS, Indian River County received the Objections, Recommendations, and
Comments (ORC) Report from the Florida Department of Community Affairs on February 5, 1999,
and
WHEREAS, the ORC Report contained no objections or comments regarding this
Comprehensive Plan Amendment, and
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County held a
Comprehensive Plan Amendment Adoption Public Hearing on March 16, 1999, after advertising
pursuant to Chapter 163.3184(15)(6)2 and (c), FS and Chapter 125.66(4), FS;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED, by the Board of County Commissioners of Indian
River County, Florida, that:
MARCH 169 1999
•
-41- BOOK io �'` PACE 36
BOOK103 PAGE 657
ORDINANCE NO. 99- 0 7
SECTION 1. Comprehensive Plan Amen ent Adoption and Transmittal
The amendment to the Indian River County Comprehensive Plan identified in section 2 is
hereby adopted, and three (3) copies are directed to be transmitted to the State of Florida Department
of Community Affairs and one (1) copy is directed to be transmitted to the Treasure Coast Regional
Planning Council.
SECTION 2. Amendments to the Comprehensive Plan
The land use designation of the following described property situated in Indian River County,
Florida to wit:
The South 500 feet of Government Lot 3 as measured along the East right-of-way of
State Road AIA and lying East of said right-of-way in Section 25, Township 31
South, Range 39 East. Together with the North 145.02 feet Government Lot 1 lying
East of State Road AIA right-of-way Section 36, Township 31 South, Range 39 East,
all being and lying in Indian River County, Florida.
Is changed from L-2, Low -Density Residential -2 (up to 6 units/acre) to C-1, Publicly Owned or
Controlled Conservation -1 (zero density), and the Future Land Use Map is hereby revised
accordingly.
The land use designation of the following described property situated in Indian River County,
Florida to wit:
The South one-half of Government Lots 7 and 8, Section 7, Township 33 South,
Range 40 East, Indian River County, Florida, LESS AND EXCEPT that parcel
described in Official Record Book 719, Page 76, Public Records of Indian River
County, Florida.
Is changed from M-2, Medium -Density Residential -2 (up to 10 units/am) and C-2, Privately Owned
Estuarine Wetlands Conservation -2 (up to 1 unit/40 acres) to C-1, Publicly Owned or Controlled
Conservation -1 (zero density), and the Future Land Use Map is hereby revised accordingly.
AND
The land use designation of the following described property situated in Indian River County,
Florida to wit:
Part of an island lying west of Govemment Lot 3 as described in Deed Book 82, Page
531 and Record Book 100, Page 198, Public Records of Indian River County,
Florida Together with Part of an island lying west of Government Lot 4 as
described in Deed Book 81, Page 583 and Record Book 100, Page 198, Public
Records of Indian River County, Florida
Is changed from C-2, Privately Owned Estuarine Wetlands Conservation -2 (up to 1 unit/40 acres)
to C-1, Publicly Owned or Controlled Conservation -1 (zero density), and the Future Land Use Map
is hereby revised accordingly.
SECTION 3. >cVeal of Conflicting Provisions
All previous ordinances, resolutions, or motions of the Board of County Commissioners of
Indian River County, Florida which conflict with the provisions of this ordinance are hereby repealed
to the extent of such conflict.
SECTION 4. Sev�bility
It is declared to be the intent of the Board of County Commissioners that if any provision of
this ordinance and therefore, the Indian River County Comprehensive Plan Amendment is for any
reason finally held invalid or unconstitutional by any court of competent jurisdiction, such provision
shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and such holding shall not affect the
validity of the remaining provisions.
MARCH 169 1999
•
ORDINANCE NO. 99- 0 7
SECTION 5. EffaX"JDAtc
The effective date of this ordinance, and therefore, this plan amendment, shall be the date a
final order is issued by the Department of Community Affairs or on Commission
finding the amendment in compliance with Section 163.3184(1)(b), Florida Statutes, whichever
occurs earlier. No development orders, development permits, or land uses dependent on this
amendment may be issued or commence before it has become effective. If a final order of
noncompliance is issued by the Administration Commission, this amendment may nevertheless be
made effective by adoption at a public meeting after public notice of a resolution affirming its
effective status, a copy of which resolution shall be sent to the Florida Department of Community
Affairs, Division of Resource Planning and Management, Plan processing Team.
This ordinance was advertised in the Press -Journal on the Yd day of March, 1999 for a public
hearing to be held on the 16 day of March, 1999 at which time it was moved for adoption by
Commissioner S t a n b r i d g e, seconded by Commissioner Ginn , and adopted by the
following vote:
Chairman Kenneth K Macht Ay e
Vice -Chairman Fran B. Adams Aye
Commissioner Caroline D. Ginn —Axe --
Commissioner Ruth M. Stanbridge —&m—
Commissioner John W. Tippin A y e
BOARD O COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF IND RIVER COUNTY
BOY
Keane acht,
ATTEST BY:
JI
;fey arton,Ifon `
Acknowledgments the Department of State of the State of Florida this 3 0 day offt ltCa i 1999 '
Acknowledgment he Department of State receivedwEft.'�L�q oftl.401
I. and filed in the office of the Clerk of the Board of County Commissioners'ofIndian
River County, Florida
u\v\j\lu\ciju198\cpaord.ord,
#Oprovod Date
MARCH 16, 1999
Legal
Devi.
gr.
•
-43- BOOK �,�g FAGE 6��
BOOK 103 PAGE
ON MOTION by Commissioner Stanbridge,
SECONDED by Commissioner Ginn, the Board
unanimously adopted Ordinance 99-008 amending
the Zoning Ordinance and the accompanying Zoning
Map from RM -6 to CON -1 for property located on
the east side of State Road AIA just north of the
Town of Indian River Shores (Irwin).
ORDINANCE NO. 99- 08
AN ORDINANCE OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, AMENDING THE ZONING
ORDINANCE AND THE ACCOMPANYING ZONING MAP FROM RM -6 TO CON -1, FOR
PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF STATE ROAD AIA, NST NORTH OF THE
TOWN OF INDIAN RIVER SHORES, 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
WIlEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners has held a public hearing pursuant to this
rezoning request, at which parties in interest and citizens were heard;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED, by the Board of County Commissioners of Indian
River County, Florida, that the zoning of the following described property situated in Indian River
County, Florida, to -wit:
The South 500 feet of Government Lot 3 as measured along the East right-of-way of State
Road AIA and lying East of said right-of-way in Section 25, Township 31 South, Range 39
East. Together with the North 145.02 feet Government Lot 1 lying Fast of State Road AIA
right-of-way Section 36, Township 31 South, Range 39 East, all being and lying in Indian
River County, Florida.
Be changed from RM -6 to Con -1.
All with the meaning and intent and as set forth and described in said Land Development
Regulations.
Effective Date: This ordinance shall become effective upon the issuance by the State Department
of Community Affairs of a Notice of Intent to find the related Comprehensive Plan Land Use
Designation Amendment contained in Ordinance 99- 07 in compliance in accordance with s.
163.3184(9) or the issuance of a final order by the Administration Commission finding the
referenced amendment in compliance with s. T'63.3184(10).
Approved and adopted by the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, on
this 16`h day of March, 1999.
MARCH 16, 1999
0
ORDINANCE NO. 99- 0 8
This ordinance was advertised in the Press-Joumal on the 31d day of March, 1999 for a public hearing
to be held on the 16'h day of March, 1999 at which time it was moved for adoption by Commissioner
Stanbridge , seconded by Commissioner Ginn
and adopted by the following vote: '
Chairman Kenneth R. Macht A y e
Vice -Chairman Fran B. Adams Aye
Commissioner Caroline D. Ginn
Commissioner Ruth M. Stanbridge Ay e
Commissioner John W. Tippin A y e
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF IND R COUNTY
BY: e4�
Kenneth R. Macht, Chairman
ATTEST BY:
Jefl� Barton, Clerk
This ordinance was filed with the Department of State on the following date:
u\v\j\lu\cijul98\rzonord.ord
MARCH 16, 1999
-45-
BOOK
•
�� FAGE WU
BOOK 103 PAGE 661
9.A.2. PUBLIC HEARING - ORDINANCE 99-009 AMENDING
THE TEXT OF THE FUTURE LAND USE AND
INTERGOVERNMENTAL COORDINATION ELEMENTS
OF THE INDIAN RIVER COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE
PLAN (AMENDMENT #CPTA 98-07-0253)
PROOF OF PUBLICATION OF ADVERTISEMENT FOR BEARING IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE
CLERK TO TBE BOARD
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of March 5, 1999:
TO: James E. Chandler
County Administrator
D ENT HEAD CONCURRENCE
Obert M. Keating, AICP j
Community Development D ector
THROUGH: Sasan Rohani, AICP S '/?
Chief, Long -Range Planning
FROM: John WachteVl /
Senior Planner, Long -Range Planning
DATE: March 5, 1999
RE: County Initiated Request to Amend the Text of the Future Land Use and
Intergovernmental Coordination Elements of the Comprehensive Plan
PLAN AMENDMENT NUMBER: CPTA 98-07-0253
It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal consideration by the Board of County
Commissioners at its regular meeting of March 16, 1999.
On February 13, 1990, Indian River County adopted its comprehensive plan. As required by state
law, all development activities must be consistent with the comprehensive plan, and all county
activities must conform to plan policies. Occasionally, the plan must be updated to reflect the latest
and best available information and to address changed conditions. Additionally, the plan must
periodically be reviewed and revised in order to reflect the community's changing needs and desires.
For those reasons, the county has initiated this amendment.
The recently completed Evaluation and Appraisal process resulted in major revisions to the text of
the comprehensive plan. Nevertheless, after reviewing the plan, staff determined that the Future
Land Use and the Intergovernmental Coordination Elements need to be revised at this time.
The proposed additions and deletions to the plan are shown on Attachment 2. In that attachment,
deletions are stz=kout, while additions are underlined.
On October 8, 1998, the Planning and Zoning Commission voted 7 to 0 to recommend that the Board
of County Commissioners approve these proposed comprehensive plan text amendments. The
following proposed changes, however, were not reviewed by the Planning and Zoning Commission:
MARCH 16, 1999
•
-46-
9
• the proposed changes to Future Land Use Element Policy 1.12;
• the proposed changes to Future Land Use Element Policy 1.14;
• the proposed changes to Future Land Use Element Policy 1.28; and
• the proposed changes to Future Land Use Element Policy 1.29.
Changes to those four policies were recommended by the Florida Department of Community Affairs
(DCA) after the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting. For that reason, those four changes
were not reviewed by the Planning and Zoning Commission. Because those changes are relatively
minor, they are included in this group of proposed amendments despite not having been reviewed
by the Planning and Zoning Commission. They were, however, reviewed by the Board of County
Commissioners at the November 10, 1998 transmittal public hearing. At that hearing, the Board
voted 5 to 0 to transmit the proposed text amendment to DCA for its review.
FLOOR AREA RATIO
An issue that is repeatedly addressed in this amendment is setting intensity standards for non-
residential development. The generally accepted intensity standard for non-residential development
is Floor Area Ratio (FAR). FAR is a measure of non-residential land use intensity expressed as the
ratio of building floor space on a parcel to total parcel area FAR is discussed in more detail in the
analysis section of this staff report, specifically in the section for Future Land Use Element Policies
1. 16, 1.28, and 1.29.
ORC Report
Consistent with state regulations, DCA reviewed the proposed amendment and prepared an
Objections, Recommendations and Comments (ORC) Report (dated February 4, 1999), which
planning staff received on February 5, 1999. The DCA ORC Report (attachment 5) contained three
objections to this proposed amendment. Those objections are listed below.
1) Although the County has proposed an intensity standard (floor area ratio of .25) for the
Recreation land use designation, FLUE Policies 1.6 and 1.9 do not indicate the specific uses
allowed within the Recreation land use designation or indicate which recreational uses will
be allowed within the Conservation land use categories. (Section 163.3177(6)(a), Florida
Statutes. Rule 9J -5.006(3)(c)1., and 7., Florida Administrative Code.)
2) Although FLUE Policies 1.12 and 1.14 contain standards for the density of residential land
uses, these policies do not contain standards for the intensity of non-residential uses within
the low- and medium -density residential land use categories, specify a percentage
distribution of uses within residential land use categories, or use another objective measure
to determine the combinations of land uses allowed within residential land use categories.
(Section 163.3177(6)(a), Florida Statutes, and Rules 9J-5.003(63), 9J -5.006(3)(c)1., and 7.,
and 9J -5.006(4)(c), Florida Administrative Code.)
3) Although FLUE Policy 1.16 contains intensity standards for commercial and industrial land
uses, this policy does not specify a percentage distribution of uses within the
CommerciaUlndustrial land use category, or use another objective measure to determine the
combination of commercial and industrial land uses allowed within the
Commercial/Industrial land use category. (Section 163.3177(6)(a), Florida Statutes, and
Rules 9J -5.006(3)(c)1., and 7., and 9J -5.006(4)(c), Florida Administrative Code.)
The ORC Report also contained the two comments listed below. In contrast to objections, comments
cannot form the basis of a non-compliance determination. These comments, however, do indicate
DCA findings that should be addressed.
1) The County included Table 2.14 (Future Land Use Element Implementation Matrix) in the
amendment package to reflect the addition of four new policies (FLUE Policies 1.39 through
1.41, and FLUE Policy 14.5). However, Table 2.14 (Future Land Use Element Evaluation
Matrix) already exists in the County's Plan.
2) Amendment 99-1 marks significant progress in the improvement and implementation of the
County's Plan. Indian River County is to be commended for its dedication in amending. the
Plan to meet state guidelines and for coordinating the review of the proposed amendment
package with the Department. Furthermore, these amendments are indicative of the
County's dedication to the protection of natural resources, including the purchase of
conservation lands to protect environmentally -sensitive areas. In addition, in these proposed
amendments the County has shown a commitment to promoting policies that encourage
intergovernmental coordination, establish school concurrency guidelines, and improve the
quality of life for Indian River County residents.
MARCH 16, 1999
-47- BOOK. FACE
BOOK 103 F'AGE O
DESCRIPTION OF THE AMENDMENTS BY ELEMENT
In this section, the proposed amendments to each plan element will be discussed. The purpose is to
identify the various portions of the plan needing amendment and to present justification for the
amendment requests.
Future Land Use Element
Generally, the proposed amendments to the Future Land Use Element clarify policies, address new
comprehensive plan requirements, or better address existing comprehensive plan requirements.
Future Land Use Element Policy 1.6 defines where the conservation land use designations are
located and what uses are permitted within those land use designations. The proposed amendment
helps clarify which lands are designated C-1, Publicly Owned or Controlled. In the past, there had
been a question regarding the land use designation of publicly owned spoil islands in the Indian
River Lagoon. The proposed amendment answers that question by specifically designating those
islands as C-1.
The proposed amendment also more specifically defines the types of uses and intensities allowed
in the conservation land use designations.
Future Land Use Element Policies 1.12 and 1.14 list the permitted uses on land with the low- and
medium -density residential land use designations, respectively. There are two reasons for modifying
these policies. The first reason is to ensure that the plan maintains internal consistency with Future
Land Use Element Policies 1.31 and 1.37 which contain provisions for professional office uses
within the low- and medium -density land use designations. The proposed amendment modifies
Future Land Use Element Policies 1.12 and 1.14 to list professional offices (consistent with Policies
1.31 and 1.37) as permitted uses in the low- and medium -density residential land use designations.
The other reason for modifying these policies is to set intensity limits for non-residential
development within the low- and medium -density residential land use designations.
Future Land Use Element Policy 1.16 states which uses are permitted within the CA,
Commercial/Industrial, land use designation. The proposed amendment adds land use intensity
standards for the commercial/industrial land use designation to this policy. State law requires that
all local government comprehensive plans contain such standards. In fact, DCA has raised ORC
Report objections to several recent land use designation amendments based on the county's lack of
such standards. In response, the county has committed to amend its plan to include such standards.
The proposed amendment also adds data and analysis indicating how those standards were derived.
Future Land Use Element Policy 1.22 limits the expansion of commercial/industrial nodes to
instances where the subject node is 70% developed, or otherwise wan -anted by the proposed
development. "Otherwise wan -anted" is defined in the policy. The proposed amendment expands
the definition of "otherwise warranted" to include the following:
• land use designation swaps that involve more than one node where all involved nodes impact
the same public facilities, and that do not increase the overall land use density or intensity
depicted on the Future Land Use Map; and
• the correction of an oversight or mistake affecting property that meets certain criteria.
These changes add clarity and certainty to Future Land Use Element Policy 1.22.
MARCH 16, 1999
-48-
0
Future Land Use Element Policy 1.23 sets a minimum separation distance of 1.5 miles between
commercial/industrial nodes. The proposed amendment clarifies the intent of the policy.
Future Land Use Element Policies 1.28 and 1.29 describe the types of uses that are allowed within
the Public Facilities and the Recreation land use designations, respectively. Similar to the proposed
changes to Policy 1. 16, the proposed amendment adds land use intensity standards to the Public
Facilities and the Recreation land use designations.
Consistent with recently passed state law, new Future Land Use Element Policies 1.39 and 1.40
encourage schools to locate near urban residential areas, and require the county, to the extent
possible, to collocate public facilities, such as parks, libraries, and community centers, with schools.
Recent case law in Florida has established that property owners are entitled to the most intense
zoning district that is consistent with a site's comprehensive plan land use designation, unless the
local government's governing body determines that a less intense zoning district on that site serves
a legitimate public purpose.
New Future Land Use Element Policy 1.41 has two parts. The first part of this policy establishes
that the Board of County Commissioners may rezone land to a zoning district other than the most
intense allowed by the site's land use designation, while the second part sets criteria to be used in
establishing zoning districts. In that way, the amendment gives the Board additional flexibility
regarding zoning decisions, without being arbitrary.
New Future Land Use Element Policy 14.5 involves small scale plan amendments. According to
state law, future land use amendment requests that meet certain requirements are eligible for a
streamlined future land use amendment process. That process is known as the small scale
amendment process. Small scale plan amendments are deemed to have fewer impacts than typical
plan amendments and, therefore, are eligible for the streamlined adoption process. In contrast to
typical plan amendments which require review and approval by DCA, local governments may adopt
small scale plan amendments without review or approval by DCA.
Section 163.3187(1)(c), FS, sets the following criteria for small scale amendments:
1. The proposed amendment involves 10 or fewer acres;
2. The cumulative effect of the acreage for all small scale amendments in the jurisdiction does
not exceed 80 acres in a calendar year;
3. The proposed amendment does not involve the same property granted a land use designation
change within the prior 12 months;
4. The proposed amendment does not involve the same owner's property within 200 feet of
property granted a land use designation change within the prior 12 months;
5. The proposed amendment does not involve a change to the comprehensive plan's text;
6. The subject property is not within an area of critical state concern; and
7. The proposed amendment does not involve increasing residential density above 10 units/acre.
Besides being exempt from DCA review, small scale amendments are also exempt from the state's
statutory limitations on the frequency of adopting comprehensive plan amendments. For example,
although the number of typical plan amendments that a local government may consider is not
limited, the frequency with which local governments can amend their comprehensive plan is
regulated by state law. According to Florida Statutes, typical plan amendments are limited to twice
per calendar year. For that reason, the county accepts typical plan amendment applications only
during the two "window" months of January and July. All requests submitted during each window
month are processed simultaneously. That method ensures that typical plan amendments will be
adopted no more than twice per calendar year.
MARCH 16, 1999
•
-49-
BDOK. � �8 PAGE 604
Fr_
BOOK M PAGE 6657
State law, however, provides several exceptions to the twice per calendar year limitation. One of
those exceptions is for snail scale plan amendments. Consequently, a local government may adopt
small scale amendments without regard for the twice per calendar year limitation.
The proposed amendment sets additional measurable criteria for the use of the small scale plan
amendment process. Adopting the additional criteria will work to prevent the use of the small scale
plan amendment process to circumvent the typical plan amendment process for requests that warrant
substantial public or reviewing agency input.
Intergovernmental Coordination Element
Recent changes to state rules require the proposed changes to the Intergovernmental Coordination
Element.
Section 163.3177(6)(h)3., FS, requires comprehensive plans to discuss Independent Special Districts.
Consistent with that requirement, the proposed amendment adds that information to the
comprehensive plan.
Intergovernmental Coordination Element Policy 3.9 commits the county to establishing a formal
coordination mechanism with its municipalities and adjacent counties, by 2000. Consistent with
recent changes to state law [163.3177(6)(h)l.a and 2., FS], the proposed amendment requires that
mechanism to identify joint planning areas, and to address the identification of locally unwanted land
uses.
The analysis will discuss the county's response to DCA's ORC Report, the consistency of the
Propos amendments with the comprehensive plan, and the reasonableness of each of the proposed
amendments.
DCA's ORC REPORT OBJECTIONS AND COMMENTS
This section addresses and responds to the three objections and two comments contained in DCA's
ORC Report. Each objection or comment is addressed separately.
Objection 1
DCA's first objection references Future Land Use Element Policies 1.6 (the Conservation Land Use
Designations) and 1.9 (the Agricultural Land Use Designations). The reference to Policy 1.9 is a
mistake and should be Policy 1.29 (the Recreation Land Use Designation). The objection calls for
the policies to describe in more detail the type and intensity of recreational uses that are allowed
within the Conservation and the Recreation land use designations.
This objection has been addressed through additional minor revisions to Policies 1.6 and 1.29.
Those changes are included on Attachment 2. Essentially, two additional changes to Policy 1.6 are
recommended. The first additional change to Policy 1.6 specifically states that recreational uses
within the Conservation Land Use Designations shall be passive uses such as nature centers,
observation areas, hiking trails, canoe launches, picnic areas, and similar types of uses and support
facilities. The other change sets a development intensity standard for recreational uses within the
Conservation Land Use Designations.
The proposed revisions to Policy 1.29 already set a development intensity standard for the
Recreational Land Use Designation. Additional changes more specifically describe the types of uses
allowed within the Recreational Land Use Designation.
Objection 2
This objection calls for the county to establish intensity standards in Future Land Use Element
Policies 1.12 (the Low -Density Residential Land Use Designations) and 1.14 (the Medium -Density
Residential Land Use Designations) for non-residential land uses that are permitted within residential
land use designations. Such uses include recreational uses, institutional uses, public facilities,
schools, and limited office uses. This objection has been addressed by adding revisions that set the
maximum intensity for non-residential uses within the residential land use designations at 0.35 FAR.
MARCH 16,1999
-50-
0 0
Objection 3
This objection is associated with Future Land Use Element Policy 1.16. This policy lists the uses
allowed in the Commercial/Industrial land use designation and the maximum permitted intensity or
density for those uses. The objection recommends that the county revise this policy to:
"establish a percentage distribution for the land uses permitted within the
Commercial/Industrial land use category, or use another objective measure to
determine the combination of commercial and industrial land uses allowed within the
Commercial/Industrial land use category."
Essentially, this objection is asking the county to regulate the amount of land dedicated to each land
use permitted within the Commercial/Industrial land use designation. Besides being impractical, this
request is not consistent with state law.
Review of the ORC Report indicates that DCA is incorrectly interpreting the Commercial/Industnal
land use designation as a combination of two designations or a mixed designation. That the
objection uses language from and cites Rule 9J -5.006(4)(c), FAC, which directly relates to (indeed
encourages) mixed land use designations, demonstrates that point. Rule 9J -5.006(4)(c), FAG, is the
only rule that specifically mentions a "percentage distribution" of land uses.
The county, in fact, does have a Mixed land use designation. Established in Future Land Use
Element Policies 1.34 and 1.35, the Mixed land use designation does contain a required percentage
distribution of uses.
In contrast to DCA's interpretation, the Commercial/Industrial land use designation is one
designation. That designation allows several broad categories of uses listed in Future Land Use
Element Policy 1.16. A review of how the Commercial/Industrial land use designation was
developed confirms that it is intended as one designation, not a combination of several distinct
designations, nor a mixed designation.
When the comprehensive plan was adopted in 1990, it established a Commercial/bdustrial land use
designation. Prior to that, the future land use map depicted nodes (intersections of major roads) and
major road corridors that were labeled as either commercial, industrial, commercial/industrial,
tourist, hospital, or mixed. The county found that system complicated, difficult to use, and
redundant. For that reason, the Board of County Commissioners, in 1990, specifically developed
one Commercial/Industrial land use designation.
For those reasons, Rule 9J -5.006(4)(c), FAC, does not apply to the Commercial/Industrial land use
designation.
Nevertheless, as required by state law, the data and analysis portion of the comprehensive plan
contains a discussion of non-residential land needed to accommodate the county's projected 2020
population. That section, found on pages 61 and 62 of the Future Land Use Element, projects how
much land will be needed in 2020 for commercial uses and for industrial uses.
Additionally, DCA has indicated to staff a concern about mixed use projects in the
Commercial/Industrial land use designation "stacking" uses within one development area. That
concern has been addressed within a new paragraph that has been added to Future Land Use Element
Policy 1.16. That paragraph requires applicants to assign a portion of the total development area to
each use, with an exception for accessory residential development. That requirement makes stacking
uses impossible.
S ummary of the County's Ramose to DCA's Third Objection
The following points summarize the County's response to Objection 3:
• state law does not require a policy to specify the percentage distribution of uses permitted
within the Commercialadustrial land use designation;
• consistent with state law, the comprehensive plan contains an analysis of projected land
needs for several land use categories, including commercial and industrial land uses; and
• the additional revisions to Policy 1.16 address DCA's concern about "stacking" uses.
Comment 1
With the addition of a new table to the Future Land Use Element, the numbering of Tables 2.13,
2.14, and 2.15 was somewhat confusing. Staff has coordinated with DCA, and included additional
information in the amendment to clarify the changes in the numbering of the tables.
MARCH 16, 1999
-51- BOOK 103 PAGE
BOOK 108 FAuE 5
Comment 2
Ibis comment commends the county for its continuing efforts to improve its comprehensive plan,
and does not require a formal response.
CONSISTENCY WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
Comprehensive plan amendment requests are reviewed for consistency with all policies of the
comprehensive plan. As per section 800.07(1) of the county code, the "comprehensive plan may
only be amended in such a way as to preserve the internal consistency of the plan pursuant to Section
163.3177(2), FS."
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—including plan amendment decisions. While
all comprehensive plan policies are important, some have more applicability than other, in reviewing
plan amendment requests. Of particular applicability to these proposed amendments is the Future
Land Use Element Policy 14.3.
Future Land Use Element Policy 14.3
In evaluating any comprehensive plan amendment request, the most important consideration is
Future Land Use Element Policy 14.3. This policy requires that at least one of four criteria be met
in order to approve a comprehensive plan amendment. These criteria are:
• a mistake in the approved plan;
• an oversight in the approved plan;
• a substantial change in circumstances; or
• for Future Land Use Map amendments, the proposed amendment involves a swap or
reconfiguration of land use designations at separate sites and that that swap or
reconfiguration will not increase the overall land use density or intensity depicted on the
Future Land Use Map.
The following matrix summarizes which of the above criteria are met by each proposed amendment.
PROPOSED AMENDMENT
MISTAKE
OVERSIGHT
CHANGE IN
CIRCUMSTANCES
FLUE Policy 1.6
X
FLUE Policy 1.12
X
FLUE Policy 1.14
X
FLUE Page 61 & Policy 1.16
X
FLUE Policy 1.22
X
FLUE Policy 1.23
X
FLUE Policy 1.28
X
FLUE Policy 1.29
X
New FLUE Policy 1.39
X
New FLUE Policy 1.40
X
New FLUE Policy 1.41 & Table
2.13
X
New FLUE Policy 14.5
X
ICE Page 19
X
ICE Policy 3.9
X
FLUE - Future Land Use Element
ICE - Intergovernmental Coordination Element
MARCH 16, 1999
-52-
0 0
These changes are relatively minor. They add clarity to the policies and address issues (such as the
land use designation of spoil islands in the Indian River Lagoon and land use designation swaps)
that, due to oversights, were not addressed in the original plan. Because they correct oversights in
the comprehensive plan, the proposed amendments are consistent with Future Land Use Element
Policy 14.3.
Although required by state law, land use intensity standards for the Commercial/Industrial, Public
Facilities, and Recreation land use designations were not specifically included in the comprehensive
plan. Although the plan was amended numerous times, neither the county nor the state reviewing
agency (the Department of Community Affairs) noticed this situation until recently. The omission
from the comprehensive plan of land use intensity standards for commercial/industrial land use
designations constitutes an oversight. By adding land use intensity standards for the Commercial/
Industrial, Public Facilities, and Recreation land use designations to the comprehensive plan, the
proposed amendment corrects that oversight. For that reason, the proposed amendment is consistent
with Future Land Use Element Policy 14.3.
Each of these proposed amendments relates directly to recent changes in state law. Those changes
constitute a change in circumstances affecting the proposed amendments. For that reason, these
proposed amendments are consistent with Future Land Use Element Policy 14.3.
When adopted, the plan set general land use and zoning guidelines. Since plan adoption, however,
case law has specifically determined that landowners are entitled to the most intense zoning district
that is consistent with the site's land use designation, unless the governing body determines that a
less intense zoning district serves a legitimate public purpose. The proposed amendments set
specific criteria indicating when a site may be given a zoning district other than the most intense
allowed by the land use designation. The case law determinations constitute a change in
circumstances that affects the proposed amendments. For that reason, these proposed amendments
are consistent with Future Land Use Element Policy 14.3.
Although provisions for small scale amendments were present in state law, the county did not take
advantage of them until the recent Hale Groves amendment. While processing that amendment, it
became clear that local criteria, in addition to state criteria, would be necessary to determine which,
if any, future amendments would be processed as small scale amendments. The fact that such
criteria were not originally included in the plan constitutes an oversight. By setting criteria for
processing an amendment as a small scale amendment, the proposed change corrects that oversight.
For that reason, the proposed amendment is consistent with Future Land Use Element Policy 14.3.
While Future Land Use Element Policy 14.3, is particularly applicable to these proposed plan
amendments, other comprehensive plan policies and objectives also have relevance. For that reason,
staff evaluated the proposed amendments for consistency with all plan policies and objectives.
Based upon that analysis, staff determined that the proposed changes to the Future Land Use and
Intergovernmental Coordination Elements are consistent with the comprehensive plan.
ANALYSIS OF REASONABLENESS OF PROPOSED AMENDMENTS
Future Land Use Element
The changes to this policy can be divided into two groups. The first group of changes more
specifically describe the types and intensities of recreational uses allowed in the Conservation land
use designations. These changes allow only passive recreational uses (such as nature centers and
MARCH 16, 1999
U
-53-BOOK lu� FAGE 668
BOOK 108 PAGE 669
trails, hiking trails, canoe launches, observation towers, scenic areas, wildlife sanctuaries, wildlife
feeding stations, and picnic areas) and support facilities (such as bathrooms and parking facilities).
Such uses are specifically intended to allow public access and education without impacting
environmentally sensitive areas. Additionally, this group of changes limits the intensity of such uses
by setting a maximum FAR of 0.25.
The other changes to this policy clarify that C-1 designated parcels are publicly owned or controlled,
and that publicly owned spoil islands in the Indian River Lagoon are designated C-1.
This change sets a maximum land use intensity standard of 0.35 FAR for non-residential uses that
are allowed within residentially designated areas. That standard is compatible with the county's
development pattern. This proposed change works to ensure that Policies 1.12 and 1.14 will be
consistent with Policies 1.31 and 1.37 and with state law.
Consistent with state law, these proposed changes add land use intensity standards for the
Commercial/IndusuW, Public Facilities, and Recreation land use designations. For residential land
use designations, land use intensity standards, in the form of maximum densities, are already found
in the plan.
The generally accepted intensity standard for non-residential development is Floor Area Ratio
(FAR). FAR is a measure of non-residential land use intensity expressed as the ratio of building
floor space on a parcel to total parcel area For example, a 10,000 square foot building on a one acre
parcel has a.23 FAR (10,000/43,560 =.23). In such a case, a 5,000 square foot second story would
increase the FAR to .34 (15,000/43,560 = .34).
Although the county has not had an established FAR in its Comprehensive Plan, Future Land Use
Element Policy 1.17 and other plan policies require the county to adopt land development
regulations that regulate the mass and height of buildings, the amount of impervious surface, the
amount of parking, and the amount of open space. These land development regulations have been
adopted and have effectively controlled non-residential land use intensities.
Within Indian River County, most non-residential developments generally have FAR's within the
0.1 to 0.2 range. The highest FAR is approximately 0.45, while the lowest FAR is approximately
0.07. Therefore, the county's land development regulations generally result in development
occurring at an intensity of less than a 0.45 FAR.
Different non-residential uses, however, have different impacts on public facilities and services, and
on surrounding areas. For example, according to the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE),
1,000 square feet of retail uses, 6,000 square feet of general office uses and 14,000 square feet of
general industrial uses all generate 98 peak hour trips. Therefore, one FAR limit is not appropriate
for all non-residential uses. In fact, to equally limit the impacts of different uses, it is necessary to
allow a greater FAR for general industrial use than for office uses, and a greater FAR for office uses
than for retail uses.
For that reason, the proposed changes to Policy 1.16 set a three tiered FAR limit. Retail uses are
limited to an FAR of 0.23, office uses are limited to an FAR of 0.35, and industrial and storage uses
are limited to an FAR of 0.50. Policy 1.29 limits development within the Recreation land use
designation to an FAR of 0.25. Those levels of intensity are consistent with the low-density, low-
rise character of the county.
Additionally, by requiring applicants for mixed use projects to assign a portion of the total
development area to each use, Policy 1.16 prohibits the "stacking" of uses. To encourage walking
and transit use, Policy 1.16 allows an exception to this requirement for accessory residential
development.
Finally, changes to these policies more specifically describe the types of uses allowed in the
Commercial/Industrial and Recreation land use designations.
Policy 122
The proposed amendment sets specific cn%ria for node expansions where the subject node is less
than 70% developed and where the node expansion involves the following:
• land use designation swaps involving more than one node; and
• corrections of mistakes or oversights affecting residentially designated property.
MARCH 16, 1999
-54
Although such node expansions have occurred in the past, setting specific criteria clarifies the policy
and decreases the chances of misapplication of the policy.
Specifically, the proposed amendment ensures that land use designation swaps involving more than
one node will not increase potential impacts on any public facilities, and that such a swap will not
increase the overall land use density or intensity depicted on the future land use map. The proposed
amendment also limits node expansions that correct an oversight or a mistake to ten acre sites.
Future Land Use Element Policy 1.23 sets a minimum separation distance of 1.5 miles between
commercial/industrial nodes. The proposed amendment rewords the policy to clarify the intent of
the policy.
Although the county and the school board coordinate in an informal manner regarding many of the
issues covered in these policies, the proposed amendment requires greater formal coordination. The
purpose of the amendments is to encourage the location of schools near residential areas and to
collocate schools with parks, libraries and community centers when possible. Locating community
facilities near residences efficiently uses county resources, discourages urban sprawl, reduces
automobile trips, and allows children to walk to many destinations (e.g. schools, libraries and parks).
These changes specifically recognize that not every zoning district allowed in a land use designation
is appropriate for every site within that land use designation. Table 2.13 specifically identifies which
zoning districts are allowed in each land use designation. New Policy 1.41 sets general criteria
identifying where each zoning district should and should not be located The type of criteria
considered includes, but is not limited to, compatibility with surrounding areas and the availability
of transportation facilities. These changes will guide future county rezoning decisions, and will
increase overall development compatibility within the county.
Florida Statutes set specific criteria to ensure that small scale amendments have fewer impacts than
typical plan amendments. Nevertheless, it is necessary to set additional local criteria to determine
whether or not a plan amendment request can be processed as a small scale amendment. That will
decrease the chances that the small scale amendment process will be used in an arbitrary or unfair
manner. The additional criteria also work to prevent the use of the small scale amendment process
to circumvent the typical plan amendment process for requests that warrant substantial public and
reviewing agency input.
In addition to minor processing requirements, the criteria mandate that the small scale amendment
process cannot be used for plan amendments that involve important land use issues such as
development of environmentally important or environmentally sensitive land, development outside
the urban service area, expansion of the urban service area, or expansion of the SR 60/58th Avenue
commercial/industrial node.
Intergovernmental Coordination Element
This change, required by state law, adds information to the plan. The proposed amendment
identifies the special districts that operate in the county, and discusses their functions and powers.
Additionally, the proposed amendment acknowledges that, consistent with Section 189.415, FS, each
special district must submit a public facilities report with annual notice of any changes to the county.
These changes make the plan a more useful source of information, and require the county to be more
aware of the activities of special districts.
Policy 3.9 requires formal coordination between the county and its municipalities, and the county
and adjacent counties. The proposed amendment, mandated by state law, requires greater
coordination by requiring the identification of Joint Planning Areas (JPA) and Locally Unwanted
Land Uses (LULU), both of which can have impacts beyond jurisdictional boundaries.
MARCH 16, 1999
-55- BOOK PAGE 7®
BOOK 103 PAGE 7i
JPAs are areas that require coordinated planning. Examples of these areas may include
environmentally important land that straddles a jurisdictional boundary, a roadway corridor that runs
through more than one jurisdiction, or an area in one jurisdiction that receives services from another
jurisdiction. Identifying JPAs allows local governments to maximize existing resources and to avoid
future problems.
The proposed amendment also requires the identification of LULUs, which are usually public
facilities that are needed by the community, but have large impacts on nearby areas. Examples of
LULUs include landfills and wastewater treatment plants. By identifying existing and planned
LULUS, local governments can work to reduce and mitigate impacts
The proposed amendments will enhance the County's comprehensive plan by updating the Future
Land Use and Intergovernmental Coordination Elements to reflect changes in state law and other
circumstances. The proposed changes to the Future Land Use Element add accuracy and clarity to
the comprehensive plan. The analysis demonstrates that these amendments maintain the plan's
internal consistency. Finally, the analysis addresses DCA's ORC Report objections. For these
reasons, staff supports the adoption of the proposed amendments.
Based on the analysis, staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners approve the
proposed amendments to the comprehensive plan by adopting the attached ordinance.
Community Development Director Bob Keating reviewed the text amendments and
the DCA objections and comments. The DCA objected to the following: (1) no specific
limit on recreational uses in conservation areas; (2) no intensity standards for non-residential
uses in residential areas; and (3) no percentage of uses within C/I areas. The DCA also made
2 comments: (1) some confusion over the numbering of tables and (2) compliments to the
County on their improved Plan.
Chairman Macht noted that the Board will now have more latitude in assigning
density, and Director Keating responded that New Policy 1.41 adds standards that allow the
Board to grant less than the maximum rezoning requested by the applicant
The Chairman opened the public hearing and asked if anyone wished to be heard in
this matter.
Renee Renzi, 340 East Waverly Place, wanted to know what the allowed recreational
uses are for the Flinn tract and informed the Board that she has seen men with bundles in the
area and believes that they are camping there.
MARCH 16, 1999
-56-
• is
Director Keating responded that staffwill check into the problem and is reviewing the
Oslo Riverfront Management Plan.
The Chairman asked if anyone else wished to be heard regarding this matter. There =
being none, the Chairman closed the public hearing.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Adams,
SECONDED by Commissioner Grin, the Board
unanimously adopted Ordinance 99-009 amending
the Tent of the Future Land Use and
Intergovernmental Coordination Elements of the
Indian River County Comprehensive Plan.
ORDINANCE NO. 99- 0 9
AN ORDINANCE OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, AMENDING THE TEXT OF THE
FUTURE LAND USE AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL COORDINATION ELEMENTS OF THE
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN; AND PROVIDING SEVERABILITY
AND EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners adopted the Indian River County
Comprehensive Plan on February 13, 1990, and
WHEREAS, the county initiated a comprehensive plan amendment application during its
July 1998 amendment submittal window, and
WHEREAS, the Local Planning Agency held a public hearing on all comprehensive plan
amendment requests on October 8, 1998 after due public notice, and
WHEREAS, the Local Planning Agency made a recommendation regarding this
comprehensive plan amendment to the Board of County Commissioners, and
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County held a Transmittal
Public Hearing on November 10, 1998, after advertising pursuant to F.S. 163.3184(15)(b)(1) and (c),
and
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners approved the transmittal of this
comprehensive plan amendment to the Florida Department of Community Affairs for their review
and comment, and
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners announced at the transmittal public
hearing its intention to hold and advertise a final public hearing at the adoption stage of this plan
amendment, and
WHEREAS, the Florida Department of Community Affairs received this Comprehensive
Plan Amendment on November 25, 1998, for the State review pursuant to F.S. 163.3184(4), and
MARCH 16, 1999
-57-
BOOK iU3 FADE 7
BOOK 1.03 PAGE673
ORDINANCE NO. 99- 0 9
WHEREAS, Indian River County received the Objections, Recommendations, and
Comments (ORC) Report from the Florida Department of Community Affairs on February 5, 1999,
and
WHEREAS, the ORC Report contained three objections to this comprehensive plan
amendment, and
WHEREAS, this comprehensive plan amendment and support documents have been revised
to address those objections, and
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County held a
Comprehensive Plan Amendment Adoption Public Hearing on March 16, 1999, after advertising
pursuant to F.S.I63.3184(15)(b);
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of County Commissioners of Indian
River County, Florida, that:
SECTION 1. C mprehensive Plan Amendment Adoption and Transmittal
The amendment to the Indian River County Comprehensive Plan identified in Section 2 is
hereby adopted, and three (3) copies are directed to be transmitted to the State of Florida Department
of Community Affairs and one (1) copy is directed to be transmitted to the Treasure Coast Regional
Planning Council.
SECTION 2. Amendments to the Comprehensive Plan
• Revisions to Policies 1.6, 1.12, 1.14, 1.16, 1.22, 1.23, 1.28, and 1.29 of the Future Land Use
Element, as shown on Attachment A.
• Revision to the Data and Analysis beginning on page 61 of the Future Land Use Element,
as shown on Attachment A.
• Addition of Policies 1.39, 1.40, 1.41, and 14.5 to the Future Land Use Element, as shown on
Attachment A.
• Addition of Table 2.13 and the renumbering of the following tables of the Future Land Use
Element, as shown on Attachment A.
• Addition of a "Special Districts" section to the Data and Analysis on page 19 of the
Intergovernmental Coordination Element, as shown on Attachment A.
• Revision to Policy 3.9 of the Intergovernmental Coordination Element, as shown on
Attachment A.
SECTION 3. Repeal of Conflicting Provisions
All previous ordinances, resolutions, or motions of the Board of County Commissioners of
Indian River County, Florida which conflict with the provisions of this ordinance are hereby repealed
to the extent of such conflict.
SECTION 4. Severabilit=
It is declared to be the intent of the Board of County Commissioners that if any provision of
this ordinance and therefore, the Indian River County Comprehensive Plan Amendment is for any
reason finally held invalid or unconstitutional by any court of competent jurisdiction, such provision
shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and such holding shall not affect the
validity of the remaining provisions.
MARCH 169 1999
ORDINANCE NO. 99- 0 9
SECTION 5. Effective Date
The effective date of this ordinance, and therefore, this plan amendment, shall be the date a
final order is issued by the Department of Community Affairs or Administration Commission
finding the amendment in compliance with Section 163.3184(1)(b), Florida Statutes, whichever
occurs earlier. No development orders, development permits, or land uses dependent on this
amendment may be issued or commence before it has become effective. If a final order of
noncompliance is issued by the Administration Commission, this amendment may nevertheless be
made effective by adoption at a public meeting after public notice of a resolution affirming its
effective status, a copy of which resolution shall be sent to the Florida Department of Community
Affairs, Division of Resource Planning and Management, Plan Processing Team.
This ordinance was advertised in the Press -Journal on the Yd day of March,1999 for a public
hearing to be held on the 16`h day of March, 1999 at which time it was moved for adoption by
Commissioner Adams , seconded by Commissioner G i nn
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 Aye
Commissioner John W. Tippin Aye
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF INDYN RIVER COUNTY
BY: 1&1,, A6�1 �
Kenneth R. Macht, Chairman
ATTEST BY:
Bartoi#,
cam �,: 4w
Acknowledgment the Department of State of the State of Florida this 50 day of 4M 999
Acknowledgmentiomthe Department of State received midday ofM 49C# 999, ot
and filed in the office of the Clerk of the Board of County Commissioners of Indian
River County, Florida.
u\v\j\cpta\ju198\ord
MARCH 16, 1999
M" am Ca Approved Date
Admin
Legal Lo L ? Q
Budget
Dept
Risk Mgr.
-59- 800K 108 PAGE67
BOOK 108 PAGE 675
Ijl 11V:TCga1WWV
1. Future Land Use Element Policy 1.6
2. Future Land Use Element Policies 1.12 and 1.14
3. Future Land Use Element Data and Analysis, Page 61
4. Future Land Use Element Policy 1.16
5. Future Land Use Element Policy 1.22
6. Future Land Use Element Policies 1.23, 1.28, and 1.29
7. Future Land Use Element Policies 1.39 and 1.40
8. Future Land Use Element Policy 1.41
9. Future Land Use Element Policy 14.5
10. Future Land Use Element Table 2.13
11. Future Land Use Element Table 2.14
12. Future Land Use Element Table 2.15
13. Intergovernmental Coordination Element Data and Analysis, Page 19
14. Intergovernmental Coordination Element Policy 3.9
FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT
PAGE 70
Policy 1.6: Development of conservation designated land shall be limited to the following:
C-1, Conservation -1 a!ublicly owned or controlled conservation a=reas)
Conservation Uses
Passive Recreational Uses
• including, but not limited to, nature centers and trails, hiking trails, canoe
launches, observation towers, scenic areas, wildlife sanctuaries, wildlife
feeding stations, hunter education centers (including shooting ranges), picnic
areas, bathrooms, and parking areas
• up to 0.25 FAR
C-1 designated parcels shall be specifically depicted on the future land use map. C-1 designated
parcels include but are not limited to land owned by the St. Johns River Water Management District
for its Upper Basin Project, publicly owned spoil islands in the Indian River Lagoon, and other
environmentally important land owned or controlled by public entities for conservation purposes.
C-2, Conservation -2 (E!rivately owned estuarine wetland and undeveloped lagoon island
conservation areas)
Conservation Uses
Passive Recreational Uses
• including, but not limited to, nature centers and trails, hiking trails, canoe
launches, observation towers, scenic areas, wildlife sanctuaries, wildlife
feeding stations, picnic areas, bathrooms, and parking areas
• up to 0.25 FAR
Residential Uses
• up to 1 unit/40 acres (on-site)
• up to 1 unittacre (Transfer of Development Rights)
C,L-3, Cons=ervation -3 QMvately owned xeric scrub conservation arcas)
Conservation Uses
Passive Recreational Uses
• including, but not limited to, nature centers and trails, hiking trails, canoe
launches, observation towers, scenic areas, wildlife sanctuaries, wildlife
feeding stations, picnic areas, bathrooms, and parking areas
• up to 0.25 FAR
Planned Development
• residential uses up to 1 unit/2%x acres (on-site internal transfer of development
rights)
• residential uses up to 1 unit/acre (external transfer of development rights)
• places of worship, up to 0.25 FAR
C-2 and C-3 designated areas shall be generally depicted on the future land use map; specific
boundaries shall be established pursuant to Policy 1.7 of the Future Land Use Element.
Residential development in C-2 designated areas and in C-3 designated areas shall be limited to
approved Planned Developments (PDs). The county shall require cluster development and density
transfers to limit the impact of development on conservation lands. The PD and clustering
requirements shall not apply to single-family lots along the east side of the St. Sebastian River that
were legally created prior to February 13, 1990.
MARCH 16, 1999
.o
•
The following criteria shall apply to PDs in C-2 and C-3 designated areas:
• The density of the project shall not exceed the maximum density of the C-2 (for wetlands)
or C-3 (for xeric scrub uplands) designated areas, as applicable; no density transfers from
off-site lands and no density bonuses shall be permitted within PD projects on C-2 or C-3
designated lands;
• Lots created through the PD process shall not exceedone acre in size and shall be clustered,
with the remainder of the area designated as open space;
• Open space areas shall be retained as natural areas; however, up to ten percent of the open
space in C-3 designated areas may be used for passive recreation (including nature centers
and trails, scenic areas, wildlife sanctuaries and feeding stations, and picnic areas), and
historical sites, as appropriate.
• Within C-3 designated areas, the total area of xeric scrub disturbed by a PD project shall not
exceed 20% of the total xeric scrub area occurring on site.
Policy 1=12: Development in low-density residentialareas shall be limited to the following:
Single -Family Residential Uses
up to 1 unit/acre in R designated areas
up to 3 units/acre in L-1 designated areas
up to 6 units/acre in L-2 designated areas
Multiple -Family Residential Uses
up to 3 units/acre in L-1 designated areas
up to 6 units/acre in L-2 designated areas
Recreational Uses
up to 0.35 FAR
Public Facilities
up to 0.35 FAR
Institutional Uses
up to 0.35 FAR
Schools (not including business and vocational schools)
up to 0.35 FAR
Excavation Activities (in R designated areas only)
Agricultural Uses (as permitted in Future Land Use Element Policy 6.3)
Professional Office Uses
as permitted by Future Land Use Element Policy 1.31
up to 0.35 FAR
The FAR of mixed use projects shall be calculated by assigning a portion of the total development
area to each use. The sum of the portions assigned to each use must equal the total development
area. An exception shall be allowed for accessory residential uses within primarily non-residential
projects. That exception shall allow the entire development area to be used to calculate the number
of units allowed, without restricting the amount of development area available for calculating the
maximum FAR for primary uses.
PAGE 74
Policy 1.14: Development in medium -density residential areas shall be limited to the following:
Single -Family, Multiple -Family, and Mobile Home Residential Uses
up to 10 units/acre in M-2 designated areas
up to 8 units/acre in M-1 designated areas
Recreation Uses
up to 0.35 FAR
Public Facilities
up to 0.35 FAR
Institutional Uses
up to 0.35 FAR
Schools (not including business and vocational schools)
up to 0.35 FAR
Professional Office Uses
as permitted by Future Land Use Element Policies 1.31 & 1.37
up to 0.35 FAR
The FAR of mixed use projects shall be calculated by assigning a portion of the total development
area to each use. The sum of the portions assigned to each use must equal the total development
area. An exception shall be allowed for accessory residential uses within primarily non-residential
projects. That exception shall allow the entire development area to be used to calculate the number
of units allowed, without restricting the amount of development area available for calculating the
maximum FAR for primary uses.
MARCH 16, 1999
•
-61- .BOOK �� ft9GE
BOOK 108 PAGE G 7
The 1995 ratio of population to acres of non-residential land use is used to estimate the amount of
non-residential land needed to accommodate the 2020 population. This method assumes that the
land use intensity of non-residential development will remain constant.
Although the county's Comprehensive Plan limits residential development intensity, the plan has
not directly limited the intensity of development for areas designated as commercial/industrial. Like
most local governments, Indian River County uses density, usually reported in units/acre, as its
measure of residential land use intensity. For measuring non-residential land use intensity, however,
Floor Area Ratio (FAR) is the generally accepted standard. FAR is a measure of non-residential land
use intensity expressed as the ratio of building floor space on a parcel to total parcel area. For
example, a 10,000 square foot building on a 1 acre parcel has a.23 FAR (10,000/43,560 =.23). In
such a case, a 5,000 square foot second story would increase the FAR to .34 (15,000/43,560 = .34).
Just as density limits are usually incorporated in comprehensive plans or zoning district regulations
to control residential development intensity, FAR limits are often established to control non-
residential development intensity. Although the county has not had an established FAR in its
Comprehensive Plan, non-residential land use intensity has been controlled in other ways. Through
its land development regulations, the county has established standards for minimum open space,
maximum building coverage, maximum building height, and minimum parking, as well as setback
and stormwater management requirements. Together, these standards have effectively limited non-
residential development intensity.
Current state law, however, requires all local governments to adopt intensity standards in their
comprehensive plans for all commercial/industrial land use designations. Those standards are
implemented by applying a maximum allowed FAR to commercial/industrial development.
Different commercial/industrial uses, however, have different impacts on public facilities and
services, and on surrounding areas. For example, according to the Institute of Transportation
Engineers (ITE), 1,000 square feet of retail uses, 6,000 square feet of general office uses and 14,000
square feet of general industrial uses all generate 98 peak hour trips. Therefore, one FAR limit is
not appropriate for all commercial/industrial uses. In fact, to equally limit the impacts of different
uses, it is necessary to allow a greater FAR for general industrial uses than for office uses, and a
greater FAR for office uses than for retail uses.
Within Indian River County, most commercial and industrial developments generally have FAR's
within the 0.1 to 0.2 range. The highest FAR is approximately 0.45, while the lowest FAR is
approximately 0.07. Therefore, the county's land development regulations generally result in
development occurring at an intensity of less than a 0.45 FAR.
In order to project the maximum potential impact of commercial/industrial development on public
facilities, the county has historically calculated the maximum development potential of
commercial/industrial land as 10,000 square feet of retail per acre of land. That figure is based on
analysis of two factors. One of those factors is county land development regulations that regulate
land use intensity (e.g. minimum open space, maximum building coverage, maximum building
height, minimum parking, setback and stormwater management requirements and others). The other
factor is the impact generated on public facilities by particular uses. Through that analysis the
county determined that the most intense commercial/industrial use allowed would be 10,000 square
feet of retail development per acre of land. Therefore, any parcel whose public facilities can
accommodate 10,000 square feet of retail development per acre of land can accommodate the most
intense commercial/industrial use allowed.
A maximum level of intensity equal to 10,000 square feet of retail per acre is consistent with the
low-density, low-rise character of the county. One way to maintain that character while allowing
for development is to limit the FAR of retail uses to 0.23, the FAR of office uses to 0.35, and the
FAR of industrial uses to 0.50. Setting a three -tiered FAR limit recognizes the different impacts of
different commercial/industrial uses. Those standards also ensure that the land use intensity of non-
residential development will remain constant through 2020.
According to the TntrodLctore Element, the effective population of unincorporated Indian River
County was 77,859 in 1995. That element projects that the unincorporated county's effective
Population will increase 59%, to 123,850 in 2020. Using that rate of increase and Property Appraiser
data from 1995, it is possible to determine non-residential land use needs for 2020. Table 2.10
provides that information.
MARCH 16, 1999
•
Policy 1.16: Development in Commercial/Industrial designated areas shall be limited to the
following:
USE
MAXIMUM INTENSITY/DENSITY
Retail Trade
0.23 FAR
Offices
0.35 FAR
Business and Personal Services
0.35 FAR
Residential
8 units/acre
Manufacturing
0.50 FAR
Assembly
0.50 FAR
Materials Processing
0.50 FAR
Heavy Repair Services
0.50 FAR
Wholesale Trade and Distribution Centers
0.50 FAR
Storage/Warehousing
0.50 FAR
Public Facilities
0.35 FAR
Recreational
0.35 FAR
Schools
0.35 FAR
Institutional
0.35 FAR
The Floor Area Ratio (FAR) in Commercial/Industrial designated areas shall not exceed the above
cited limits. The FAR is determined by dividing the gross floor area of all floors of all buildings on
a development site by the area of that development site. If there is a question concerning which FAR
category applies to a particular use, then the applicable FAR category shall be the same category that
applies to the use having the most similar characteristics to the use in question. County staff shall
determine which use has the most similar characteristics to the original use in question. Factors used
to make that determination shall include the type and volume of traffic generated, parking
requirements, and the Standard Industrial Classification Code.
The FAR of mixed use projects shall be calculated by assigning a portion of the total development
area to each use. The sum of the portions assigned to each use must equal the total development
area An exception shall be allowed for accessory residential in Commercial/Industrial designated
areas. That exception shall allow the entire development area to be used to calculate the number of
units allowed, without restricting the amount of development area available for calculating the
maximum FAR for primary uses.
Policy 122: No node shall be expanded unless 70% of the subject node's land area (less rights-of-
way) is developed with non-residential and non-agricultural uses, or approved for non-residential
and non-agricultural development, or otherwise warranted by the proposed development.
Otherwise wan -anted may include but not be limited to the following:
• Developed percentage of a node is between 60% and 70% and the node expansion meets one
of the following criteria:
o expansion of the node is necessary to accommodate the expansion of an existing use
where there is not suitable vacant land adjacent to the use within the node, the land
proposed for inclusion is owned or controlled by the owner of the site containing the
use proposed for expansion, and a finding is made by the Board of County
Commissioners that no other land in the node can feasibly accommodate the
expansion of the referenced use, or
o expansion of an existing node is necessary to adjust a node boundary that splits a
small parcel of land and a finding is made by the Board of County Commissioners
that development of the parcel is not feasible with the split land use designation and
that inclusion of the parcel in the node is more appropriate than exclusion of the
parcel from the node.
• Expansion of a node is necessary to accommodate a use (such as a regional mall) which has
a substantial land area requirement and no alternative suitable sites are available in existing
nodes.
• Expansion of a node is necessary to compensate for existing or proposed right-of-way which
was included within the node boundary and included in the node size calculation, where the
node expansion will not exceed the acreage represented by the right-of-way.
MARCH 169 1999
•
-63- BOOK 103 FADE 67
BOOK D3 PAGE 79
• Expansion of a node is necessary to accommodate a substantial change in circumstances
affecting a property adjacent to the node, where said change has had the effect of making the
property unsuitable for residential use. Such change could include establishment of an
adjacent, incompatible use, or a significant change in adjacent development patterns due to
an act of government such as road development and expansion.
• Expansion of a node is necessary to include existing adjacent non -conforming commercial
or industrial uses where a finding is made by the Board of County Commissioners that the
non -conforming uses cannot be otherwise eliminated.
• Expansion of a node is necessary to facilitate a swap of land use designations involving more
than one node where all involved nodes impact the same public facilities and the swap will
not increase the overall land use density or intensity depicted on the Future Land Use Map.
The total area added to any expanding node or nodes shall be equal to or less than the total
area removed from any other involved node or nodes.
• Expansion of a node is necessary to correct an oversight or a mistake in the plan affecting
property that meets the following criteria:
o the property is residentially designated;
o the property was given a residential designation as a result of an oversight or a
mistake;
o the property is unsuitable for residential use;
o the property is adjacent to a node; and
o the property is no more than 10 acres in size.
PDlicy.1M: Commercial/industrial nodes shall not be created or expanded to within 1 % miles of
an existing commercial/industrial node. This policy shall apply only to commercial/ industrial nodes
that conformed to the 1 %s mile requirement on December 31, 1997. This policy shall not apply to
neighborhood commercial nodes.
PAGE 79
PD&y-1-28: The Public Facilities land use designation shall be applied to land used for public
facilities and services including, but not limited, to government offices, service centers, public
utilities and transportation facilities, schools, parks, libraries, police and fire stations, dredged spoil
disposal, and landfills and related uses such as recycling equipment operations, composting facilities
and operations, incineration of solid waste, borrow pit operations for fill material, industrial waste
and leachate treatment and management, equipment storage and maintenance, and water and
wastewater treatment facilities. Not all public land uses are shown on the Future Land Use Map.
Public facilities are not limited to the Public Facilities Land Use designation. The maximum
intensity standards established by Future Land Use Element Policy 1.16 (commercial/industrial
intensity standards) shall also apply to uses within the Public Facilities land use designation.
Poli v 1 9: The Recreation land use designation shall be applied to land used for active and passive
public parks and recreation facilities, including but not limited to ball fields, swimming pools, tennis
courts, racquetball courts, handball courts, shuffleboard courts, basketball courts, volleyball courts,
children's playgrounds, golf courses, fairgrounds, community/activity centers,
walking/jogging/fitness trails, canoe launches, picnic areas, scenic areas, nature centers, bathrooms,
and parking areas. Not all recreation sites are shown on the Future Land Use Map. Public parks and
recreation facilities are not limited to this land use designation. The maximum Floor Area Ratio
(FAR) for development within the Recreation land use designation shall not exceed 0.25.
PAGE 83/NEW POLICIES
Policy 133-. The county shall encourage the school board to locate schools near urban residential
areas. The county will do this by allowing schools within all residential zoning districts; by
coordinating with the school board to establish a process for preliminary county review of school
sites before the school board acquires or leases property for a new school; and by limiting school
sites within agriculturally designated areas to mixed use projects, traditional neighborhood design
projects, and sites that are contiguous to the urban service area boundary.
Policy 1.40: To the extent feasible, the county shall collocate public facilities, such as parks,
libraries, and community centers, with schools
MARCH 16, 1999
Policy 1-410 The Board of County Commissioners shall rezone land only in a manner that is
consistent with Future Land Use Element Table 2.13. Furthermore, the Board recognizes that not
every zoning district allowed in a land use designation is appropriate for every site within that land
use designation. For any parcel, the Board of County Commissioners may deny a rezoning request
(even when the requested zoning district is consistent with the parcel's land use designation) if the
denial servesa legitimate public purpose. A Board of County Commissioners' determination that
the requested zoning district is not appropriate for the parcel may also be based upon the absence of
the following locational criteria:
1. For the OCR, ice, Commercial, Residential zoning district:
• adjacent to existing office uses
• as a buffer between residential zoning districts and arterial roads or other commercial zoning districts.
• at node perimeters
2. For the MED, Medical zoning district:
• within commercial/industrial nodes containing hospitals and major medical facilities
• separated from industrial areas
3. For the CL, Limited Commercial zoning district:
• areas that are easily accessed from residential areas
• between residential areas and general commercial areas or major roadways
• separated from industrial areas
• at node perimeters
4. For the CG, General Commercial zoning district:
• along arterial roads and major intersections
• separated from residential development
• separated from industrial areas
• near retail and office areas
5. For the CH, Heavy Commercial zoning district:
• along arterial roads
• along railroad tracks
• between general commercial and industrial areas
• separated from residential development
6. For the IL, Light Industrial zoning district:
• along arterial roads
• along railroad tracks
• near industrial areas
• separated from residential development
• separated from retail and office areas
7. For the IG, General Industrial zoning district:
• along arterial roads and major intersections
• along railroad tracks
• near industrial areas
• separated from residential development
• separated from retail and office areas
8. For single-family zoning districts:
• adjacent to other single-family areas
• separated from major commercial areas and industrial areas
9. For multiple -family zoning districts:
• adjacent to other multiple -family areas
• adjacent to employment centers
• along arterial and collector roads, particularly to buffer single-family areas -
• adjacent to commercial uses, particularly to buffer single-family areas
• not abutting single-family areas on all sides
Additionally, the Board hereby adopts the following general criteria regarding the location of
residential zoning districts:
10. Where medium density residential lands abut low density residential land, the medium
density land may be zoned an intermediate density.
11. Residentially designated land that is located between higher density and lower density zoned
areas may be zoned an intermediate density even when the intermediate zoned area has a
land use designation that allows a higher density.
Policy 14.5: The county may utilize the small scale development amendment process, as described
in section 163.3187(1)(c)2., FS, only for Future Land Use Designation Amendment requests that
meet all of the following criteria:
• the applicant requests in writing that the proposed amendment be processed as a small scale
development amendment;
• the requirements of 163.3187(1)(c)2., FS, as amended, are satisfied;
• the subject property does not contain any environmentally sensitive land as defined in
Conservation Element Policy 5.4, or any environmentally important land as defined in
Conservation Element Policy 6.11;
• the subject property is located within the existing urban service area;
• the proposed amendment does not expand the existing urban service area;
• the proposed amendment does not expand the SR 60/58" Avenue commercial/industrial
node; and
• the proposed amendment does not create a new commercial/industrial node.
MARCH 16, 1999
-65- BOOK iU3 PAGE 68®
BOOK 108 PAGE 6S1
FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT TABLE 2.13
RELATIONSHIP OF THE ZONING DISTRICTS WITH LAND USE MAP
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
LAND USE DESIGNATION
will!
®
`� �. �. Af ��� ,�_'. .._fir' ,fiy-:.� �� ~ aY. �.'.► ��'' �' �
. �....
� �.
'�.
®
•t. •�
� , � � �
`�! `X�_.
�Zi 45er�is'Ja .. ii�3 `^
6 n
®
cif •-� � � a :_ M �. a.Ji �.. ,:.'y ��. 3T.a�s -": "; �
�
®gyp"(62..Ri"`���
Fir ,:tr2��`3� '"^7� `'.�ka�` .•.h '�`',��..rF',•yyw' .. :-...� ..a�R=. 5 `i°T•l
`' . �
,R r
'.�p9a`+"��
••®r
� '�� {� � �� �''•°-- � 30. • �'�t isy
,. y.
d - District permitted
T - District permitted when used as transition from less intenseldense development or consistent with
existing development
Shaded - District not permitted
MARCH 169 1999
0
0
I
•
FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT
TABLE 2.14
FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT
IMPLEMENTATION MATRIX
POLICY#
TYPE OF ACTION
RESPONSIBILff-Y
TIMING
CAP. EXPEND.
1.39
Intergovernmental
coordination
PS
Ongoing
NO
1.40
Intergovernmental
coordination
PS/BCC
Ongoing
NO
1.41
Rezonings
BCC/LPA/PS
Ongoing
NO
14.5
Plan amendment
PS
Ongoing
NO
FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT
TABLE 2.15
FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT
EVALUATION MATRIX
MARCH 169 1999
-67- BOOK 1013 FAGF
L
OBJECTIVE #
MEASURE
TIMEFRAME
1
Residential density within the Urban Service Area.
By 2020
2
Amount of residential development greater than 0.2
Through 2020
units/acre, and amount of non-agricultural related
commercial/industrial development occurring outside of
the Urban Service Area.
3
Number of public services and facilities operating below
Through 2020
level -of -service standards.
4
Number of daily automobile trips per capita and length of
By 2020
trips.
5
Percentage county's housing units in multiple -family or
By 2010
TND projects.
6
Number of acres used for active agricultural operations.
Through 2005
7
Number of acres of environmentally important land under
By 2000
public ownership of control.
8
Percent of historic properties preserved.
Through 2005
9
Implementation of regulations.
Through 2020
10
Percent of new development that is consistent with the
Through 2020
future land use map.
11
Number of blighted areas where action is taken to
By 2004
encourage redevelopment.
12
Percent of new development that is consistent with the
Through 2020
Hutchinson Island Management Plan.
13
Existence of a formal coordination mechanism.
By 2005
14
Existence of a mechanism for plan review and amendment.
Through 2020
15
Existence of regulations.
Through 2020
16
Indian River Lagoon water quality.
Through 2020
17
Number of future land use map amendments increasing
Through 2020
land use density/intensity within the CHHA.
18
Percentage of new residential development located in TND
By 2010
developments.
19
Implementation of Hazard Mitigation Report
Through 2020
recommendations.
20Amount
of land available for and appropriately designated
By 2005
for dredged spoil disposal.
MARCH 169 1999
-67- BOOK 1013 FAGF
L
� Fin39
BOOK 103 PAGE G
INTERGOVERNMENTAL COORDINATION ELEMENT
PAGE 19
As previously discussed, there are six independent local water control districts which operate and
maintain drainage facilities within the county. These are the Indian River Farms, the Sebastian
River, the St. Johns River, the Fellsmere, the Vero Lakes, and the Delta Farms Water Control
Districts. Additionally, there are seven other independent special districts in the county. These are
the Sebastian Inlet District (maintains inlet and keeps it navigable), the Mosquito Control District
(sprays and manages impoundments to control mosquitoes), the Hospital Maintenance District
(funds indigent care), the Florida Inland Navigation District (maintains and dredges inland
waterway), the Indian River County Housing Authority (addresses housing issues), the Indian River
Soil and Water Conservation District (assists agricultural businesses with water conservation
activities), and the multi -county St. Johns River Water Management District. There are also two
dependent districts in the county. These are the Indian River County Emergency Services District,
and the Solid Waste Disposal District. Some of the districts have the power to collect taxes for the
operation and maintenance of the facilities they operate. Other districts participate in a state funding
program for performance of their assigned functions.
To foster coordination between independent and dependent special districts and local general
purpose governments, Florida Statutes Section 189.415 requires that each special district submit a
public facilities report and an annual notice of any changes to the county in which it is located. The
report must include, but not be limited to, a description of existing public facilities owned or
operated by the special district; a description of each public facility the district is building, improving
or expanding; a description of each public facility the special district currently proposes to replace;
anticipated completion time; anticipated capacity of and demands on each public facility when
completed; and other requirements as outlined in Section. 189.415, F.S.
PAGE 56
POLICY 3 9- By 2000, the county shall establish a formal coordination mechanism with adjacent
counties and the municipalities in Indian River County to identify joint planning areas (JPA) and to
address the following areas:
• Improvement in communication between the county and various local, regional, and
state agencies
• Identification of local and regional resources
• Identification of activities having extra jurisdictional impact
• Identification of locally unwanted land uses
• Identification of expected impacts
• Notification of affected jurisdictions
• Development of measures to mitigate impacts
• Development of a process to resolve disputes
MARCH 16, 1999
9.B.1. PUBLIC DISCUSSION ITEM - BABE RUTH
BASEBALL/SPIRIT OF YOUTH BASEBALL LEAGUE -
RECOMMENDATION OF THE PARKS AND
RECREATION ADVISORY COMMITTEE
The Board reviewed the following Motion of the Parks and Recreation Advisory
Committee Meeting of March 4, 1999 and a letter of February 23, 1999
At the meeting of the Parks and Recreation Advisory Committee meeting held on
March 4, 1999, the following motion was made:
ON MOTION by Mr. Wilson, SECONDED by Mr. Minnis,
the Committee recommended (6-0) that the Board of
County Commissioners allow the Babe Ruth
Baseball/Spirlt of Youth Baseball League to use the
Regional Parks at South County and Hobart for two
weeks at no charge. After that time, the rental fee
would continue to be $250 per week.
Vero Beach/Indian River County
Recreation Department
1725 - 17th Avenue
Vero Beach, Florida 32960
(561) 567-2144 Office
(561) 778-7496 Fax
Patricia A. Callahan
Director
Pegs J. Wilkes
%tanager of
Leisure Programs
Bethel creek Horse
4405 N. AIA
226614th Avenue
305 Acacia Rad
BoM Burdick
Facilities MaaBer
(561) 770.6517
Beaches & Wear sarety
4405 N. AIA
victor Hanel
Tom Adams
(561)234-8373
GUrard Park .
4680 43rd Cam
Larry Staley
sue
(561)567-7652
MARCH 169 1999
February 23, 1999
Ms. Becky Diaz, President
Spirit of Youth Baseball, Inc.
I.R.C. Babe Ruth Baseball League
P.O. Box 690372
Vero Beach, Florida 32969
Dear Becky,
RECEIVED
MAR 16 1999
CLERK TO THE BOARD
Your efforts in the newly formed Babe Ruth Baseball League -is
appreciated. Your local founder, Dave King, was informed from
conception that government today cannot use their regional parks designed
for all citizens, to provide facilities for "special interest" groups. When Mc
King informed me he was breaking away from Little league to forma ' . .
Ruth League, I told him there were no regulation bawbill fields'available.:
Additionally; he was informed South• County could only be used as a
field. Little League Girls softball rented South County two years ago using
concessions to offset cost Mr. King was made aware _the selling- of
concessions would be approved for your league to offset your rental cost..,..
BOOK 1L3 F�GE
Kiwan)s-Mgmt Faris
5350 77th Short
Wabasso. FL
Miehnei Redstone
Supervisor
(561)589-1339
Leisure Square
3705 16th Steen
(561)770.6500 office
(561)770-1354 Feu
Rob Skint
Facilities Manager
Riverside Racquet Complar
Denise Marthrdia
Tennis Manager
350 Dahlia Lam
(561)231-4797
BOOK 103 FAGE C-5
Please understand, the $325.00 a week the league was quoted is a 50%'.
reduction to the full rental fee. We sincerely believed we were helping your
league and did not seek permission from our superiors to lower this charge.
We were shocked when in discussion with you, we learned your league felt
these charges were too high.
After review with the county administrator, the fee will be reduced to
$250.00 a week for this season. This does not even cover the light usage
cost much less the field maintenance, restroom maintenance, and other
utility charges. Another Babe Ruth season will be at full rental fee.
Additionally, Mike Redstone has agreed to certify, at no cost, your coaches and give coaches
clinics.
Becky, we are here to help all those involved in working with children and adults. I regret this
misunderstanding, hoping this further reduction will allow your league to play this season with
financial revenue from your concessions.
Please continue to work with Mike Redstone regarding your league schedule.
Sincerely,
Patricia Callahan
Director -
Recreation Department of Vero Beacip4ndian River County
PC:nhm
cc;Tim Chandler, County Administrator
MARCH 16, 1999
6 ' 6
BABE RUTH BASEBALL
MARCH 169 1999
-71-BOOK Iulh
FACE
FIELDS
SOUTH COUNTY PARK / KIWANIS HOBART PARK
COST
$ 325.00
DUR47ION
ONE (1) SEASON FEBRUARY >>> ]UNE
DAPS/TIME
SATURDAY 5:00 AM - 6:00 PM 2 FIELDS SOCO
SUNDAY 1:00 PM - 5:00 PM 2 FIELDS SOCO
MONDAY 5:00 PM - 10:00 PM 2 FIELDS SOCO
TUESDAY 5:00 PM - 10:00 PM 1 FIELD K H P $/`!ao
FRIDAY 5:00 PM - 10:00 PM 1 FIELD K H P 3;D
`
INSURANCE
a-
CERTIFICATE ON FILE BEFORE STARTING
LINING
LEAGUE WILL DO OWN CHALKING
DRAGGING
LEAGUE CAN RAKE, BUT NO DRAGGING OR HEAVY EQUIPMENT
ON THE FIELD.
SCHEDULE
LEAGUE MUST SUPPLY DEPT. WITH SEASON SCHEDULES AND ANY
CHANGES PROMPTLY.
PROBLEMS
REPORT ANY PROBLEMS TO ATHLETIC SUPERVISOR PROMFTLY .
CLEAN UP
TRASH CONTROL AND CLEAN-UP IS LEAGUE RESPONSIBILITY.
FIELD
NO ALTERING OF THE FIELDS .
�n4.SSla.s > �tyyw �9'�S�d
DAVE KING
_ as -95 ARA- 4o
MARCH 169 1999
-71-BOOK Iulh
FACE
BOOK 103 PAGE 637
Becky Diaz, President of Spirit of Baseball, Inc., a new baseball organization, stated
that the majority of the children involved are from the South County area. They have 160
kids registered and are requesting that the Board authorize a charge of $50 per team per
season which is the same as the City charges for their parks for other leagues. This is an all
volunteer organization and every penny they have is donated.
Pat Callahan, Recreation Department Director, explained that the South County park
is a regional park which serves everyone as opposed to a neighborhood park. In the
neighborhood parks, the volunteers do all the infield work, whereas in the regional parks the
County maintains the grass and the restrooms, purchases supplies and pays for utilities.
Commissioner Adams noted that the fees currently being charged are based on a study
adopted by the Board in 1989.
Commissioner Tippin commented that these kids are our future and we are spending
millions on "critters". He believed our priorities are confused and that the current policies
need to be adjusted.
Commissioner Adams felt the County is also very short of fields and hopes to expand
facilities and programs in the near future. The Parks and Recreation Advisory Committee
would be happy to review the policies and bring back some recommendations.
Mark Lehrer, 123 North 19 Circle SW, commented that the people who maintain
the County parks would be looking for another job if they worked for him.
Melissa Courtney, 2716 4911 Avenue, stated that team sports bring much to the youth
in the community. It is a proven fact that team sports decrease destructive behavior, teach
discipline, foster a sense of belonging to the community, teach decision making, goal setting,
dedication, loyalty, and courage. These are all attributes children carry through their adult
life. Every organization has to start somewhere and 160 children will suffer if the Board
does not waive the fees.
Charles Madden, 43219 Place, -submitted a petition to charge lower fees for the use
of the baseball fields. (CLERK'S NOTE: PETITION IS ON FILE WITH THE BACKUP
FOR THIS MEETING.)
Mr. Madden advised that he operates a concession stand and all the -proceeds go back
into sodas and groceries. He also requested that the Board lower the fees.
MARCH 16, 1999
4P 9
The Commissioners discussed the fees, differences between the regional and
neighborhood parks, costs associated with maintaining the parks, and charges for lighting for
nighttime use of the parks.
job.
Commissioner Tippin commended the Recreation Department for doing a fantastic =
ON MOTIONby Commissioner Ginn, SECONDED
by Commissioner Tippin, the Board animously
approved allowing Babe Ruth Baseball to use the
South.County Park at a charge of $50 per team per
season and directed the Parks and Recreation
Advisory Committee to review the current policies
and bring back recommendations for changes.
9.B.2. PUBLIC DISCUSSION ITEM - FRANCIS M. COFFEY -
COMMENTS REGARDING THE BEACH
PRESERVATION PROJECT
The Board reviewed a letter of March 5, 1999:
March 5, 1999
Mr. James E. Chandler
County Administrator
Dear Mr. Chandler,
This is a request that I be put on the County Commissioners' agenda (under
"Public Discussion Items" ) for the March 16,1999 meeting.
I would Ike the opportunity to comment on the Beach Preservation Project.
Sincerely,
Francis M. Coffey
MARCH 16, 1999
-73- BOOK J08 F,1GE138
r-'
BOOK 03 MUGS 9
Frank Coffey, 88 Cache Cay, then read from prepared remarks as follows:
7N.o.-4 16, 19 9.7
/;&. CAgw.w..o.v.
44 C.. A- C.,,y A9.1.;.4 , ✓F. v i8 Awa.it
r) a.,, ).�, i a, If .1 -F o..*.G(i ..a / oc
at
'7� '7.�ef{Ih.p•�•� e"'�( Wt �� <R rM1
—A.ei... .��++ .cvr,eA AJC/ -evr. .Te, ./.�
13,19 99 a7� ct �w".rky.w p�f ,ZTii
•v�2n�r�`•e o� /STM wrw�- ...:. o.��r..o�w.a a
_ �ic✓fi .�.�. w.�..w..f. IrKiG+.r.�n.is.� �C.Jt sr. .�ifr. Y, X999,
MARCH 169 1999
0 40
Cl..r�s.0 . a-9- n,4µ .vw' wkn.e! , ..•.. .}moi • Ito "o
4 Ax, a r zv 1-71 19 98. �.
l" -Wa44A 15-., 19 9 9 . k/.0 -a, ae i& -I —ow
- ,acs w*,4. , ems./ 7KA...A 4
"W ,w,,u.� y w...� .ZK,,r -,fw d a Al1Le..Ml 0,%e.
C9..... .w....=K c✓�- - " lvA r-,Pv� " .. a- �t..ww�:ZCtt
J- , .w,i Al.X ATM .".;c, .& ot-
4%rwC. Ax.riw.�+w..? lb -s 4 &-- lb.ww+7 .;. ....e—
.r, c�.yy.,Q.Xs .w T „ye.ri'- A.-" .(✓i nI�✓.t
i.. ;b4 -..ww.,.ial a ..wv.,«.•rl -Co.
MARCH 16, 1999
L-
-75 -
i
BOOK 103 PAGE
aG.,� ,,� .w,v,� x�X .�.,,� a.►.o� ,+�%� .e � o��e -moi
,mss a+�
Y- owe ,6.,.�ic..: .u.�.t a .ru.....(r •- ,.� ^x.,
ol,.ay„a: ov,;rlt ..w :GwY �wr..a.�.•.t a
a .l�on:�•- Bey ,�..�= rr-� '� may' p.4..►,�.*�
NO ACTION REQUIRED OR TARN.
MARCH 169 1999
0
-76-
BOOK 108 PAGE 6,91
•
11.B.1. ERICSSON Y2K CONTRACT UPGRADE
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of March 10, 1999:
TO: Honorable Board of County Commissioners
THROUGH: James E. Chandler. County Administrator
FROM: Doug Wright, Director of Emergency Services
�,
DATE: March 10, 1999
SUBJECT: Ericsson Year 2000 Upgrade Proposal Contract Update
On February 16,1999, the Board of County Commissioners approved the Ericsson Year 2000 Upgrade
Proposal and Contract in the amount of $135,633.26 with two changes as recommended by the County
Attomey's Office. The two changes were as follows:
Item 6. Terms of Payment. Late Charges
The change in this item was from net 30 days to 45 days in Paragraph 1, 6.A.,
6.B., 6.C., and 6.D. This change was in conformance with the Florida Prompt
Payment Act.
Item 21. Governing Law
This change was based on the language in the Contract wherein the State of Virginia
was the venue for any litigation. The County Attorney recommended and the Board
agreed that the venue should be the State of Florida
The Y2K Contracts were forwarded to Ericsson for signature immediately after Board approval was granted.
On February 24, 1999, staff was notified via fax that Ericsson agreed with the proposed change in Item 6, but
did not agree with the proposed change for Item 21. Since that time, there has been several phone ells to
Ericsson and correspondence has been exchanged in an effort to convince the company to change their position
without success. Staffhas been in contact with other counties in the State regarding this issue and verified that
the Ericsson contract with Manatee County is the same as that which was proposed for Indian River County.
Manatee has also attempted to get Ericsson to change the venue language in Item 21 without success.
A letter was received on March 10, 1999, via fax from Susanne Lithander, Vice President and General Manager
of Ericssion Private Radio Systems, alluding to the company's reasons for having a single venue for ligitation
relating to Y2K issues. Staff submits that since the software and hardware technology is proprietary, there is
no other vendor which can provide the Y2K upgrade. Therefore, it appears that due to public safety concerns,
there is no option available other than to approve the contract with venue being in the State of Virginia.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends the Board approve the Ericsson Year 2000 Upgrade Proposal with the Governing Law and
venue being in the State of V irginia so that the Y2K upgrade can be scheduled and installed in a timely manner.
MARCH 16, 1999
-77- BOOK '.08 FAGE 692
I
BOOK 103 PAGE 9
Emergency Services Director Doug Wright advised that the original contract had been
approved on February 16, 1999. At that time, 2 changes were recommended by the County
Attorney regarding the terms of payment and the venue for any litigation. Ericsson agreed
with the change in the terms of payment but advised they are trying to consolidate the venue
for any litigation which may arise from the Y2K situation.
County Attorney Vitunac noted that Ericsson has us over a barrel as they are the only
vendor. Nationwide all companies are trying to limit their liability regarding the Y2K
situation and Virginia is a friendly state for Ericsson. Fortunately, Assistant County
Attorney Terry O'Brien is a member of the State Bar of Virginia.
Commissioner Adams commented that the Board has learned its lesson regarding
single -source vendors.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Ginn, SECONDED
by Commissioner Stanbridge, the Board
unanimously approved the Ericsson Year 2000
Upgrade Proposal with the Governing Law and
venue being in the State of Virginia so that the Y2K
upgrade can be scheduled and installed in a timely
manner, as recommended by staff.
MARCH 16, 1999
/.S
COPY OF AMENDMENT&ON FILE IN THE
OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD
•
•
11.C. ADMINISTRATION BUILDING SPACE NEEDS STUDY -
SPILLIS CANDELA & PARTNERS, INC. -
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of March 10, 1999:
TO: Board of County Commissioners
DATE: March 10, 1999
SUBJECT: Administration Building Space Needs
.—.�—_
FROM: James E. CU
County Administrator
The firm of Spillis Candela and Partners, Inc. has completed the administration building
space needs and master plan study.
At the March 16, 1999 meeting, Mr. Don Dwore will present the study findings and
recommendations. He will also be prepared to discuss the prior analysis of the Vero Mall.
As the Board is aware, funding for any administration building project has not been
budgeted to date. Therefore, the study will be presented on the 16th for information, discussion,
and general direction. Funding for any project will be considered when the Optional Sales Tax
Program is presented to the Board in approximately two months.
Don Dwore, architect and partner in Spillis Candela & Partners, Inc. gave a brief
presentation on the Space Needs Study utilizing the following:
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Introduction
The Indian River County BOCC is considering the design and construction of a new facility to
house its main administrative departments and commission chambers. The primary planning
considerations are functionality, efficiency, flexibility and affordability.
Establishment of Need
The SCP planning team was hired in mid 1998 to take an objective and highly analytical
approach to projecting future growth for the Indian River County Administration.
In our approach to this task, SCP utilized the University of Florida's population growth
projections to year 2000 and 2020 for the State of Florida. For Indian River County, these
projections show an increase from the 1997 base population of 104,605 to 111,411 in 2000
(growth of 6.5%), and an additional increase to 154,089 in 2020 (growth of 39.3%). Indian River
County's Planning Department does use the University of Florida's projections.
Our planning team projected growth for all Indian River County's Administrative Departments
that will reside in the new facility. It should be noted that 3 departments — Fire Service,
Emergency Medical Services and Environmental Health employee are not currently located in the
existing Administrative Building on 25' Street and are projected to be located in the new facility.
MARCH 16, 1999
-79- BOOK 103 PAGE 69
I
BOOK 0PAGE 6'�J
The departments scheduled to occupy the new administrative facility have 264 positions as of
November 1998. The departments are expected to grow to 319 positions by move in date of
2001 and to 378 positions by 2010. This growth of staff from 1998 (264 positions) to year 2010
(378 positions) is an increase of 43%. The departments scheduled to occupy the purchasing
facility have 16 positions as of November 1998. The departments are expected to grow to 20
positions by move in date of 2001 and to 23 positions by 2010.
Indian River county agencies currently occupy approximately 82,000 GSF in the existing County
administration building, as well as approximately 4,300 GSF in off-site space for Fire, E.M.S., and
Environmental Health. Remodeled from its prior use as a hospital, the existing building is
overcrowded and substandard in the quantity and in the quality of its environment. Several
studies completed prior to the current program have attested to the inadequate conditions of the
existing building, and have projected significant ongoing costs for the repair of an aging HVAC
system. The existing facilities provide 329 GSF per person, which is substandard for similar
facilities in the State of Florida.
The combination of two essential factors — the inadequacy of the existing building and the overall
growth of the county's service demands — established the need for a new building to serve Indian
River County.
Using industry standards, data from comparable projects either recently completed or underway
in nearby Florida counties, and data gathered from staff as to minimum projected need, the
program indicates a space need of 163,980 GSF to accommodate the requirements of an up to
date county administration building through 2010. This figure includes all common amenities,
support areas, a conference center, and the commission chamber itself. The increase in space
requirements results from a combination of pure growth in staff numbers, driven by population
increase and internal pressure, as well as from a correction of the insufficient and inefficient
current space situation and inadequate quality of the environment. The new facility will provide
approximately 434 SF per person, which is appropriate for an administrative facility in counties of
similar size in the State of Florida.
This program anticipates the predominant use of open office space planning techniques, which
maximize efficiency, while maintaining flexibility for change and insuring a greater degree of
visibility and openness of the floor. Care was taken to eliminate duplication of services wherever
possible, and to encourage multiple use and sharing of conferencing infrastructure of the
building. Using industry standard models and historical data from similar projects, the program
employs an average 1.2 multiplier from usable to gross areas, implying an approximate efficiency
of 83.33% in the resulting building. This percentage will be tested during the next design phase
(schematic design). It will either be slightly lower or slightly higher, depending on the
configuration of the building. In comparison, the existing administrative facility has an efficiency
of approximately 69.9%.
Goals of the Program
Spillis Candela & Partners, Inc. prepared a program which through interviews, analysis and
benchmarking of other comparable county administrative complexes throughout the state of
Florida, established the appropriate requirements for a new facility for the County. The program
was developed to satisfy the needs of the County, through the year 2010, with a move in date
established as 2001.
The purpose of this program update or verification is to determine the County's staff and work
volume growth projections and facility requirements. These projections and facility requirements
will form the basis of the criteria for the design and development of a new county administrative
building and purchasing/buildings & grounds/probation facility. An earlier program dated 1991
was used only as a guide, as many new components now exist and some components
programmed in 1991 no longer exist.
To obtain the necessary data, Spillis Candela & Partners developed a Facilities Program
Management Questionnaire which was distributed to and completed by many representatives of
the County's administrative departments. SCP conducted interviews of key staff at the existing
office building and at other locations in Vero Beach. SCP also conducted walkthroughs of office
areas of the existing facilities to gain familiarity with the current work environment.
While completing the questionnaires, SCP interviewed the individual areas to: (1) verify and
validate the data included in the questionnaire (quantitative information); (2) identify specific
issues which may affect the efficient operation of these areas (qualitative information). SCP then
compiled the information obtained from the questionnaire which had been validated during the
interviews.
The completed questionnaires were reviewed by SCP personnel and incorporated in the 1998
program document called the Staff and Space Summary.
MARCH 169 1999
-sa
Programming Methodology
Staff net space requirements were derived from the growth projections and existing standards
utilized -by Indian River County and many other counties of similar size throughout the state of
Florida. Support spaces were tested in diagrammatic form to establish the area (net square foot)
requirements for these spaces.
Other key areas such as the conference center and food service (breakroom) were developed in
diagrammatic form allowing for equipment, staff and circulation requirements.
Common amenities were developed by a process similar to that used for other key areas, utilizing
diagrams presented to and reviewed by the County. The diagram which best represented the
program requirements established the net square foot allocation in the program.
Building support spaces were sized by establishing criteria for population count and mix for
restroom facilities, capacity, size and level of redundancy for machinery and equipment spaces
and by applying historical knowledge of other projects of similar size and complexity for
maintenance areas.
Circulation, the net to usable (circulation) area factor was derived by applying historical
knowledge of other projects of similar size and complexity. This factor was adjusted or deleted
where internal circulation was already accounted for in the diagram for certain spaces. The
factor used was 1.35 x net SF.
Usable to gross area factor was derived by applying historical knowledge of other projects of
similar size and complexity. This factor was reasonably constant throughout the program spaces.
The factor used was 1.2 x department net equals GSF. This factor results in a building that is
approximately 83.3% efficient versus the existing building which is approximately 69.9%
efficient.
Conclusions
Staff Projections (both buildings):
:I As of calendar year 1998, the county staff count is 280; 264 will be housed in the
administrative building while 16 will be located in the purchasing building.
o As of calendar year 2001, move -in, the county staff count is projected to be 339; 319 will be
housed in this administrative building while 20 will be located in the purchasing building.
ZI As of calendar year 2010, the county staff count is projected to be 401; 378 will be housed in
the administrative building while 23 will be located in the purchasing building.
Building Area:
The new Administrative Office and Purchasing/Buildings and Grounds/Probation Facility will
contain a County Commission Chamber and office space for each Commissioner, Supervisor of
Elections, Property Appraiser, Clerk of Circuit Courts, Clerk to the BOCC, County Administrator,
and County Attorney. Office space is also provided for the departments of General Services,
Public Works, Emergency Services, Management and Budget, Risk Management, Community
Development (Planning and Building Divisions), Personnel, Utility Services, Data Processing, as
well as other County functions. Common amenities and building support spaces comprise the
remainder of the building. The Purchasing Department, Buildings and Grounds and Probation
Facility will house space for these departments, as well as file storage space for other
departments.
The total gross square footage of the two components, the Administrative Building (163,980 SF)
and the Purchasing/Buildings and Grounds/Probation Building (27,985 SF) is 191,965 GSF.
Included in the total gross square footage is an allowance of approximately 8% for
mechanical/electrical spaces, 35% for departmental circulation and 20% for building items such
as building skin, elevators, stairs, interior columns, etc.
Master Planning
SCP looked at many options for master planning the new facilities. Initially, 8 to 10 scenarios
were studied for positioning the buildings on the site. Vehicular and pedestrian traffic
buildings "front door" as approached by vehicles and pedestrians wconsiderations were studied. Flexibility and expansion capabilities were also consideredas critical to the. The
establishment of the site plan. Of the many scenarios studied, SCP presented 3 of the most viable
solutions to the County for review in early November. The final master plan presented in this
document is the result of the comments received at the November meeting and the subsequent
design effort.
The proposal seeks to create a new civic neighborhood of public buildings by placing the new
county administration building between 26h and 27"' Streets north of the existing county
administration building, with access from the north and the south. In the first phase public access
is provided to the main entrance of the building on the south from 18' avenue, linking the new
building's entrance to the existing building's entrance. This approach will serve both as public
and ceremonial access for citizens coming to seek services in the building as well as those
visiting the commission chambers. Surface parking is proposed immediately to the west of the
N.
MARCH 169 1999
-81- BOOK i0C' PAGE 696
I
r—
BOOK 103 FAGE 697
building adjacent to a drive that links 18"' Avenue north 27"' Street to 180 street south of 26'°
street. A public plaza with reflecting pool and fountain is proposed at the intersection of the two
main building volumes to establish an appropriate scale and character for the main public
building in Indian River County. Public parking will occur west of the new building in surface
lots.
Employee parking will occur west of the public parking and north of 27' Street in surface lots.
The north lot will also provide parking and access for the warehouse facility sited directly north
of the proposed administration building. Employee entrance to the administration building will
occur from the north through the same lobby used by the public coming from the south.
Even though it is only a good guess at this time, the planning team felt it was appropriate to show
where, when and how much future expansion space will be required beyond the year 2010.
Shown as Phase II in this report is an administrative addition of 40,000 SF (two stories) west of the
Phase I Building. When this addition is built beyond 2010, its square footage will require an
additional 120 parking spaces. Also, sixty-five cars displaced by the new construction, must be
replaced. The total of 185 spaces will be built in the northern surface lot as shown in the Phase II
site plan.
Parking Calculations
Phase I
Proposed Phase I Administration Building.
-163,980 GSF @ 3 spaces/1000 SF = 492 spaces required.
Proposed Purchasing/Buildings and Grounds/Probation Building
-27,985 GSF @ 3 spaces/1000 SF = 84 spaces required.
Total Parking Required 576 spaces
Total Parking Provided 576 spaces
Phase II
Phase I Administration Bldg. 163,980 GSF = 492 space required.
Phase If Administration Bldg. 40,000 GSF = 120 spaces required.
Purchasing/Buildings and Grounds/Probation Building = 84 spaces required.
Total Parking Required - 696 spaces.
Total Parking Provided — 696 spaces
Prior to completing this master planning task, Indian River County asked the planning team to
evaluate the vacant Vero Mall to ascertain whether or not it could be utilized as the County
Administrative Facility. The planning team believes the vacant mall is inappropriate for
conversion to the County Administrative Facility. That study is included as Appendix A with this
report.
MARCH 16, 1999
_g2_
•
•
Building Cost — Phase I
The total construction cost for Phase I is $21,050,614.00, or $109.65/SF
The total pro'ect cost for Phase I is $26,531,747.00, or $138.21/SF
Phase I
Administration Building
163,980 SF na
$ 110
$ 18,037,800
Purchasing/Buildings & Grounds/
Probation Building
27,985 SF ®
$ 55
= $ 1,539,175
Surface Parking
576 spaces w
$ 750
= $ 432,000
Other Site Improvements/
Demolition
10 acres 0
$ 75,000
= $ 750,000
Bridges Over Canal
2 each ®
$150,000
= S 300,000
Subtotal
$ 21,058,975
Savings of 2% on sales tax
(County purchased materials)
S - 421,118
Subtotal
$ 20,637,857
Escalation to Mid 1999 Const. Start
2%
412.7S7
Total Construction
$ 21,050,614
Moveable Equipment & Furniture
$ 1,052,530
(1/2 of FFE is existing to be reused)
5%
Land Acquisition
$ 850,000
Design Fees, Surveys, Geotech
9%
$ 1,894,555
Permits, Inspections
3%
$ 631,518
Owner Contingency
S%
I052
Total Phase I
$ 26,531,747
MARCH 16, 1999
-83—
BOOK iJ FSG o
F_
•
BOOK 103 PAGE 609
Building Cost — Phase 11
The total construction cost for Phase II is $6,872,764.00, or $171.82/SF
The total project cost for Phase II is $8,878,440.00, or $221.96/SF
Phase 1
Administration Expansion
40,000 SF @
$ 110
= $
4,400,000
Surface Parking
185 spaces @
$ 750
= $
138,750
(65 spaces -replacement)
Site Demo & Rework
1 allow @
$100,000
= $
100,000
Occupied Site Cost Premium
1 allow @
$300,000
= $ 300.000
Subtotal
$
4,938,750
Savings of 2% on sales tax
( County purchased materials)
$
- 98,775
Subtotal
$
4,839,975
* Escalation to 2010 Const. Start
42%
2.032.789
(3.5% per for 12 years)
Total Construction
$
6,872,764
Moveable Equipment & Furniture
10%
$
687,276
Land Acquisition
$
150,000
Design Fees, Surveys, Geotech
9%
$
618,549
Permits, Fees, Inspections
3%
$
206,183
Owner Contingency
5%
$ 343.638
Total Phase II
$
8,878,410
• Note: This phase of construction has been escalated to year 2010 —12 years into the future.
MARCH 16, 1999
-84-
0
- =r
,
11111111.
r +
IL
f r.
J 'S
U
r.�'
! �
Z
_ a d T ..—
'
� � 5� � � � \� \ « w\�.\j �� \
loan
Wo"
n.
raw
INN
� � 5� � � � \� \ « w\�.\j �� \
loan
Wo"
n.
raw
............
� � 5� � � � \� \ « w\�.\j �� \
loan
Wo"
•
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY ADMINISTRATIVE BUILDING SPILLIS CANDELA & PARTNERS, INC. DATE: 12.15.98
PHASE I SITE PLAN PAGE 1.10
00
Y--
r
3
c.
1
n��} ��
Lr
v �7'' '�, t
� -� 1
., c :r t i•t-•'
Vf
}
- \
L
I
1
f �
L
.♦ t �
�� J� e1
I1117
1
1
l /
^ \
I
f
Mr. Dwore commented that his firm's original task was twofold; first to do a study
of space needs to serve the County until 2010, and second to create a master plan using lands
available just north of the present administration building. They proceeded, keeping in view
how little money was available and how much needs to be done. After several discussions
with user groups, the original square footage arrived at was 188,000 for the administration
building and 35,000 for purchasing. That number was then reduced and the basic square
footage needed for the year 2001 is 155,000. For the year 2010 the County will need
approximately 163,980 square feet. This is a very modest increase in view of the fact that
the present facility has only 82,000 square feet. The current administration building was
built in the early 1960s and converted in 1982. It has served the County well but needs an
awful lot of work as it lacks safety, ADA compliance, and an adequate HVAC system. It
would cost approximately $65 to $70 per square foot to bring this building into compliance
and you would still have only 82,000 square feel~ The proposal for the new "Campus"
establishes costs at $110 a square foot for the administration building and $55 a square foot
for the purchasing division. The subtotal for Phase I of the projected plan of over $21
million could possibly be reduced by some savings on having the County purchase materials
directly.
In response to questions, Mr. Dwore gave a brief explanation of the differences
between "flat" and "pitched" roofs. His firm always installs concrete walkways on roofs for
maintenance workers to prevent damage resulting in leaks. He also confirmed that the
Utilities Department would have a drive-through for utility payments.
General discussion ensued regarding traffic patterns, effects on neighboring
communities, and the seating capacity of the planned Commission Chambers.
County Administrator Chandler then commented that this plan is a generalized
"footprint". The actual design would be much more detailed. First, fimding would have to
be considered and that will be brought to the Board at the time of the discussion of the
optional sales tax program in approximately 2 months. At this time staff is asking whether
or not to proceed with the planning.
Commissioner Tippin was impressed with the space needs study but reminded the
Board that the use of the Vero Mall had never been voted against. He believed that the
projected cost to redo the Mall was excessive and that it could be done for less.
MARCH 16, 1999
-89- BOOK 103 FAGE 1 U4
BOOK 10i PAGE 705
Commissioner Adams noted that the renovation of the old courthouse building was
considerably less expensive than originally estimated due, in park to the excellent
construction of some of these old buildings. However, the old Mall was not built to those
standards and the County will need something to last at least 50 to 75 years. She also felt
that it would be imprudent to move the administration complex further south when most of
the movement in the County is to the west and the north. She also would not like to remove
a prime commercial property from the tax rolls.
Commissioner Stanbridge noted that she has also dealt with old buildings but you
have to go back a long way to get structurally sound buildings. She also looked at the Mall
and checked with several local architects who feel that the structure is not compatible with
the County's needs and would probably lead to some of the same problems we are having
now in this building. She asked whether it would be a cost savings to possibly move some
departments that could stand on their own into separate buildings, and Mr. Dwore responded
that the cheapest building is the most compact.
Commissioner Grin felt that renovation of the Mall was expensive for a rapidly
deteriorating site. She wanted to put off any decisions until after the discussions on the
optional sales tax and noted that there are a great many other pressing needs.
Commissioner Adams believed the Board owes it to the public and to themselves to
make a decision about the Mall.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Adams,
SECONDED by Commissioner Grin, the Board, by
a 3-2 vote (Commissioners Tippin and Stanbridge
opposed) authorized staff to proceed with the project
after dealing with the issue of the funds when
discussing the optional sales tax issues, and excluded
the old Vero Mall from any further consideration.
COPY OF SPACE NEEDS STUDY IS ON FILE IN TBE
OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO TBE BOARD
Commissioner Tippin briefly left the Chambers.
MARCH 16, 1999
11.G.1. GIFFORD PARK PICNIC PAVILION -JIM WRIGHT
CONSTRUCTION - FINAL PAYMENT - PROJECT 9424A
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of March 4, 1999:
TO:
James Chandler
County Administrator
THROUGH:
James W. Davis, P.E.
Public Works Director
�-
Terry B. Thompson, P'E
Capital Projects Manage
FROM:
G. Sean McGuire, P.E.
Project Engineer
(�
SUBJECT:
Gifford Park Picnic Pavilion
Project No. 9424A
Final Payment
DATE:
March 4, 1999
Jim Wright Construction, Inc. has requested and is entitled to
Final Payment and Release of Retainage on this contract. All work
has been satisfactorily completed, a Certificate of Occupancy has
been issued by the Building Department, and all contractually
required close-out documents have been submitted.
Staff recommends that the Board authorize Final Payment and Release
of Retainage in the amount of $2,780.00.
Funding is from account #315-210-572-068.03.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Grin, SECONDED
by Commissioner Stanbridge, the Board, by a 4-0
vote (Commissioner Tippin being absent)
unanimously approved final payment and release of
retainage in the amount of $2,780 to Jim Wright
Construction, Inc., as recommended by staff.
MARCH 16, 1999
COPIES OF DOCUMENTS WILL BE ON FILE
IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO TAE BOARD
WHEN EXECUTED AND RECEIVED
-91- BOOK PAGE 706
BOOK 103 FAGS ~9 N
11.G.2. PAVED SHOULDERS AND RESURFACING OF 58TH
AVENUE FROM 69TH STREET TO CR -510 - JOINT
PARTICIPATION AGREEMENT WITH FLORIDA DEPARTMENT
OF TRANSPORTATION - REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL DEPOSIT
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of March 8, 1999:
TO: James Chandler, County Administrator
FROM: James W. Davis, P.E., Public Works Director C�g
SUBJECT: Joint Participation Agreement (JPA #4125357) with Florida Department of
Transportation - Paved Shoulders and Resurfacing of 58th Avenue from 69*
Street to CR 510 - Request for Additional Deposit
DATE: March 8, 1999
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
On October 27, 1998 the Board of County Commissioners approved Resolution No. 98-120
authorizing participation with the FDOT for the above mentioned road improvements. Also,
executed by Chairman Tippin on October 27, 1998 was a Memorandum of Agreement, dated
November 23, 1998 (attached), stating Indian River County would make an initial deposit in the
amount of $120,000 and according to Item No. 2. "Other deposits will be made by the Participant
as necessary to cover the cost of additional work...".
In a Memorandum (FAX) dated March 8, 1999 from Teresa Martin, D4 Contractual Services
Coordinator, FDOT (attached), an additional $5,000.00 deposit is being requested. Bids received
came in higher than anticipated. A breakdown of the Bid Items and Unit Costs is shown on the
Memorandum justifying the additional deposit.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Staff recommends the Board of County Commissioners approve the request for an additional
$5,000.00 deposit for JPA # 4125357. Funding to be from Fund 109 Secondary Road Construction
account number 109-214-541-067.36.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Stanbridge,
SECONDED by Commissioner Adams, the Board,
by a 4-0 vote (Commissioner Tippin being absent)
unanimously approved the request for an additional
$5,000 deposit for JPA #4125357, as recommended
by staff.
DOCUMENTS WILL -BE ON FILE IN THE OFFICE
OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD
WHEN EXECUTED AND RECEIVED —
MARCH 16, 1999
11.G.3. JOINT INDIAN RIVER COUNTY/SCHOOL DISTRICT
FLEET MANAGEMENT COMFLEXIEUELING DEFOUBUS
STORAGE AND RELATED FACILITIES - LAND ACQUISITION -
ANNETTE R. ROBERTS, TRUSTEE - HANSEN ENGINEERS
(CONTINUED FROM MEETING OF MARCH 9, 1999)
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of March 3, 1999:
TO: James E. Chandler,
County Administrator
FROM: James W. Davis, P.E.qCo=t
Public works Directo
SUBJECT: Joint Indian River School District of Indian River
County Fleet Management Complex/Fueling Depot/Bus Storage and
Related Facilities - Land Acquisition
DATE: March 3, 1999
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 41.4
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 41" 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.
MARCH 16, 1999
1-1
-93- BOOK lu 3 NAGE 708
r
IBOOK 103 PAGE 79
AL==TnZ9 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.
RSCOMIMMATIONS AND FONDINO
Staff recommends Alternative No. l.whereby the Option Agreement is
approved. Funding to be by School District and County (Local
Option Sales Tax).
Commissioner Ginn felt that $10,000 for an option seems excessive for this parcel.
Brian Heady was recognized by the Chair and commented that he had several points
to raise before the County goes forward with this purchase. He believed that the School
Board took action based on incorrect information that the Board of County Commissioners
had already taken action on this matter.
Commissioner Ginn questioned how that could be corrected, and County Attorney
Vitunac responded that the Board could make any action conditional on the School Board's
action.
Mr. Heady then commented on a DEP report stating that the landfill is causing
groundwater contamination on acreage south of Gifford Road. He believed that no one had
ever notified the residents in that area of the groundwater contamination. He also noted that
the DEP had directed the owner of the landfill to take action to abate the problem.
County Administrator Chandler responded that the County has been working on this
problem for 5 or 6 years and has spent several hundred thousand dollars on the situation.
The residential areas were notified and County water was extended to those residences. The
landfill goes back to the 1960s and 1970s and the problems have been very publicly
addressed for many years.
Utilities Director Don Hubbs advised that this program has been ongoing for a number
of years. Staff will be reviewing the process soon and will bring the matter back to the
Board shortly thereafter.
MARCH 16, 1999
-94-
•
0
Public Works Director Jim Davis commented that this property is west of the active
landfill. The groundwater movement in Florida is from the west and northwest to the
southeast and there is no leachate to this particular 25 acres.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Adams,
SECONDED by Commissioner Stanbridge, the
Board, by a 4-0 vote (Commissioner Tippin being
absent) unanimously approved the Option
Agreement with Annette R Roberts, Trustee, as
recommended by staff.
DOCUMENTS ARE ON FILE IN THE OFFICE
OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD
Commissioner Tippin returned to the Chambers.
11.GA SOUTH COUNTY PARK SECURITY - SHERIFF'S
SARGEANT MARK SMITH
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of March 10, 1999:
TO: James E. Chandler,
County Administrator
FROM: James W. Davis, P.E., ^I
Public Works Director
SUBJECT: Security for South County Park
DATE: March 10, 1999
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
The Parks and Recreation Committee and County staff have been
concerned about vandalism in County Parks. The School District and
City of Vero Beach allow law enforcement personnel to reside at or
near the parks and schools, similar to the County's arrangement at
the Fairgrounds. As a result of our search for a law enforcement
person to reside at South County Park, Gifford Park, and Round
Island Park, Sgt. Mark Smith has indicated that he would be willing
to purchase a mobile home to be placed at the park if the County
will provide a septic tank, water service, electrical service,
permits, etc. The cost of the utility accommodation is
approximately $10,000.
MARCH 169 1999
U�
-95- BOOK
t
BOOK M PAGE Iii
RECOMMENDATIONS AND FUNDING
During the March 4, 1999 Parks and Recreation Committee meeting,
the Committee unanimously recommended (6-0) that the Board expend
up to $10,000 to prepare a site at South County Park for a
Sheriff's Deputy to install a mobile home at South County Park.
Funding is recommended from General Fund Contingency.
Commissioner Ginn was completely opposed to placing mobile homes on these park
properties as they are very unattractive and she did not believe the presence of the deputy
prevents crime.
Commissioner Adams responded that the presence of the deputy cannot prevent all
crime but it has been proven to save significant dollars in vandalism. The vandalism at
Hobart Park has dropped to almost zero since a deputy moved there.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Adams,
SECONDED by Commissioner Tippin, the Board,
by a 4-1 vote (Commissioner Ginn being opposed)
approved expending up to $10,000 to prepare a site
at South County Park for Sheriff's Deputy Mark
Smith to install a mobile home, as recommended by
staff.
11.G.5. ARTIFICIAL REEF GRANT AGREEMENT OFMAS-122 -
FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION -
ARTIFICIAL FISHING REEF PROGRAM
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of March 5, 1999:
TO: James E. Chandler,
County Administrator
THROUGH: James W. Davis, P.E.,
Public Works Director
FROM: Jeffrey R. Tabar, P.E.,
Coastal Engineer
SUBJECT: Artificial Reef Grant Agreement OFMAS-122
with Florida Department of Environmental Protection
DATE: March 5, 1999 -
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
The County has been awarded an Artificial Reef Grant from the
Florida Department of Environmental protection (FDEP). The amount
MARCH 169 1999
•
•
for the grant is $25,000 to deploy 1,000 tons of concrete railroad
ties offshore of Sebastian Inlet in four (4) reef site locations.
All locations are approximately nine miles offshore and at water
depths ranging from 55 to 73 feet. These reefs will be used to
enhance recreational fishing, SCUBA diving and aquatic research
opportunities for the local community.
ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS
Upon review of the agreement, a request was made to extend the
completion date an additional six (6) months. This request was
made in response to receiving the agreement late from the FDEP.
Initially, it was understood that the agreement would be received
by June 30, 1998, which would have allowed one (1) year to process
and execute. However, the agreement was not received by County
staff until December 16, 1998 (6 months late).
As a result, staff has contacted the FDEP to revise the agreement
in order to expedite the process. Subsequently, the FDEP was
unable to authorize a time extension, however, staff was able to
negotiate a revision of the agreement to streamline the bid
process. The FDEP has dropped the requirement for a formal sealed
competitive bidding process (paragraph 37 of the agreement) and
will allow the County to solicit written quotes from five area
contractors. (Ref. letter to Jeff Tabar from Jon Dodrill dated Feb.
25, 1999) This will enable the work to be completed prior to the
June 30, 1999 deadline.
The alternatives are as follows:
Alternative No. 1
Approve the Artificial Reef Grant Agreement for $25,000 on a cost
reimbursement basis and authorize an emergency to waive the formal
bidding procedure. Funding to be from the Beach Preservation Fund.
Alternative No. 2
Deny the Artificial Reef Grant Agreement.
RECOPIIK ORATIONS AND FUNDING
Staff recommends approval of Alternative No. 1 whereby approving
Grant Agreement No. OFFMAS-122 and authorizing an emergency to
waive the formal bidding procedure. Funding to be from the Beach
Restoration Fund.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Adams,
SECONDED by Commissioner Grin, the Board
unanimously approved Artificial Reef Grant
Agreement No. OFMAS-122 and authorized an
emergency to waive the formal bidding procedure, as
recommended by staff.
MARCH 16, 1999
GRANT AGREEMENT IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE
OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD
-97- BOOK .d. PAGE72
r
BOOK 103 PAGE7A
11.H.1. RFP #9037 -MASTER PLANNING CONSULTANT
(ENGINEER OF RECORD) - POST. BUCKLEY, SCHUH &
JERNIGAN
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of March 5, 1999:
DATE: MARCH 5, 1999
TO: JAMES E. CHANDLER
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
THRU: DONALD R. HUBBS, P.ELEI DIRECTOR OF UTILITY
FROM: MICHAEL C. HOTCHKISS, P.E. %%I/t-
ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEER
SUBJECT: MASTER PLANNING CONSULTANT
RFP #9037
The Department of Utility Services requires the services of a registered professional engineer to
serve as the Master Planning Consultant engineer of record on a regular basis. These services are
needed to address the following at a minimum:
1. Corridor analysis
2. Regulatory constraints implemented since previous plans completed
3. Review time and trigger events for capital project implementation
4. Capital costs to reflect 1997/1998 costs
5. Land use changes/population projections
6. Hydraulic modeling for water and sewer systems
Brown & Caldwell has been the Utility master planning engineering consultant for the past six
years. In an effort to update the existing Master Plan, the Department of Utility Services issued a
Request for Proposals to qualified firms. The RFP was issued in December with a response
deadline of 2:00 p.m., January 19, 1999. The following firms fully and adequately responded:
1. Boyle Engineering
2. Lindahl, Browning, Ferrari, Hellstrom, Inc.
3. Philip Utilities
4. Camp, Dresser & McKee
5. Brown & Caldwell
6. Montgomery Watson
7. Hartman & Associates
8. Post, Buckley, Schuh & Jernigan, Inc.
The selection Committee consisting of the below listed County sta$ reviewed the responses
from the eight firms and on February 12, 1999 short-listed the above referenced eight to the
below referenced four firms for interview:
Selection Committee Members
1. Donald Hubbs, Utilities Director
2. Jeff Smith, Assistant Utilities Director
3. Mike Hotchkiss, Utilities Engineer
4. Gene Rauth, Operations Manager
5. Stan Boling, Planning Director
Firms Short-listed for Interview
1. Post, Buckley, Schuh & Jernigan, Inc.
2. Lindahl, Browning, Ferrari & Hellstrom, Inc. _
3. Camp, Dresser & McKee, Inc.
4. Brown & Caldwell
MARCH 169 1999
The four short-listed firms were formally interviewed by the selection committee on March 5,
1999. At the conclusion of the interviews the selection committee reviewed the presentations and
developed the following order of preference for Master Planning Consultant Services on a
continuing basis:
1. Post, Buckley, Schuh & Jernigan, Inc.
2. Camp, Dresser & McKee, Inc.
3. Lindahl, Browning, Ferrari & Hellstrom, Inc.
4. Brown & Caldwell
Department of Utility Services staff recommends and requests the Board's approval to develop
and finalize a continuing services contract with Post, Buckley, Schuh & Jernigan, Inc. as
recommended by the selection committee. The scope of services will be for Master Planning
Consultant services as outlined in RFP #9037. Once a contract is finalized it will be presented to
the Board for consideration.
ONMOnON by Commissioner Ginn, SECONDED
by Commissioner Stanbridge, the Board
unanimously authorized staffto develop and finalize
a continuing services contract with Post, Buckley,
Schuh & Jernigan, Inc. for Master Planning
Consultant Services as outlined in FRP #9037, as
recommended by the selection committee, as
recommended by staff.
FINAL CONTRACT WILL BE PRESENTED TO
THE BOARD FOR CONSIDERATION
11.H.2. UTILITY CHLORINATION SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS -
GLACE & RADCLIFFE
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of February 26, 1999:
DATE: FEBRUARY 26, 1999
TO: JAMES E. CHANDLER
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
FROM: DONALD R. HUBBS, P.. 1 1�
DIRECTOR OF UTILITY S CES
PREPARED AND GENE A RAUTH 6.41 z -
STAFFED BY: OPERATIONS MANAGER
SUBJECT: UTILITY CHLORINATION SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS
BACKGROUND
On December 12, 1998, the Board of County Commissioners considered an agenda item for the above
subject matter. During that meeting, the Board approved staffs recommendation to fast-track the Risk
MARCH 16, 1999
-99- BOOK PACE""a
r
BOOK 103 FAGE 7.x.5
Management Plan (RMP) development, with further approval subject to submission, to the Board, of the
appropriate work authorizations and agreements (see attached copy of agenda item). As pointed out in
the earlier agenda item, the preparation and submittal of RMP's for all ten of the Utility's facilities, as
required by EPA, are due to the EPA no later than June 21, 1999.
The Board previously approved an agenda item on January 12, 1999, for the assistance in the preparation
of RMP's by the County's water consultant Camp Dresser & McKee, Inc. (CDM) (see attached agenda
item dated 1/12/99). Under this agreement, as the County's water consultant, CDM will be utilized to
assist with the RMP preparation for the County's two Reverse Osmosis Water Treatment Plants. At the
present time the Central Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant and the South Regional Wastewater
Treatment Plant are under expansions. To ensure an efficient preparation of the RMP for both plants, the
Engineer of record for both plant expansions, Camp Dresser & McKee, Inc. will be utilized for providing
assistance in the RMP preparation.
ANALYSIS
At this time, Department of Utility Services staff is requesting approval for assistance in the preparation
of RMP's for the remaining six wastewater plants, not covered under the CDM work authorization.
Assistance would be provided by the County's wastewater consultant Glace & Radcliffe, Inc.
Proposed Risk Management Plan Assistance
Camp, Dresser & McKee, Inc.
North Regional RO Water Treatment Plant
South Regional RO Water Treatment Plant
Central Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant
South Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant
Glace & Radcliffe, Inc.
North Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant
West Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant
Vista Royal Wastewater Treatment Plant
Vista Gardens Wastewater Treatment Plant
Sea Oaks Wastewater Treatment Plant
Blue Cypress Wastewater Treatment Plant
Department of Utility Services staff is requesting approval of Work Authorization No. 1 with Glace &
Radcliffe, Inc., the County's wastewater consultant, to assist in the preparation of RMP's for the six
fisted wastewater treatment plants. The upper limit of Work Authorization No. 1 is in the amount of
$6,007.00.
RECOMMENDATION
Department of Utility Services staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners approve the
attached Work Authorization No. 1, with Glace & Radcliffe, Inc., with the upper limit amount of
$6,007.00.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Ginn, SECONDED
by Commissioner Adams, the Board unanimously
approved Work Authorization No. 1 with Glace &
Radcliffe, Inc. With the upper limit amount of
$6,007, as recommended by staff.
MARCH 16, 1999
WORK AUTHORIZATION IS ON FILE IN THE
OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD
-100-
12.A. AND R SUM ERPLACE SEAWALL SETTLEMENT AND
INTERIM AGREEMENT AND MEMORANDUM OF
AGREEMENT (MOA) FOR DEVELOPMENT OF
HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN FOR SEA
TURTLES - (SEA TURTLE SURVIVAL LEAGUE VS.
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY - WNG /PARVUS
/MCCOY /SIMPSON /STRAND /TRIMARCHE
/GERSTNER) CARIBBEAN CONSERVATION
CORP. - DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of March 10, 1999; letters of March 11, 1999;
March 12, 1999; March 15,1999; and information regarding the Section 10 Permit Process:
TO: James E. Chandler,
County Administrator
THROUGH: James W. Davis, P.E.
Public Works Director
FROM: Jeffrey R. Tabar, P.E.
Coastal Engineer /
SUBJECT: Revised Interim Agreement and Memorandum of Agreement (MOA)
for the Development of a Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) for
Sea Turtles
DATE: March 10, 1999
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
During the Board of County Commissioners regular meeting on
March 2, 1999, the Board reviewed and commented on the proposed
Interim Agreement and Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) pertaining to
the County's obligation to perform a Habitat Conservation Plan
as a settlement to pending litigation. The Board recommended to
continue communications with the Florida Department of
Environmental Protection (FDEP) to revise the agreements to include
the following items:
1) Increase the State contribution to 755 and decrease County
contribution to 25* to fund the proposed Habitat Conservation
Plan (HCP) .
2) The agreements shall include the Gerstner seawall located at
2035 Surfside Terrace, Vero Beach, FL. 32963.
3) The proposed HCP shall include the entire County shoreline
including Federal, State and County property.
4) The agreements shall indicate that the FDEP has no objection
to the County asking to include past purchases of oceanfront
property as mitigation.
MARCH 169 1999
-101-
BOOK 108 FAGS.
I
BOOK 103 FAcE L
ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS
The FDEP has indicated that they will honor the County's above
requests.
The alternatives are as follows:
Alternative No. 1
Approve the Interim Agreement and Memorandum of Agreement
as amended above; and commit to paying 25% of the cost to
develop the Habitat Conservation Plan. Funding to be
from the Beach Preservation fund. The cost consequences
once the HCP is complete is not known at this time.
Alternative No. 2
Deny the Interim Agreement and Memorandum of Agreement;
and contend with the pending litigation.
RECOMMMATIONS AND FUNDING
Staff recommends approval of Alternative No. 1 whereby the
Chairman is authorized to sign the revised Interim Agreement &
Memorandum Of Agreement and commit 25% of the cost to develop the
proposed Habitat Conservation Plan. Funding to be from the Beach
Preservation fund.
Department of
Environmental Protection
Marjory Stoneman Couglas auildina
lob Bush 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Dared 6 Sv„h
Gowmw Tallahassee. Florida 32399-3000
March 11, 1999
By FAX and U.S. Mail
Commissioner Fran Adams
1840 25th Street
Vero Beach, Florida 32960
Charles Vitunac, Esq.
1840 25th Street
Vero Beach, Florida 32960
Jeff Tabor
Coastal Engineer
Indian River County
1840 25th Street
Vero Beach. Florida 32960
J. A. Jargons, Esq.
505 Wekiva Springs Road, Suite 800
Longwood, FL 32779
Re. Interim Apreentent and MOA
S. Ansley Samson, Esq.
P.O. Box 1329
Tallahassee, Florida 32302
Thomas G. Tomasello, Esq.
Post Office Box 15828
Tallahassee, Florida 32317-5828
David Godfrey
Caribbean Conservation Executive Director
4424 N.W. 13th Street Suite A-1
Gainesville, Florida 32609
Dear Commissioner and Interested Parties:
On March 9, 1999, Charles Viitunac, attorney for Indian River County (The County). told
me that the County wants the followMg 4 big changes to the proposed interim
settlement agreement with the Caribbean Conservation Corporation (CCC) and the six
Summerplace residents (Parvus, etc.):
1. the State (DEP) will pay 75% of the cost of the HCP proposal with no limit:
2. the agreement must include Gerstner and resolve the Gerstner v. DEP case;
3. air past County land acquisitions must count towards mitigation (County has spent
$11 M buying beeches land the past 2 yeora); and -
4. the HCP should cover all the beach front for the entire length of the County.
MARCH 16, 1999
-102-
1%i�I'il
CCC has agreed to changes 1, 2, and 4, but it will not agree to change 3. CCC will not
agree that all past land acquisitions by the County can count toward mitigation. in
exchange for agreeing to Include Gerstner, CCC wants two things. First; the settlement
must be revised to address the procedures surrounding DEP/County pre -construction
meetings on -alto to prevent future Gerstner situations (ex: DEP/County permit says
loci wall X feet from -the CCCL, applicant meets with DEP/County on-site, and after
meeting applicant builds the wall in a different place claims that DEP/County said
applicant could locate wall X+10 feet from the CCCL). Second, CCC wants the
Gerstner seawall removed or relocated landward of its existing location.
m
In response to the County's proposed changes, the Department offers the following.
1. The Department agrees to pay 75% of the cost, up to $100,000 total cost paid by the
Department.
2. The Department agrees to include Gerstner in the interim settlement agreement
subject to the same terms as the Summerplace residents, with an additional condition
that if the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) decides that it can not
approve the HCP and grant a section 10 permit because of the Gerstner seawall, then
the Gerstnem would either have to remove or relocate their wall landward or the
Gerstner seawall would be removed from the proposal to USFWS and the Department
would restart litigation against the Gerstners. Additionally, there would be a
severability provision addressing that scenario. The reason for including a provision
that could separate out the Gerstner sea wall is that it does not make sense to
jeopardize a good global settlement agreement between ten other parties just because
of one newly added party. (Note: CCUs response may conflict with the Department's
response]
3. The Department agrees that it would not object to a determination that all past land
acquisitions by the County can count toward mitigation. However. CCC has Stated that
A will not agree to this change in any form.
4. The Department agrees that the HCP submitted to USFWS will cover all the beach
front land along the entire length of Indian River County.
in response to CCC's proposed changes, the Department asks whether CCC is willing
to pay for the cost of removing the Gerstne's sea wall. The Department is willing to
consider making changes to the way it conducts pre -construction meetings, but it will
first need to see concrete, specific proposed changes
Please send your comments and responses to this letter both to M.B. Adelson and me,
because 1 may not be readily accessible soon. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Thomas I. Mayton, Jr.
Assistant General Counsel
cc: Kirby Green - DEP
Perry Odom - DEP
Dr. Devereaux - DEP
David Arnold - DEP
MARCH 16, 1999
-103-BOOK lu� PA` 718
L
drnab Ms ma", AaW Adtm,
March 12;1999
SM LEGAL
DEFENSE FUND, INC.
The Law Firm for the Enviroamestal movement
III .S• Martin "cr ling. Jr. Blvd„ TaUatasam Florida 32302
P.O. Bac 1329. Tallahame, Florida 32302
Via fax and electronic mail
Commissioner Fran Adams
.1840 25th Street
Vero Beach, Florida 32960
Fax: 561-569-4317
Charles Vitunac, Esq.
1840 25th Street
Vero Beach, Florida 32960
Fax: 561-6594317
Jeff Tabar
Coastal Engineer
Indian River County
1840 25th Street
Vero Beach, Florida 32960
Fax: 561-770-5403/778-9391
JA Jergens, Esq.
505 Wekiva Spring Road, Suite 800
Longwood, Florida 32779
Fax: 407-772-2278
Thomas G Tomasello, Esq,
P.O. Box 15828
Tallahassee, Florida 32317-5828
Fax: 850-671-2732
Thomas I. Mayton, Esq.
Department of Environmental Protection
3900 Commonwealth Building, MS -35
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000
Fax: 850413=8977
BOOK 106 PAGE 719
(9041682-00;1 FAX (404) 691-OOso
EMaiL- $dd!$olida@i"r org
M.B. Adelson, Esq.
Department of Enviroa,lututal Protection
3900 Commonwealth Building, MS -35
TWhhassee, Florida 32399-3000
Fax: 850413-8977
Perry Odom, Esq.
Department of Environmental Protection
3900 Commonwealth Building, MS -35
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000
Fax. 850-487.4938 _
Dr. Al Devereaux
Bureau of Beaches and Coastal Systems
Division of Marine Resources
Department of Environmental Protection
3900 Commonwealth Building, MS -35
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000,
Fax: 850-488-5257
David Arnold
Bureau of Protected Species
Managemend
Division of Marine Resources
Department of Environmental protection
3900 Commonwealth Building, MS -35
Tallahassee. Florida 32399-3000
Fax: 850-922-4338
Kirby Green
Deputy Secretary
Department of Environmental Protection
3900 Commonwealth Building, MS -35
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000
Fax: 850-922-1432
Dear Commissioner, regulators, and interested parties:
This letter responds to Tom Meyton's letter of yesterday afternoon. The
Caribbean Conservation Corporation ("CCC''') wants to clarify its positions on several
issues that the Department summarized in that letter.
Fust, CCC did not state that it will not agree to the County's suggested change
number 3 "in any form." The County's proposed change (as described by the
Department in yesterday's letter) would require that "ad past County land acquisitions
lm count towards mitigation (County has spent S1 IM buying beaches land the past two
years)." March 11, 1999, letter from Mayton to Interested Parties at I (emphasis added).
It is unclear where the beach land purchased is located. Clearly, if the purchased land is
not "beachfront," then it has no beuc& to marine turtles and should not be considered
mitigation for the effects of seawalls authorized by the County. CCC would accept
language stating that previous beachfront land acquisitions in Indian River County
(dating back a maximum of two years) may be considered by FWS as part of rho.
County's mitigatoryactions under the HCP. However, we would want it clearly stated
that those past acquisitions do not complete the Coumtq's commitment to carrying out
beachfront land acquisition as part of the mitigation outlined in the HCP. It should be
noted that we, the patties involved in this settlement agreement, cannot dletate to the
FWS what will and will not coin as mitigation.
On the matter of the Gerstner wall and its inclusion in the agreement, CCC
believes there is an acceptable way to resolve this issue, as we mentioned to the
Department yesterday. That would be to move the wall back to a position that minimizes
impacts to marine turtles. CCC would not have a problem (again, as we mentioned to the
Department Yesterday) with the Department paying for moving the wall back to the legal
position. Perhaps CCUs suggestion that the Department pay for the cost of relocation is
what prompted the Departotent to counter that CCC should pay for such relocation.
MARCH 16, 1999
-104-
®
Obviously, we do not agree to.that proposal. If the Department'believes that the
Gerstners should not _ for whatever reason — be held responsible for the location of their .
seawall, then the Department, the responsible government agency, should pay to move
that wall back to a location legal under state and federal law.
Although CCC is prepared to support a compromise that allows a relocated
Gerstner wall to be included in the settlement agreement, CCC's position on the Gerstner
wall stems from the Department's position on that wall. The Department has-been £ally
prepared to take this matter to courtbecause this wall does net comply with state law
(mcosporating in part the provisions of the federal Endangered Species Act). The wall
does not minimize to the extent practical a take of endangered species and could serve to
set an unacceptable threshold in the type of inappropriate siting of seawalls that would be
permittable in Indian River County or elsewhere in Florida Moreover, for the
Department to ignore the likelihood that this wall cannot be putted under an incidental
take permit and to, essentially, punt to the FWS the responsibility of taking the position
that the wall must be moved is misleading to all parties involved and compounds the
problem we have now. We do not believe that any of the parties is better off by leaving
the Gerstner wall question unanswered for at least another year while the incidental take
permit process is ongoing.
The CCC is committed to working through a fair settlement of these issues. We
believe that the habitat conservation planning and incidental take permitting process
provide a middle ground where all parties involved can arrive at a principled
compromise. We look forward to a response not only from -the Departmem, but also
from the Indian River County Commission and other interested parties. Please feel free
to call me at (850) 681-0031 or on my cell phone at (850) 508-9202 if you have any
questions about this letter.
Si ly,
a won
Co for CCC
cc: David Godfrey, Executive Director, CCC
MARCH 16, 1999
0
-105- BOOK D3 PAGE 7�
I
BOOK 103 FAGE 7
Downdrift Coalition, Inc.
12396 North AlA RECEIVED
Vero Beach, Florida 32963 MAR i R 1yby
(561) 589-7996 (voice & fax) CLERK TO THE BOARb
March 15, 1999
Honorable Ken Macht, Chairman (SENT BY FAX: 561 770-5334)
Board of County Commissioners
Indian River County
Vero Beach, Florida
Dear Chairman Macht.
The Board of Directors of the Downdrift Coalition, Inc. wishes to inform the County
Commission that we plan to file in Federal Court, an Endangered Species Act Section
Ten Sixty Day Notice against the Sebastian Inlet Tax District and the Florida
Department of Environmental Protection.
The charges in our action will include the following against the Sebastian Inlet Tax
District:
• Taking of habitat of Marine Sea Turtles.
• Taking of habitat of the Southeastern Beach Mouse.
The charges in our action will include the following against FDEP:
• Taking of habitat of Marine Sea Turtles with regard to the coastal armoring structure
at the McLarty Museum.
• Taking of Marine Sea Turtle nests due to failure to manage wildlife within the
Sebastian Inlet State Recreation Area. Specifically: Racoons that eat Sea Turtle
eggs.
• Failure to exercise their Legislative delegated authority in overseeing the Sebastian
Inlet Tax District (re: Section 161.142, Florida Statutes) and thus aiding and
contributing to the above actions by the Sebastian Inlet Tax District.
Sincerely,
8dr8ru ,e -
Bob Bruce, President
cc: Jim Davis, Director of Public Works
Jeff Tabor, County Coastal Engineer
MARCH 16, 1999
-106-
0 0
,
tp
O
Cn
R
rn
Nd
Navigating the ESA permit process
ISECTION 10(a) PERMIT I
PHASE 0: PREPARE
APPLICATION PACKAGE
Complete Form 3.200 and
pay US IN
Prepare Habitat
Cons mdoi Plan (HCP)
sholvirm
Impact evaluation
• Alternatives considered
• Millpton and rnonliohlg
Draft National Environmental
Poky Act er documents)
8 (Environmental Assessment
or Environmental Impact
Statement (EIS))
f 1 Implementeton
Does FWS agree with
your proposals?
O I
12 2OPTIONs:
Request that FWS process
application as proposed
SECTION 10(a) PERMIT
PHASE 01: APPLICATION
PROCESSING s
FWS Field Offices ilan0a
e tl o;vp to
FWS publishes notice of
receipt of application and
request for comments in
Federal Register
FINS Regional Office reviews
blaksical Impacts of
application proposals
Icom liant of HCP and I
Implementing Agreement
9 I FINS conducts ESA Section 7
FWS acknowledge
and responds to public
Comments
Does FWS conclude
application meets Section
10(a) and Section 7 stan-
dards, complies with NEPA•
and wig be Implemented pur-
suant to the Implementing
NO
Perrat denied:
abandon, revise and
resubmit, or appeal
I See ESA Saxton 7 I
conwlta om procen
Proceed with Dmject
wolvirng a0 HCP and
Implementing
Agreement
requirements
SECTION 10(a) PERMIT PROCESS
Is it dear that development HAVE A NICE DAY
Will not causetake7
YES —
NO .
-LLIEfTake Yom chances and pro -
3 OPTIONS: 1+I ceed without contacting FINS
womationwomati«I to
n for Irldtinal FWS FWS �dtafea
no
or Pew opinion on need parmt needed
FWS Cont9trdes pitrrrt0
slwuld be obtained
Take your dances and Pro-
ceed without further contact
*a FINS
YES
Revise development
*WARNINGS
1. PROCEEDWI7 ICAI.MONIAlthough Section
10(a) dues trot require that you contact FWS
to delerraine the nerd for a perni t, or, that
you follow the aWncy's advice. if you take a
listed speaks of fish or wildlife without a
pernW. )tut could he sudoleci ho inlunclim:s
and gctciltics.
2. liner a nudtan[s w ill mrd their ata o pc niut
arae" oro search for hsird sgecits inn the pny>•
cry If )auir t esti t ort% lied lined spc•t ns.
they nu) Ix nepuir•d h) their n•nvn It pernut
Condithms to notil) I' -At\ 11 11.4etl.lcur, ur
their lubitat .lir found within or ix -Jr the
proryo I.1A%% unull) 'A III aih m- dwt a Ic•rnut
he ofnrtard
1 11111 otalg lid% 1,,a \pun \t to au11ollot
I'$.A a�Mllg \. xlt Jt\p\Ip JIM 111 fidugt 1.u4.14e1
IIx .i)aIb\ �\nINllrlalba riaJd\ UJgas..111u
I•U\\Ngo Jib ndipa�tip ahautsntluul
ygno\JI
RECEIVED
MAIL 16 19F�
E X p4tM14101RD
1. This muni Is tailored fair the fro ividual
devekipnent project which may require
FSA approval. In many areas, particularly
urbanizing areas, dw location of many
such individual project; within ekrse
pmxhnky has led to die development of
•rcglo al• approaches to habfat corner,
vatkm planning and pemdatog.
2 PWS divide pn*m into low; tnn0um,
and high bnpact ostegtries. Moat reskien•
tial home building projects wW be km or
medium impact
3. Expect FWS to•crr tm the side of the
specks' in determining what Is take and
how much habitat Is pmuctteeL
4. Mitigation often can incink permanen
habitat set asides or off-site purcitascs.
Monitoring ami be required for tip to
30 years.
4. Ahipmglt mm•redatal pnijects on nm• i
fadcrai htnd mmnally du iu% lave to
avoid injurfig{ IWcel plants, and ca dUdc,
spades t m-ially do not recon- pnuec•
thm. tuaally FWS will iteitcst that section
1(1(a) applicant include meaRtrs to
pnnaat such specks.
G. Most sulxliviAm p rofws will requim
only an envinmmctual a+rassmatu, width
can he aunitined with the IICP into one
document.
'lie hntplencenatiun Agrcencat is a
himling cunrract sculnit funk the app0-
cana; finnling and other commitments.
'11w Apyltey might not require an U in all
erns.
If flu m .oc no goide0ons in the INA lir
1 % % rugulatbms at -lining how long the
prnnn jinx swing stags• nu)• take.
r Ike JIM, I'Muttacofakttiim IWO
1% rout 1% Jn' Jmlkrmilil nl' undo FNA
-a a rax, - I u s w ill romhct a tiartkm 7
t\ntwhJlant cull nwil
Sources:
tWnc that Iealwr 411lung Iol JnA it. I+% 64.11 du 1 w �. n aidJtnnt. un v t tont nitJt pxmub akligua a iprtiunin9 jinMaellir': lip• It., dtart h
tic Arae, nWnh fnmt Fl1s. atkrcnul l'n hamar) OrJir Il.uutibagk for IIAlgiut e:imsrnrlkm Planning and Itgaialeinal-lake M-nuft Pnpu>dng.aml
the eapeAaoces of buikla» wpm fare olnrined saeuitm 111(x) piemdtx
•
•
START HERE:
Is your project carried dict
gihe
habitat
dear
If you want to
funded• aa�z�• a I�
t^i"ecl by a tederal
NO
itat ew
f
than opr
develop prop.
PERMIT PHASE is
agency?
vey and evaluate the poten.
,,lend wisp take
erty that may
Describe proposed
activities aid
tW for development to -lake•
3
klenifiabie
1
contain be
E � of fish or
listedspecies
or
YES
S
wildlife
i
ISECTION 10(a) PERMIT I
PHASE 0: PREPARE
APPLICATION PACKAGE
Complete Form 3.200 and
pay US IN
Prepare Habitat
Cons mdoi Plan (HCP)
sholvirm
Impact evaluation
• Alternatives considered
• Millpton and rnonliohlg
Draft National Environmental
Poky Act er documents)
8 (Environmental Assessment
or Environmental Impact
Statement (EIS))
f 1 Implementeton
Does FWS agree with
your proposals?
O I
12 2OPTIONs:
Request that FWS process
application as proposed
SECTION 10(a) PERMIT
PHASE 01: APPLICATION
PROCESSING s
FWS Field Offices ilan0a
e tl o;vp to
FWS publishes notice of
receipt of application and
request for comments in
Federal Register
FINS Regional Office reviews
blaksical Impacts of
application proposals
Icom liant of HCP and I
Implementing Agreement
9 I FINS conducts ESA Section 7
FWS acknowledge
and responds to public
Comments
Does FWS conclude
application meets Section
10(a) and Section 7 stan-
dards, complies with NEPA•
and wig be Implemented pur-
suant to the Implementing
NO
Perrat denied:
abandon, revise and
resubmit, or appeal
I See ESA Saxton 7 I
conwlta om procen
Proceed with Dmject
wolvirng a0 HCP and
Implementing
Agreement
requirements
SECTION 10(a) PERMIT PROCESS
Is it dear that development HAVE A NICE DAY
Will not causetake7
YES —
NO .
-LLIEfTake Yom chances and pro -
3 OPTIONS: 1+I ceed without contacting FINS
womationwomati«I to
n for Irldtinal FWS FWS �dtafea
no
or Pew opinion on need parmt needed
FWS Cont9trdes pitrrrt0
slwuld be obtained
Take your dances and Pro-
ceed without further contact
*a FINS
YES
Revise development
*WARNINGS
1. PROCEEDWI7 ICAI.MONIAlthough Section
10(a) dues trot require that you contact FWS
to delerraine the nerd for a perni t, or, that
you follow the aWncy's advice. if you take a
listed speaks of fish or wildlife without a
pernW. )tut could he sudoleci ho inlunclim:s
and gctciltics.
2. liner a nudtan[s w ill mrd their ata o pc niut
arae" oro search for hsird sgecits inn the pny>•
cry If )auir t esti t ort% lied lined spc•t ns.
they nu) Ix nepuir•d h) their n•nvn It pernut
Condithms to notil) I' -At\ 11 11.4etl.lcur, ur
their lubitat .lir found within or ix -Jr the
proryo I.1A%% unull) 'A III aih m- dwt a Ic•rnut
he ofnrtard
1 11111 otalg lid% 1,,a \pun \t to au11ollot
I'$.A a�Mllg \. xlt Jt\p\Ip JIM 111 fidugt 1.u4.14e1
IIx .i)aIb\ �\nINllrlalba riaJd\ UJgas..111u
I•U\\Ngo Jib ndipa�tip ahautsntluul
ygno\JI
RECEIVED
MAIL 16 19F�
E X p4tM14101RD
1. This muni Is tailored fair the fro ividual
devekipnent project which may require
FSA approval. In many areas, particularly
urbanizing areas, dw location of many
such individual project; within ekrse
pmxhnky has led to die development of
•rcglo al• approaches to habfat corner,
vatkm planning and pemdatog.
2 PWS divide pn*m into low; tnn0um,
and high bnpact ostegtries. Moat reskien•
tial home building projects wW be km or
medium impact
3. Expect FWS to•crr tm the side of the
specks' in determining what Is take and
how much habitat Is pmuctteeL
4. Mitigation often can incink permanen
habitat set asides or off-site purcitascs.
Monitoring ami be required for tip to
30 years.
4. Ahipmglt mm•redatal pnijects on nm• i
fadcrai htnd mmnally du iu% lave to
avoid injurfig{ IWcel plants, and ca dUdc,
spades t m-ially do not recon- pnuec•
thm. tuaally FWS will iteitcst that section
1(1(a) applicant include meaRtrs to
pnnaat such specks.
G. Most sulxliviAm p rofws will requim
only an envinmmctual a+rassmatu, width
can he aunitined with the IICP into one
document.
'lie hntplencenatiun Agrcencat is a
himling cunrract sculnit funk the app0-
cana; finnling and other commitments.
'11w Apyltey might not require an U in all
erns.
If flu m .oc no goide0ons in the INA lir
1 % % rugulatbms at -lining how long the
prnnn jinx swing stags• nu)• take.
r Ike JIM, I'Muttacofakttiim IWO
1% rout 1% Jn' Jmlkrmilil nl' undo FNA
-a a rax, - I u s w ill romhct a tiartkm 7
t\ntwhJlant cull nwil
Sources:
tWnc that Iealwr 411lung Iol JnA it. I+% 64.11 du 1 w �. n aidJtnnt. un v t tont nitJt pxmub akligua a iprtiunin9 jinMaellir': lip• It., dtart h
tic Arae, nWnh fnmt Fl1s. atkrcnul l'n hamar) OrJir Il.uutibagk for IIAlgiut e:imsrnrlkm Planning and Itgaialeinal-lake M-nuft Pnpu>dng.aml
the eapeAaoces of buikla» wpm fare olnrined saeuitm 111(x) piemdtx
•
•
located near
ESA listed
species or their
habitat
STOP: go to ESA
Section7
consultation P --
SECTION 10(a)
PERMIT PHASE is
PRE-APPUCATION
COORDINATION
Z
Describe proposed
activities aid
Impacts to Dated
Rice
3
Negotiate'lake
cal ulatian-
Negotiate Ilan
rtxnihaing
prowilms
Evaluate linpacM on
S
listed plants and an
Candidate
Does FWS agree
with your proposals?
YE'S
A
Continue to prepare
applies asproposed
ISECTION 10(a) PERMIT I
PHASE 0: PREPARE
APPLICATION PACKAGE
Complete Form 3.200 and
pay US IN
Prepare Habitat
Cons mdoi Plan (HCP)
sholvirm
Impact evaluation
• Alternatives considered
• Millpton and rnonliohlg
Draft National Environmental
Poky Act er documents)
8 (Environmental Assessment
or Environmental Impact
Statement (EIS))
f 1 Implementeton
Does FWS agree with
your proposals?
O I
12 2OPTIONs:
Request that FWS process
application as proposed
SECTION 10(a) PERMIT
PHASE 01: APPLICATION
PROCESSING s
FWS Field Offices ilan0a
e tl o;vp to
FWS publishes notice of
receipt of application and
request for comments in
Federal Register
FINS Regional Office reviews
blaksical Impacts of
application proposals
Icom liant of HCP and I
Implementing Agreement
9 I FINS conducts ESA Section 7
FWS acknowledge
and responds to public
Comments
Does FWS conclude
application meets Section
10(a) and Section 7 stan-
dards, complies with NEPA•
and wig be Implemented pur-
suant to the Implementing
NO
Perrat denied:
abandon, revise and
resubmit, or appeal
I See ESA Saxton 7 I
conwlta om procen
Proceed with Dmject
wolvirng a0 HCP and
Implementing
Agreement
requirements
SECTION 10(a) PERMIT PROCESS
Is it dear that development HAVE A NICE DAY
Will not causetake7
YES —
NO .
-LLIEfTake Yom chances and pro -
3 OPTIONS: 1+I ceed without contacting FINS
womationwomati«I to
n for Irldtinal FWS FWS �dtafea
no
or Pew opinion on need parmt needed
FWS Cont9trdes pitrrrt0
slwuld be obtained
Take your dances and Pro-
ceed without further contact
*a FINS
YES
Revise development
*WARNINGS
1. PROCEEDWI7 ICAI.MONIAlthough Section
10(a) dues trot require that you contact FWS
to delerraine the nerd for a perni t, or, that
you follow the aWncy's advice. if you take a
listed speaks of fish or wildlife without a
pernW. )tut could he sudoleci ho inlunclim:s
and gctciltics.
2. liner a nudtan[s w ill mrd their ata o pc niut
arae" oro search for hsird sgecits inn the pny>•
cry If )auir t esti t ort% lied lined spc•t ns.
they nu) Ix nepuir•d h) their n•nvn It pernut
Condithms to notil) I' -At\ 11 11.4etl.lcur, ur
their lubitat .lir found within or ix -Jr the
proryo I.1A%% unull) 'A III aih m- dwt a Ic•rnut
he ofnrtard
1 11111 otalg lid% 1,,a \pun \t to au11ollot
I'$.A a�Mllg \. xlt Jt\p\Ip JIM 111 fidugt 1.u4.14e1
IIx .i)aIb\ �\nINllrlalba riaJd\ UJgas..111u
I•U\\Ngo Jib ndipa�tip ahautsntluul
ygno\JI
RECEIVED
MAIL 16 19F�
E X p4tM14101RD
1. This muni Is tailored fair the fro ividual
devekipnent project which may require
FSA approval. In many areas, particularly
urbanizing areas, dw location of many
such individual project; within ekrse
pmxhnky has led to die development of
•rcglo al• approaches to habfat corner,
vatkm planning and pemdatog.
2 PWS divide pn*m into low; tnn0um,
and high bnpact ostegtries. Moat reskien•
tial home building projects wW be km or
medium impact
3. Expect FWS to•crr tm the side of the
specks' in determining what Is take and
how much habitat Is pmuctteeL
4. Mitigation often can incink permanen
habitat set asides or off-site purcitascs.
Monitoring ami be required for tip to
30 years.
4. Ahipmglt mm•redatal pnijects on nm• i
fadcrai htnd mmnally du iu% lave to
avoid injurfig{ IWcel plants, and ca dUdc,
spades t m-ially do not recon- pnuec•
thm. tuaally FWS will iteitcst that section
1(1(a) applicant include meaRtrs to
pnnaat such specks.
G. Most sulxliviAm p rofws will requim
only an envinmmctual a+rassmatu, width
can he aunitined with the IICP into one
document.
'lie hntplencenatiun Agrcencat is a
himling cunrract sculnit funk the app0-
cana; finnling and other commitments.
'11w Apyltey might not require an U in all
erns.
If flu m .oc no goide0ons in the INA lir
1 % % rugulatbms at -lining how long the
prnnn jinx swing stags• nu)• take.
r Ike JIM, I'Muttacofakttiim IWO
1% rout 1% Jn' Jmlkrmilil nl' undo FNA
-a a rax, - I u s w ill romhct a tiartkm 7
t\ntwhJlant cull nwil
Sources:
tWnc that Iealwr 411lung Iol JnA it. I+% 64.11 du 1 w �. n aidJtnnt. un v t tont nitJt pxmub akligua a iprtiunin9 jinMaellir': lip• It., dtart h
tic Arae, nWnh fnmt Fl1s. atkrcnul l'n hamar) OrJir Il.uutibagk for IIAlgiut e:imsrnrlkm Planning and Itgaialeinal-lake M-nuft Pnpu>dng.aml
the eapeAaoces of buikla» wpm fare olnrined saeuitm 111(x) piemdtx
•
•
BOOK 108 PAGE 723
County Attorney Vitunac advised that this is the same item that came before the
Board on March 2', 1999. At that time the item was tabled to allow time for negotiations
with DEP. This document is the version with our requested changes. These negotiations
were a lot of work and we owe our thanks to Commissioner Adams for her efforts.
Commissioner Adams noted that this has been a long, complicated process.
M. B. Adelson, DEP Assistant Counsel, advised that each of the points the Board
raised have been accepted by the DEP.
Commissioner Adams noted that the agreement involves the same amount of money,
but the split has been changed to 75% to the State and 25% to the County. The Gerstner
seawall has been included, as well as all state and federal lands.
Commissioner Ginn expressed some of her concerns about entering into the agreement
and questioned whathappens to the incomplete seawalls while the Habitat Conservation Plan
is being compiled.
County Attorney Vitunac advised that the owners will be allowed to install a
temporary cap.
Commissioner Ginn questioned whether any other Florida counties have applied for
a Section 10 Permit, and Coastal Engineer Jeff Tabar responded that Volusia, County spent
about $200,000 to develop their Plan over about 1 V2 years.
Attorney Adelson stated that Indian River County's scope of work is much narrower
than Volusia County.
Commissioner Ginn felt that the seawall owners will never be free of government
intervention.
County Attorney Vitunac responded that all parties will now be on the same side and
will know what steps have to be taken. This will be a help for future seawalls and/or parks.
MARCH 16, 1999
-108-
0 0
Commissioner Adams reminded the Board that the reason we are here is that the
Board issued an emergency permit that did not meet state statutes and was not recommended
by staff. We are now dealing with the effects of that action
MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Adams,
SECONDED by Commissioner Stanbridge, to accept
the Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) and the
Interim Agreement with the following changes: (1)
Paragraph 10, remove "not to exceed $100,000" and
(2) remove Paragraph 16 entirely.
Bob Bruce, 12396 AlA, representing the Downdrift Coalition, proposed that the
Habitat Conservation Plan should originate from the process of filing for the Section 10
Permit, rather than the action now before the Board. He believed the cause to be the effect
the Sebastian Inlet is having on the habitat, rather than actions this Board had to take because
of those effects. He proposed a three-way partnership between the Caribbean Conservation
Corporation, the Downdrift Coalition and Indian River County.
Mr. Bruce continued that the DEP, by not utilizing their authority, is adding to the
actions of the Sebastian Inlet Taxing District. He felt the Sebastian Inlet Taxing District is
a renegade taxing district and that the DEP is being very spineless in turning the whole thing
over to Fish & Wildlife. He believed we are abdicating all responsibility to Fish & Wildlife.
David Godfrey of the CCC stated that his organization is very interested in discussing
a joint action with the Downdrift Coalition and the County to force Sebastian Inlet Taxing
District to do abetter job.
Bill Glynn, 1802 Barefoot Place, President of North Beach Civic Association and a
member of CCC and Sea Turtle Survival League, stated that the first serious storm in the area
will wash out the $50,000 seawalls in 2 days. He felt that the beaches are being turned over
to Fish & Wildlife forever and that the Board is giving away the rights of every taxpayer in
the County. DEP should pay 100% for the HCP because they have caused the problems by
mismanagement at Sebastian Inlet. He asked the Board to protect the taxpayers.
MARCH 169 1999
-109- BOOK 103 PAGE 724
L
r
BOOK 103 PAGE 7E
County Attorney Vitunac believed that is what the Board is doing. Should something
go wrong during the process, the County can withdraw its application and be right back
where it is today. The HCP process allows the County to negotiate with Fish & Wildlife
until we get some agreement we are satisfied with, while still ceasing the seawall litigation,
abating the Gerstner problem and allowing these people to take temporary measures to
protect their properties.
Commissioner Ginn wanted to see the seawall permits granted and the owners
allowed to complete them. She also felt more time was needed to read and digest the
agreement and would like to contact Fish & Wildlife regarding their restrictions before
accepting the agreements.
MOTION WAS AGAIN MADE by Commissioner
Adams, SECONDED by Commissioner Stanbridge,
to accept the Memorandum of Agreement (MOA)
and the Interim Agreement with the following
changes: (1) Paragraph 10, remove "not to exceed
$100,000" and (2) remove Paragraph 16 entirely.
Cheryl Gerstner, 2035 Surfside Terrace, commented that her seawall is just a tiny
stretch in the overall picture. The wall has been in place for 2 years and everyone continues
to spend time and money agonizing over it. She appreciated all the consideration given to
her by the Board but did not feel the agreement, in its present form, looks like a solution.
Vince Bruno, regarding the Simpson seawall, also believed that Attorney Adelson
should go back to the DEP and ask that these walls be permitted.
Ms. Livingston of Smuggler's Cove asked the Board to please try to keep this in the
state as opposed to federal government.
Commissioner Ginn again stated that she needs more time. She wants to review the
MOA and see the seawalls permitted before approving any HCP.
MARCH 16, 1999
Jim Dyess, 2135 South Porpoise Point, asked how we could make an agreement that
does not include the seawalls and hoped the Board is not acting too rashly.
Commissioner Ginn asked counsel to review whether or not authority is being given
to the federal government. She wanted to be sure no jurisdictional boundaries are changing
when Fish & Wildlife has the HCP along our entire coastline.
Commissioner Adams noted that it will be our HCP, only approved by Fish &
Wildlife.
County Attorney Vitunac explained that it has been alleged that the County is
performing an illegal act under federal law by taking an endangered species. We will now
be applying for a federal permit that allows us to do certain things which are enumerated in
the HCP. Should we fail to comply with the HCP after it has been drafted, then we could
be taken before a federal court and be found in violation of the agreement. However, the
County still owns the beaches, the jurisdiction stays the same. Also, once the HCP has been
drafted, if the County does not like it, there is no pressure to sign it. This is just the start of
the application process.
Commissioner Tippin felt he could vote for the agreements based on counsel's
assurances. He believed that it is the past history of behavior on the part of the federal
government that has everyone scared to death. A lot of good things have happened with DEP
in the last year or so and he hoped more good things are yet to come.
County Attorney Vitunac confirmed his earlier assurances and restated that the
County will have a chance to back out of the agreement if it is not to their liking.
THE CHARMAN CALLED THE QUESTION and
the motion passed by a 4-1 vote (Commissioner
Ginn opposed).
COPIES OF INTERIM AGREEMENT AND MEMORANDUM
OF AGREEMENT ARE ON FILE IN TBE OFFICE OF THE
MARCH 16, 1999
CLERK TO THE BOARD
-111-a
BOOK 103 FAGS 2.6
,
•
BOOK 103 PAGE 727
Vice Chairman Adams left the meeting at 1:31 p.m. to pick up one of her children
who became ill at school.
14.A. EMERGENCY SERVICES DISTRICT
The Chairman announced that, immediately upon adjournment, the Board would
reconvene as the Board of Commissioners of the Emergency Services District. Those
Minutes are being prepared separately.
There being no further business, on Motion duly made, seconded and carried, the
Board adjourned at 1:32 p.m.
ATTEST:
I K. Clerk enneth R Mac t, Ch an
Minutes Approved: q 9
MARCH 16, 1999
-112-