HomeMy WebLinkAbout7/13/1999MINUTES ATTACHED
BOARD OR COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY. FLORIDA
A G E N D A
TUESDAY, JULY 13, 1999 - 9:00 A.M.
- County Commission Chamber
County Administration Building
1840 25th Street, Vero Beach, Florida 32960
COUNTY CONIlV MONERS
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
2. INVOCATION PAGES
3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - Comm. John W. Tippin
4. ADDITIONS to the AGENDA/EMERGENCY ITEMS
ADDITIONS:
7.C. Annual Evaluation of County Administrator and County Attorney
8. Clerk of the Court - Introduction of EXCEL students
11.F. Termination of Insurance Consultant Contract
11.0.4. Replacement of Drainage Culverts beneath Kings Highway (58& Avenue) north of Kiwanis
Hobart Park
13.A. Camel g/10/99 Regular Meeting
133. Shared Title Workshop - Orlando
13.D. SJRWMD Governing Board - Horse's Head, Ltd - Hole -in -the -Wall Island - Mitigation Plan
DELETION: and Lost Tree Island Concerns: Sovereignty Land Application - U.S. Coast Guard
11. C.3. Automated Plumbing Controls - Indian River County Jail
5. PROC ANiATION and PRESENTATIONS
None
6. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
None
7. CONSENT AGENDA
A. Approval of Warrants
(memorandum dated June 30,1999) 1-8
B. laurel Springs PD - Contract for Construction of
Required Improvements and Cash Deposit and
Escrow Agreement
(memorandum dated July 2, 1999) 9-17
8. CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS and
GaV- —ERNN—W—M—ALAG—E--NC1ZS
None
BOOK J00 PAGE739
BOOK APAGE �1 �_ 0
iJ�
9:05 A.M. 9. PUBLIC ITEMS BACKUP
A. PUBLIC HEARINGS PAGES
1. AN ORDINANCE OF INDIAN RIVER
COUNTY, FLORIDA, AMENDING THE
ZONING ORDINANCE AND THE ACCOM-
PANYING ZONING MAP FROM RM -8, &
RS -6 TO MED, FOR PROPERTY LOCATED
AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF 41 3 ST.
(SO. GIFF. RD.) & US 1, AND DESCRIBED
HEREIN, AND PROVIDING FOR EFFEC-
TNE DATE (Quasi -Judicial)
(memorandum dated June 23, 1999) 18-32
2. AN ORDINANCE OF INDIAN RIVER
COUNTY, FLORIDA, AMENDING THE
ZONING ORDINANCE AND THE ACCOM-
PANYING ZONING MAP FROM RM -6 TO
CON -1 FOR PROPERTY LOCATED ALONG
SR AIA BETWEEN SEA OAKS AND INDIAN
SHORES; AND FROM RS -1 AND A-1 TO CON
-1 FOR PROPERTY LOCATED WEST OF SR
AIA, AT THE INTERSECTION Wn H JUNGLE
TRAIL; AND FROM A-1 AND A-2 TO CON -1
FOR PROPERTY LOCATED NORTH OF CR512
AND WEST OF THE ST. SEBASTIAN RIVER,
AND DESCRIBED HEREIN, AND PROVIDING
FOR EFFECTIVE DATE (Quasi -Judicial)
(memorandum dated June 30, 1999) 33-54
3. AN ORDINANCE OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
FLORIDA AMENDING THE ZONING ORDI-
NANCE AND THE ACCOMPANYING ZONING
MAP FROM RM -6 TO RS -3 FOR PROPERTY
LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF 65" ST.
(SO. WINTER BCH. RD.), f 400 FT. WEST OF
THE FEC RAILWAY, AND DESCRIBED HERE-
IN AND PROVIDING FOR EFFECTIVE DATE
(Quasi -Judicial)
(memorandum dated June 23, 1999) 55-66
4. AN ORDINANCE OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY,
FLORIDA AMENDING THE ZONING ORDI-
NANCE AND THE ACCOMPANYING ZONING
MAP FROM CG TO RM -6 FOR PROPERTY
LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF 53`d ST.
APPROXIMATELY 600 FT. EAST OF US 1, AND
DESCRIBED HEREIN, AND PROVIDING FOR
EFFECTIVE DATE (Quasi -Judicial)
(memorandum dated June 29, 1999) 67-77
6. AN ORDINANCE OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
FLORIDA AMENDING THE ZONING ORDI-
NANCE AND THE ACCOMPANYING ZONING
MAP FROM RS -3 AND A-1 TO PD FOR APPROX.
217.31 ACRES OF LAND GENERALLY LOCATED
NEAR THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF 58m AVE
AND 9d' ST. SW (OSLO RD.) BETWEEN 9" ST.
SW AND THE SO. RELIEF CANAL; AND DES-
CRIBED HEREIN, AND PROVIDING FOR AN
EFFECTIVE DATE (Quasi -Judicial)
(memorandum dated July 6, 1999) 78-111
go
9:05 A.M.
BACKUP
9. PUBLIC ITEMS (cout'dl PAGES
B. PUBLIC DISCUSSION ITEMS
None
C. PUBLIC NOTICE ITEMS
Public Hearings scheduled for July 20,1999:
1. Joan Cain's request for PD special exception use
for an agricultural planned development to be
known as Pine Hammock. The subject property
is between 0 St. and 8" St in the 7000 block
(Quasi -Judicial)
2. Brad Springer's request for PD special exception
use for an agricultural planned development to
be known as Walking Fox Farms. The subject
property is located on the south side of 1 I St.
SW in the 6300 block (Quasi -Judicial)
3. I.R. Courts Limited Partnership's request for
conceptual special exception use PD approval
for a 236 unit single and multi -family planned
development. The subject property is located
near the northwest corner of I.R. Blvd. and 41
St. (Quasi -Judicial)
(memorandum dated July 2, 1999) 112
10. COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S MATTERS
None
11. DEPARTMENTAL MATTERS
A. Community Development
None
B. Emergency Services
None
C. General Services
1. Request by Exchange Club to Use Parking
Garage for a Jazz, Blues and Swing Fest
on November 6, 1999
(continued from meeting of 7/6/99)
(no backup provided)
2. Children's Home Society
(memorandum dated July 7, 1999) 113-120
3. Plumbing Controls, Indian River County Jail
(memorandum dated July 7, 1999) 121-125
D. Leisure Services
None
E. Office of Management and Budget
None
F. Personnel
None
G. Public Works
1. Work Order No. 3 - Vero Lake Estates
Master Drainage Plan Improvements -
Carter and Assoc.
(memorandum dated July 6,1999) 126-131
BOOK FAGE4"
L_J
�a r -
l
BOOK i1�j PAGE
11. DEPARTMENTAL MAT'T'ERS (cont'd. :
G. Public Works (cont'd.):
2. Joint County/School District Fleet Manage-
ment, Fueling, and Related Facilities - Option
Agreement to Purchase 25 Acre Site
(memorandum dated July 7,1999)
3. Paved Shoulders on CR510
FDOT State Job Number 88000-3605
(memorandum dated July 7, 1999)
H. Utilities
None
I. Human Services
None
BACKI1p
PAGES
132-143
144-145
12. COUNTY ATTORNEY
The Blue Goose Property - Agreement to Relinquish Option
Right in Exchange for Conservation Easement
(memorandum dated July 6, 1999) 146-157
13. COMMISSIONERS ITEMS
A. Chairman Kenneth R. Macht
B. Vice Chairman Fran B. Adams
C. Commissioner Caroline D. Ginn
Establishment of Administration Building
Citizens Advisory Committee
(no backup provided)
D. Commissioner Ruth Stanbridge
E. Commissioner John W. Tinain
14. SPECIAL DISTRICTSBOARDS
A. Emergency Services District
None
B. Solid Waste Disposal District
1. Approval of Minutes - meeting of 6/15/99
2. Approval of Minutes - meeting of 6/22/99
3. Scale System - Computer Software
(memorandum dated June 30, 1999) 158-161
so It
BACKUP
14. SPECIAL DISTRICTS/BOARDS (cont'd.): PAGES
B. Solid Waste Disposal District Lcont'd.):
4. Annual Topographic Surveys - Indian River
County Landfill Financial Assurance
(memorandum dated June 24, 1999) 162-170
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
Df meeting.
Meeting may be broadcast live on TCI Cable Channel 13 - rebroadcast various times
throughout the week
Falcon Cable Channel 35 - rebroadcast Friday evening
BOOK J 00 PAGE -743
INDEX TO MINUTES
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
MEETING OF JULY 139 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. APPROVAL OF MINUTES ........................................ 2
7. CONSENT AGENDA ............................................ 2
7.A. Approval of Warrants ....................................... 2
7.B. Laurel Springs PD - Contract for Construction of Required Improvements
and Cash Deposit and Escrow Agreement ........................ 8
7.C. Annual Evaluation of County Administrator and County Attorney -
Reminder................................................. 9
8. CLERK OF COURT - INTRODUCTION OF EXCEL PROGRAM STUDENTS
............................................................. 10
9.A.1. FIRST PUBLIC HEARING - REZONING OF PROPERTY LOCATED AT THE
SOUTHEAST CORNER OF 41ST STREET (SOUTH GIFFORD ROAD) AND
US 1 FROM RM -8, RM -6 AND RS -6 TO MED (136± ACRES) (RZON 99-04-
0218)........................................................ 10
9.A.2. FIRST PUBLIC HEARING - REZONING OF ENVIRONMENTALLY
SENSITIVE PROPERTIES LOCATED (1) ALONG AIA BETWEEN SEA
OAKS AND INDIAN RIVER SHORES (CAIRNS) FROM RM -6 TO CON -1; (2)
WEST OF AlA AT THE INTERSECTION WITH JUNGLE TRAIL
(KORANGY) FROM RS -1 AND A-1 TO CON -1; AND (3) NORTH OF CR512
AND WEST OF THE ST. SEBASTIAN RIVER (CORACI) FROM A-1 AND A-2
TO CON -1 (RZON 99-04-0237) ................................... 19
9.A.3. FIRST PUBLIC HEARING - REZONING OF PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE
NORTH SIDE OF 65TH STREET (SOUTH WINTER BEACH ROAD) AND
1400± FEET WEST OF THE FECRR FROM RM -6 TO RS -3 (LOST TREE
VILLAGE) RZON 99-04-0238) .................................... 28
1
BOOK 100 PAGE 745
BOOK iO a PAGE 746
9.A.4. FIRST PUBLIC HEARING - REZONING OF PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE
NORTH SIDE OF 53RD STREET AND 600± FEET EAST OF US 1 FROM CG
TO RM -6 (HATALA - HARBORTOWN MALL) (RZON 99-04-0220)
............................................................. 34
9.A.5. PUBLIC HEARING - REZONING OF THE PROPERTY LOCATED NEAR
THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF 58TH AVENUE AND 9TH STREET SW
(OSLO ROAD) BETWEEN 9TH STREET SW AND THE SOUTH RELIEF
CANAL FROM RS -3 AND A-1 TO PD - REQUESTED BY SUNTREE
PARTNERS, INC. - TO BE KNOWN AS CITRUS SPRINGS (Note: Hearing
continued to 8/3/99) ............................................. 39
9.C. PUBLIC NOTICE ITEMS - PUBLIC HEARINGS SCHEDULED FOR JULY 20,
1999 - MORATORIUM SUGGESTED/DISCUSSED ................... 62
1. PINE HAMMOCK - PD SPECIAL EXCEPTION USE FOR AN
AGRICULTURAL PLANNED DEVELOPMENT (CAIN) ............... 62
2. WALKING FOX FARMS - PD SPECIAL EXCEPTION USE FOR AN
AGRICULTURAL PLANNED DEVELOPMENT (SPRINGER) ........... 62
3. INDIAN RIVER COURTS - CONCEPTUAL SPECIAL EXCEPTION
SINGLE- AND MULTI -FAMILY PLANNED DEVELOPMENT .......... 62
11.C.1. EXCHANGE CLUB - USE OF PARKING GARAGE FOR A JAZZ,
BLUES AND SWING FEST ON NOVEMBER 611999 (continued from
meeting of 7/6/99) ......................................... 64
11.C.2. CHILDREN'S HOME SOCIETY - PERMISSION TO SELL PROPERTY
DEEDED BY THE COUNTY - COUNTY TO RETAIN RIGHT OF FIRST
REFUSAL............................................... 66
11.C.3. PLUMBING CONTROLS FOR INDIAN RIVER COUNTY JAIL .... 68
11Y. TERMINATION OF INSURANCE CONTRACT FOR CONSULTING
SERVICES - THE GEHRING GROUP ......................... 68
11.G.1. VERO LAKE ESTATES MASTER DRAINAGE PLAN
IMPROVEMENTS - CARTER AND ASSOCIATES - WORK ORDER
NO. 3.
....................................................... 71
11.G.2. JOINT COUNTY/SCHOOL DISTRICT FLEET MANAGEMENT, -
FUELING, AND RELATED FACILITIES - OPTION EXTENSION -
ANNETTE ROBERTS, TRUSTEE ............................ 72
11.G.3. CR510 PAVED SHOULDERS - FELIX EQUITIES, INC. - FDOT JOB
88000-3605 .............................................. 73
2
so 0
11.G.4. REPLACE DRAINAGE CULVERTS - KINGS HIGHWAY (58TH
AVENUE) NORTH OF KIWANIS HOBART PARK - FELIX EQUITIES, INC.
....................................................... 74
12. BLUE GOOSE PROPERTY - OPTION RIGHT RELINQUISHED IN
EXCHANGE FOR CONSERVATION EASEMENT FROM THOMAS H.
COLLINS AND GRETCHEN P. COLLINS ..................... 76
13.A. CHAIRMAN MACHT - AUGUST 10, 1999 REGULAR MEETING CANCELED
....................................................... 77
13.B. VICE CHAIRMAN ADAMS - SHARED TITLE WORKSHOP -
ORLANDO - JULY 14, 1999 ................................ 77
13.C. COMMISSIONER GINN - ADVISORY COMMITTEE FOR COUNTY
ADMINISTRATION BUILDING ............................. 78
13.D.1. COMMISSIONER STANBRIDGE - MITIGATION PLAN OF HORSE'S
HEAD, LTD. FOR HOLE -IN -THE -WALL ISLAND - ST. JOHNS RIVER
WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT (OLD WINTER BEACH BRIDGE
ROAD) AND LOST TREE ISLAND CONCERNS - SOVEREIGNTY
LAND APPLICATION - U.S. COAST GUARD .................. 78
3
BOOK i0J PAGE IC?
July 13, 1999
The Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, met in Regular
Session at the County Commission Chambers, 1840 25' Street, Vero Beach, Florida, on
Tuesday, July 13, 1999. Present were Kenneth R. Macht, Chairman; Fran B. Adams, Vice
Chairman; Caroline D. Ginn; Ruth Stanbridge; and John W. Tippin. Also present were
James E. Chandler, County Administrator; Charles P. Vitunac, County Attorney; and Patricia
Ridgely, Deputy Clerk.
1. CALL TO ORDER
The Chairman called the meeting to order at 9:00 a.m.
2. IlWOCATION
Commissioner Tippin delivered the invocation.
3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Commissioner Tippin led the Pledge to the Flag.
4. ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA
Chairman Macht advised the following items were to be added to the Agenda:
7C Annual Evaluation of County Administrator and County Attorney,
8 Clerk of Court - Introduction of EXCEL Students,
11F Insurance Consultant Contract - The Gehring Group,
11G4 Replacement of Drainage Culverts Beneath Kings Highway (58* Avenue)
north of Kiwanis Hobart Park..
(CLERK'S NOTE: Later in the meeting during the Commissioner's items, Chairman
Macht requested the addition of item 13A, Cancellation of August 10, 1999 Regular
Meeting. There was no opposition.)
July 13, 1999
1
BOOK 109 PAGE 74
BOOK DO PAGE 749
Backup material supplied for item 11.C.1.
Vice Chairman Adams requested the addition of 13.B. concerning the Shared Title
Workshop.
Commissioner Stanbridge requested the addition of 13.D. concerning the application
(mitigation plan) of Horse's Head, Ltd. before the St. John's Governing Board Appeal.
Later, following the Solid Waste Disposal District meeting, concerns were brought up about
the sovereignty land application of Lost Tree Islands to come before the U.S. Coast Guard.
Administrator Chandlerrequestedthe deletion of l l.C.3. Plumbing Controls - Indian
River County Jail, advising that the item will be bid.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Ginn, SECONDED BY
Commissioner Adams, the Board unanimously made the
requested changes to the Agenda.
5. PROCLAMATIONS AND PRESENTATIONS
None.
6. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
None.
7. CONSENT AGENDA
7.A. Approval of Warrants
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of June 30, 1999:
TO: HONORABLE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
DATE: JUNE 30,1999
SUBJECT: APPROVAL OF WARRANTS
FROM: EDWIN M. FRY, JR., FINANCE DIRECTOR
In compliance with Chapter 136.06, Florida Statutes, all warrants issued by the Board of
County Commissioners are to be recorded in the Board minutes.
Approval is requested for the attached list of warrants, issued by the Clerk to the Board, for
the time period of June 30 to June 30, 1999.
Attachment:
July 139 1999
2
BOOK PAGE
ON MOTION by Commissioner Stanbridge, SECONDED BY
Commissioner Ginn, the Board unanimously approved the list
of warrants issued by the Clerk to the Board on June 30, 1999.
CHECK
NAME
CHECK
CHECK
NUMBER
DATE
AMOUNT
0264998
A A FIRE EQUIPMENT, INC
1999-06-30
2,717.35
0264999
AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION
1999-06-30
1,192.50
0265000
AUUIOHOUSE
1999-06-30
79.90
0265001
ATLANTIC REPORTING
1999-06-30
453.30
0265002
ABS PUMPS, INC
1999-06-30
4,132.70
0265003
A S M E INTERNATIONAL
1999-06-30
136.15
0265004
A T & T
1999-06-30
23.50
0265005
ATLANTIC COASTAL TITLE CORP
1999-06-30
2,167.00
0265006
AVATAR UTILITY SERVICES, INC
1999-06-30
11,886.46
0265007
ABCO'GARAGE DOOR CO
1999-06-30
154.00
0265008
ABC FENCING
1999-06-30
50.00
0265009
A R S CLIMATIC CORPORATION
1999-06-30
2,015.00
0265010
AUDIO VISUAL SOLUTIONS
1999-06-30
429.97
0265011
AUDIO REPLACEMENT TAPE SERVICE
1999-06-30
21.80
0265012
ANDERSON, RICHARD M
1999-06-30
6.54
0265013
ATLANTIC GULF COMM. CORP.
1999-06-30
291.89
0265014
AHEAD HEADGEAR INC
1999-06-30
664.90
0265015
BAKER DISTRIBUTING CO
1999-06-30
211.81
0265016
BARTON, JEFFREY K -CLERK
1999-06-30
2,943.00
0265017
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSTONLRS
1999-06-30
5,601.10
0265018
BLACKHAWK QUARRY COMPANY
1999-06-30
904.72
0265019
BARTON, JEFFREY K- CLERK
1999-06-30
193,590.33
0265020
BARTON, JEFFREY K -CLERK
1999-06-30
3,001.25
0265021
BERGGREN EQUIPMENT CO, INC
1999-06-30
450.00
0265022
BRODART CO
1999-06-30
1,815.18
0265023
BELLSOUTH COMMUNICATION
1999-06-30
183.00
0265024
BAKER & TAYLOR ENTERTAINMENT
1999-06-30
61.15
0265025
BELLSOUTH MOBILITY
1999-06-30
59.80
0265026
BELLSOUTH
1999-06-30
2,292.46
0265027
BELLSOUTH PUBLIC COMMUNICATION
1999-06-30
81.48
0265028
BELFORD, DENNIS
1999-06-30
84.88
0265029
BATTERY BIZ
1999-06-30
130.00
0265030
BRANDON CAPITAL CORPORATION
1999-06-30
500.00
0265031
BROZ, KAREL & THEKLA
1999-06-30
158.57
0265032
BAILER, BRUCE
1999-06-30
42.27
0265033
BIRD, RICHARD J
1999-06-30
32.12
0265034
BACK, LAWRENCE & ELIZABETH
1999-06-30
5.26
0265035
BELLSOUTH
1999-06-30
36.22
0265036
CAMERON & BARKLEY COMPANY
1999-06-30
2,547.60
0265037
CARTER ASSOCIATES, INC
1999-06-30
1,309.95
0265038
COLKITT SHEET METAL & AIR, INC
1999-06-30
28.72
0265039
CONSUMER REPORTS BOOK
1999-06-30
33.45
0265040
COASTAL REFINING & MARKETING
1999-06-30
7,425.17
0265041
CROSS CREEK APPAREL, INC
1999-06-30
2,035.41
0265042
CLARION PLAZA HOTEL
1999-06-30
348.00
0265043
COMMONWEALTH LAND TITLE CO
1999-06-30
12.57
0265044
CALLAWAY GOLF COMPANY
1999-06-30
245.67
0265045
C 0 R E PROGRAM
1999-06-30
184.00
0265046
CRAFTS & STUFF
1999-06-30
8.26
0265047
COMMONWEALTH LAND TITLE INS CO
1999-06-30
288.13
0265048
CITY ELECTRIC SUPPLY CO
1999-06-30
495.17
0265049
CENTER FOR EMOTIONAL AND
1999-06-30
250.00
0265050
COASTAL TITLE SERV INC
1999-06-30
288.13
July 13, 1999
3
BOOK PAGE
BOOKPAGE 6 e
CHECK
NAME
CHECK
CHECK
OBER
DATE
AMOUNT
0265051
THE CLOSING TABLE
1999-06-30
436.43
0265052
CAVIC, PRISCILLA
1999-06-30
387.23
0265053
CARNEY, BEATRICE
1999-06-30
9.41
0265054
CHUMP, INC.
1999-06-30
8.04
0265055
CLAYTON, GLEN G & TENNEYS E
1999-06-30
32.22
0265056
CORER, ENID E
1999-06-30
17.40
0265057
COMMERCIAL TITLE SERVICE,INC
1999-06-30
943.11
0265058
DEEP SIB DIVE SHOP, INC
1999-06-30
54.40
0265059
DICRERSON-FLORIDA, INC
1999-06-30
459,612.16
0265060
FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS
1999-06-30
25.00
0265061
DATA SUPPLIES, INC
1999-06-30
1,623.33
0265062
DURA STONE COMPANY
1999-06-30
90.00
0265063
DUNKELBERGER ENGINEERING &
1999-06-30
360.00
0265064
DESIGNED TRAFFIC
1999-06-30
8,825.74
0265065
DAYTONA BEACH HILTON HOTEL
1999-06-30
178.00
0265066
DOWNTOWN PRODUCE INC
1999-06-30
69.80
0265067
DANIEL KELL TELEPHONE
1999-06-30
925.00
0265068
DOWNS, DENNIS A
1999-06-30
26.83
0265069
DELRAY BEACH MARRIOTT
1999-06-30
220.00
0265070
E -Z BREW COFFEE SERVICE, INC
1999-06-30
40.50
0265071
ERCILDOUNE BOWLING LANES
1999-06-30
126.00
0265072
EBSCO SUBSCRIPTION SERVICES
1999-06-30
70.00
0265073
EGP, INC
1999-06-30
150.00
0265074
EXPEDITER INC, THE
1999-06-30
82.40
0265075
EXPRESS TITLE
1999-06-30
306.14
0265076
EDSALL GROVES
1999-06-30
500.00
0265077
ELITE TITLE
1999-06-30
579.86
0265078
F W P C 0 A TRAINING
1999-06-30
70.00
0265079
FEDEX
1999-06-30
106.00
0265080
FISHER SCIENTIFIC
1999-06-30
30.85
0265081
FLORIDA BAR, THE
1999-06-30
200.00
0265082
FLORIDA COCA-COLA BOTTLING CO
1999-06-30
149.20
0265083
FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY
1999-06-30
14,344.19
0265084
FLOWERS BAKING COMPANY OF
1999-06-30
64.57
0265085
FLORIDAFFINITY, INC
1999-06-30
5,610.00
0265086
FALZONE, CHRISTOPHER
1999-06-30
57.93
0265087
FLORIDA REDEVELOPMENT ASSOC
1999-06-30
195.00
0265088
FENDLEY, LLOYD
1999-06-30
32.11
0265089
F & W PUBLICATIONS INC
1999-06-30
139.16
0265090
FLORIDA SAFETY & HEALTH
1999-06-30
185.00
0265091
FACTS ON FILE INC
1999-06-30
110.19
0265092
FREIGHTLINER TRUCKS OF SOUTH
1999-06-30
129.02
0265093
FIRESTONE TIRE & SERVICE
1999-06-30
614.40
0265094
FIRST CHRUCH OF GOD OF
1999-06-30
12,200.00
0265095
FLOWSERVE FCD CORPORATION
1999-06-30
409.29
0265096
FLOWERS, OWEN
1999-06-30
108.34
0265097
GOODKNIGHT LAWN EQUIPMENT, INC
1999-06-30
34.04
0265098
GRAYBAR ELECTRIC CO INC
1999-06-30
619.88
0265099
GOODYEAR AUTO SERVICE CENTER
1999-06-30
87.00
0265100
GOIN, JILMA
1999-06-30
99.12
0265101
GRE ENE , ROBERT E
1999-06-30
1,856.77
0265102
GOLFNET, INC
1999-06-30
113.00
0265103
GINN, CAROLINE D
1999-06-30
28.17
0265104
GROLIER EDUCATIONAL
1999-06-30
555.44
0265105
GILLIAMS, DAMIEN & BONNIE
1999-06-30
96.63
0265106
GALLAGHER, BRUCE
1999-06-30
15.32
0265107
GIBBONS, CHARLES & MARIE -
1999-06-30
15.58
0265108
GLOBAL ACCESS PUBLICATIONS,INC
1999-06-30
199.95
0265109
HARBOR BRANCH OCEANOGRAPH, INC
1999-06-30
7,077.50
0265110
HARRIS SANITATION, INC
1999-06-30
56.62
July 13, 1999
4
• 0
CHECK
NAME
CHECK
CHECK
NUMBER
DATE
AMOUNT
0265111
HUGHES SUPPLY, INC
1999-06-30
277.87
0265112
HUNTER AUTO SUPPLIES
1999-06-30
279.89
0265113
HACK COMPANY
1999-06-30
309.40
0265114
HOLIDAY BUILDERS
1999-06-30
500.00
0265115
HOLMES, IDA
1999-06-30
500.38
0265116
HOLLOW III, WILLIE JAMES
1999-06-30
0265117
HENDRIETH, WILLIE & HARRIET
1999-06-30
157.07
0265118
HOLYCROSS, BILLY & MARTHA210.13
1999-06-30
36.27
0265119
H S 3 F111OF;RTIES
1999-06-30
4,915.00
0265120
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
1999-06-30
57,394.83
0265121
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
1999-06-30
150.00
0265122
INDIAN RIVER BATTERY, INC
1999-06-30
834.22
0265123
INDIAN RIVER BLUEPRINT CO INC
1999-06-30
280.15
0265124
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY UTILITY
1999-06-30
2,535.67
0265125
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY BOARD OF
1999-06-30
40.00
0265126
INSURANCE SERVICING &
1999-06-30
575.00
0265127
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
1999-06-30
170.00
0265128
IBM CORPORATION
1999-06-30
350.75
0265129
INDIAN RIVER ALL -FAB, INC
1999-06-30
49.95
0265130
INDIAN RIVER SHORES POLICE
1999-06-30
25.00
0265131
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY ALLIANCE
1999-06-30
487.45
0265132
INDIAN RIVER COMMUNITY COLLEGE
1999-06-30
1,075.00
0265133
INVISIBLE FENCE OF THE
1999-06-30
90.10
0265134
IRRIGATION CONSULTANTS UNLIMIT
1999-06-30
43.58
0265135
JANET'S AUTO TRIM & GLASS
1999-06-30
250.00
0265136
JANIE DEAN CHEVROLET, INC
1999-06-30
159.00
0265137
JOELSON CONCRETE PIPE COMPANY
1999-06-30
580.00
0265138
JOHN VETTER & SONS, INC
1999-06-30
2,659.20
0265139
J A SEXAUER INC
1999-06-30
156.36
0265140
JANOSKO, ANDREW & ELIZABETH
1999-06-30
11.00
0265141
JACK WELTON, LONE CABBBAGE
1999-06-30
65,838.50
0265142
KIMLEY-HORN & ASSOCIATES, INC
1999-06-30
934.69
0265143
KNIGHT & MATHIS, INC
1999-06-30
58.75
0265144
KELLY TRACTOR CO
1999-06-30
473.60
0265145
KAROLY, ROBERT E & KATHY
1999-06-30
5.74
0265146
KRUGER CONSTRUCTION CORP
1999-06-30
45.00
0265147
KT MOWER & EQUIPMENT
1999-06-30
85.76
0265148
KAI
1999-06-30
391.00
0265149
KRAEMER, MERL & BARBARA
1999-06-30
25.67
0265150
KING, JOHN A
1999-06-30
15,000.00
0265151
THE KIPLINGER LETTER
1999-06-30
76.00
0265152
KNIGHT, VERNON C
1999-06-30
1.00
0265153
LAWYERS TITLE INSURANCE
1999-06-30
71.35
0265154
LIBRARY OF CONGRESS
1999-06-30
200.00
0265155
LOWE'S ROME CENTERS, INC
1999-06-30
620.10
0265156
L B SMITH, INC
1999-06-30
248.24
0265157
LFI VERO BEACH, INC
1999-06-30
919.00
0265158
LESCO, INC
1999-06-30
121.95
0265159
LANDSCAPE CONNECTION
1999-06-30
180.80
0265160
NORA LAUDERMILK, CPPB
1999-06-30
60.00
0265161
MACMILLAN OIL COMPANY
1999-06-30
387.50
0265162
MAXWELL, PLUMBING, INC
1999-06-30
170.61
0265163
INDIAN RIVER COMMUNITY COLLEGE
1999-06-30
14,505.91
0265164
MIKES GARAGE
1999-06-30
35.00
0265165
MINNESOTA HIST SOCIETY
1999-06-30
18.71
0265166
MCMASTER-CARR SUPPLY COMPANY
1999-06-30
245.07
0265167
MEREDITH CORP, BOOK GROUP
1999-06-30
17.48
0265168
MORA, CHRISTOPHER R
1999-06-30
115.44
0265169
MATHIS, ETHEL L
1999-06-30
20,853.00
0265170
MR BOB PORTABLE TOILET
1999-06-30
249.12
0265171
MICKLE, VALERIE
1999-06-30
61.71
July 13,
1999
5
BOOK PAGEc
I" 4`;��
8Oox iOJ PAcE 75
CHECK
NAME
CHECK
CHECK
NUMBER
DATE
AMOUNT
0265172
MCGUIRE, GEORGE SEAN
1999-06-30
24.36
0265173
MELBOURNE COMMERCIAL KITCHEN
1999-06-30
417.98
0265174
MUNOZ, CARLA
1999-06-30
164.80
0265175
MC CANN, JOSEPH E
1999-06-30
131.95
0265176
MYERS, CATHERINE H
1999-06-30
174.82
0265177
MURPHY, REID ET EL
1999-06-30
293.60
0265178
NEW READERS PRESS
1999-06-30
466.85
0265179
NOLTE, DAVID C
1999-06-30
181,074.74
0265180
'NICOSIA, ROGER J DO
1999-06-30
1,500.00
0265181
NEW HORIZONS OF THE TREASURE
1999-06-30
32,397.33
0265182
N Y S C A
1999-06-30
220.00
0265183
NEWTON, DOROTHY CILLIER
1999-06-30
41.41
0265184
NUREDINI, SKENDER & VANDA
1999-06-30
80.18
0265185
SAWGRASS MARRIOTT RESORT
1999-06-30
258.00
0265186
ON IT'S WAY
1999-06-30
390.15
0265187
OXMOOR HOUSE
1999-06-30
11.19
0265188
OGONOSKI, ROBERT
1999-06-30
26.67
0265189
OPLEY, EUNICE
1999-06-30
259.74
0265190
POSTMASTER
1999-06-30
15,000.00
0265191
PROCTOR CONSTRUCTION
1999-06-30
500.00
0265192
PETTY CASH
1999-06-30
40.33
0265193
PROCTOR CONSTRUCTION
1999-06-30
500.00
0265194
PROFESSIONAL TITLE OF
1999-06-30
6,779.06
0265195
PORT PETROLEUM, INC
1999-06-30
246.60
0265196
PRESS JOURNAL
1999-06-30
301.50
0265197
PINEWOODS ANIMAL HOSPITAL
1999-06-30
15.00
0265198
PEEK TRAFFIC SYSTEMS, INC
1999-06-30
519.00
0265199
P C CONNECTION, INC
1999-06-30
69.00
0265200
PANGBURN, TERRI
1999-06-30
12.00
0265201
PERSONNEL PLUS INC
1999-06-30
505.50
0265202
QUALITY BOOKS, INC
1999-06-30
2,760.31
0265203
QUALITY SPRINKLER
1999-06-30
30.00
0265204
RADIOSHACK
1999-06-30
38.43
0265205
ROY, DORIS
1999-06-30
112.06
0265206
RATCLIFF, MELVIN D
1999-06-30
39.11
0265207
RAIKES, JENNIFER
1999-06-30
558.75
0265208
RSR
1999-06-30
292.80
0265209
REYMONT ASSOCIATES
1999-06-30
3.95
0265210
ROCKER, DAVID
1999-06-30
193.99
0265211
SEARS COMMERCIAL CREDIT
1999-06-30
59.98
0265212
SEBASTIAN BUSINESS SUPPLY, INC
1999-06-30
44.32
0265213
SEBASTIAN, CITY OF
1999-06-30
150.00
0265214
SEXUAL ASSAULT ASSISTANCE
1999-06-30
4,459.33
0265215
SHELL OIL COMPANY
1999-06-30
38.50
0265216
SOUTHERN EAGLE DISTRIBUTING,
1999-06-30
635.70
0265217
STATE OF FLORIDA
1999-06-30
18,337.82
0265218
SUN COAST WELDING SUPPLIES INC
1999-06-30
174.59
0265219
STEWART TITLE OF INDIAN RIVER
1999-06-30
417.70
0265220
SAM'S CLUB
1999-06-30
510.09
0265221
SAFETY EQUI--.--T COMPANY
1999-06-30
480.00
0265222
SUPERINTENDENT OF DOCUMENTS
1999-06-30
114.00
0265223
SCOTT, MARY T
1999-06-30
5.88
0265224
ST JOHNS RIVER WATER MGMT DIST
1999-06-30
900.00
0265225
SOUTHERN COMPUTER SUPPLIES INC
1999-06-30
1,032.00
0265226
SCHWEY, PAUL MATTHEW
1999-06-30
56.00
0265227
SCOTT, AUSTIN D
1999-06-30
5.51
0265228
SMITH, BERTION LISA
1999-06-30
50.00
0265229
SWAN, JAMES
1999-06-30
18.35
0265230
SHAFER, JAMES DR
1999-06-30
750.00
0265231
SAMARITAN CENTER
1999-06-30
3,558.33
0265232
TEN -8 FIRE EQUIPMENT, INC
1999-06-30
4,750.00
0265233
TURNER INDUSTRIAL SUPPLY CO
1999-06-30
9.72
July 13, 1999
C.
0 0
•
CHECK
NAME
CHECK
CHECK
NUMBER
DATE
AMOUNT
0265234
TEXACO CREDIT CARD CENTER
1999-06-30
2,933.62
0265235
TIPPIN, JOHN W
1999-06-30
26.39
0265236
TEAMSTERS LOCAL UNION #769
1999-06-30
15.00
0265237
TOUCH OF GLASS
1999-06-30
25.59
0265238
THOMPSON PUBLISHING GROUP, INC
1999-06-30
334.00
0265239
TRUGREEN CHEMLAWN
1999-06-30
55.00
0265240
TRADEWINDS
1999-06-30
1,690.00
0265241
TOMMY HILFIGER GOLF
1999-06-30
389.59
0265242
US FILTER DISTRIBUTION GROUP
1999-06-30
9,376.22
0265243
USL CITY ENVIRONMENTAL
1999-06-30
13,169.00
0265244
VERO BEACH, CITY OF
1999-06-30
9,175.00
0265245
VISTA PROPERTIES OF V B, INC
1999-06-30
3,881.80
0265246
VERO BEACH, CITY OF
1999-06-30
1,649.11
0265247
VERO BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT
1999-06-30
50.00
0265248
VERO BOWL
1999-06-30
489.60
0265249
VOLUNTEER ACTION COMMITTEE
1999-06-30
50.00
0265250
VAUGH, W J, ATTORNEY
1999-06-30
336.53
0265251
VIDEO SAMPLER, THE
1999-06-30
1,122.62
0265252
WILLHOFF, PATSY
1999-06-30
130.00
0265253
WILLIAMS, BETTY R, RN
1999-06-30
44.00
0265254
WHARTON-SMITH, INC
1999-06-30
81,303.10
0265255
WEST GROUP PAYMENT CTR
1999-06-30
2,542.26
0265256
WILLIAM H HENSICK & SONS INC
1999-06-30
500.00
0265257
WEBSTER, EMILY
1999-06-30
458.35
0265258
XEROX CORPORATION
1999-06-30
1,450.00
0265259
PEASE, CLINTON
1999-06-30
317.05
0265260
MILLER, JOSEPH
1999-06-30
321.94
0265261
MERCURI, DEBRA
1999-06-30
243.07
0265262
KLOTZER, ROBERT
1999-06-30
72.16
0265263
COOPER, GEORGE
1999-06-30
297.66
0265264
COLSON, RENE
1999-06-30
160.00
0265265
FURINO JR, FRANK
1999-06-30
96.14
0265266
DILLON, KARIN E.
1999-06-30
19.72
0265267
CARLEY, MORRIS G.
1999-06-30
15.07
0265268
MORRIS, JOHN & RUTH
1999-06-30
24.07
0265269
AMERITREND HOMES
1999-06-30
109.28
0265270
RUSS, BHRILLER J.
1999-06-30•
9.04
0265271
KONIGSBERGER, JOSEPH
1999-06-30
28.30
0265272
DUDZINSKI, JIM
1999-06-30
26.55
0265273
LEARY, PAUL E.
1999-06-30
35.67
0265274
ROBERTS, JOHNNIE
1999-06-30
50.25
0265275
NORTHERN, LEVONIA
1999-06-30
15.09
0265276
GRAND HARBOR
1999-06-30
65.82
0265277
CROOM CONSTRUCTION CO.
1999-06-30
11.52
0265278
HATFIELD, EVERETT R.
1999-06-30
19.20
0265279
PROCTOR CONSTRUCTION CO., INC.
1999-06-30
10.41
0265280
BARTH CONSTRUCTION III, INC.
1999-06-30
52.73
0265281
STEVENS, RICHARD
1999-06-30
71.37
0265282
DOLLIER, BRIAN E.
1999-06-30
42.03
0265283
HAYHURST, HAROLD D.
1999-06-30
35.36
0265284
DONALD, WILLIE
1999-06-30
37.32
0265285
ROSSWEST, GLADSTONE
1999-06-30
62.46
0265286
POPPLE, GORDON H.
1999-06-30
17.61
0265287
HARE, DENISE E.
1999-06-30
42.15
0265288
CORNERSTONE SELECT HOMES,•INC.
1999-06-30
50.00
0265289
MGB CONSTRUCTION INC.
1999-06-30
74.05
0265290
GERACI, DENISE L.
1999-06-30
34.76
0265291
LYNCH, BARBARA B.
1999-06-30
41.60
0265292
DAVEY, ROBERTA A.
1999-06-30
12.51
0265293
DI ROCCO CONSTRUCTION
1999-06-30
52.58
0265294
DICKINSON, ALISON J.
1999-06-30
20.11
0265295
BICHLER, STEPHAN A.
1999-06-30
25.80
July 13, 1999
7
�J
B®®K 1-03 PAGE 754
Fr -
BOOK
CHECK
NAME
CHECK
CHECK
NUMBER
DATE
AMOUNT
0265296
PARKER, W. DAN
1999-06-30
9.31
0265297
COMMUNITY SAVINGS
1999-06-30
47.52
0265298
HENNING, WILLIAM F.
1999-06-30
69.84
0265299
GREEN, BEN L.
1999-06-30
17.56
0265300
KURTZ, RICHARD LEE
1999-06-30
77.84
0265301
CHRISTENSEN, ALICE GRAM
1999-06-30
51.66
0265302
JERUSALEM PITA
1999-06-30
80.54
0265303
RADFORD, VALERIE
1999-06-30
28.43
0265304
HESS, GLENN
1999-06-30
21.43
0265305
MARTIN, JUSTIN
1999-06-30
40.29
0265306
HENRY, ANTHONY
1999-06-30
15.89
0265307
MITCHELL, JOSEPH & NANCY
1999-06-30
48.10
0265308
MAHAR, DIANE M.
1999-06-30
26.91
0265309
WODTKE, WILLIAM C.
1999-06-30
47.97
0265310
MR. PETS/SHARON STEPHENSON
1999-06-30
32.31
0265311
SOUZA, SANDRO LUIZ
1999-06-30
3.70
0265312
BAILEY, BARBARA
1999-06-30
16.47
0265313
STUCKLEY, MACKERL
1999-06-30
23.48
0265314
BELLEZZA, ROSALIE DONATO
1999-06-30
42.84
0265315
MAC FARLAND, DON
1999-06-30
79.13
0265316
NICHOLS, PAULA W. & MITCH
1999-06-30
44.95
0265317
LAWYERS TITLE INSURANCE CORP
1999-06-30
20.07
1,390,209.48
7.B. Laurel Springs PD - Contract for Construction of Rgquired
Improvements and Cash Deposit and Escrow Agreement
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of July 2, 1999:
TO: The Board of County Commissioners
FROM: U,,( /William G. Collins II - Deputy County Attorney
DATE: July 2, 1999
SUBJECT: Laurel Springs PD - Contract for Construction of Required
Improvements and Cash Deposit and Escrow Agreement
On June 22, 1999 the Board of County Commissioners approved the final plat
for Laurel Springs Planned Development. The plat has not been recorded as of
this date due to a short punch list of required improvements that had not been
completed.
Rather than delay recording further, the developer, Laurel Homes, Inc. has
entered into a contract guaranteeing construction of required improvements and
posted cash security in the amount of 115% of the cost of the improvements.
July 13, 1999
s
0 9
RECOMMENDATION:
Authorize the Chairman to execute Contract for Construction of Required
Improvements No. PD -98-10-19-3 dated July 2, 1999 between Laurel Homes,
Inc. and Indian River County, along with- authorization for execution of the
associated Cash Deposit and Escrow Agreement. -
WGC/nhm
Attachments
ON MOTION by Commissioner Stanbridge, SECONDED BY
Commissioner Ginn, the Board unanimously authorized the
Chairman to execute the Contract for Construction of Required
Improvements No. PD -98-10-19-3 dated July 2, 1999, between
Laurel Homes, Inc. and Indian River County and authorized the
Chairman to execute the associated Cash Deposit and Escrow
Agreement, as recommended in the Memorandum.
COPY OF CONTRACT AND ESCROW AGREEMENT IS ON FILE
IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD
7. C. Annual Evaluation of County Administrator and Count
Attorney - Reminder
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of July 12, 1999:
To: Board of County Commissioners
From: Kenneth R. Macht, Chairman Ptd
Date: July 12, 1999
Subject: ANNUAL EVALUATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
AND COUNTY ATTORNEY
This is a reminder to have your thoughts to me for the evaluation of Jim
Chandler, County Administrator and Charles Vituanc, County Attorney, by
Wednesday, September 15, 1999. This item needs to be placed on the
agenda prior to the end of the current fiscal year.
NO ACTION REQLHRED OR TAKEN.
July 13, 1999
BOOK i0i PAGE i J
S. CLERK OF COURT - INTRODUCTION OF EXCEL PROGRAM
STUDENTS
Chairman Macht called upon Chief Deputy Clerk Mary Louise Scheidt to introduce
the students she had brought to the meeting. Mrs. Scheidt advised that the three students,
Jenifer Lohmann, Vanetta. Robinson, and Jonathan Davis, are working with the Clerk's
Office this summer through Project EXCEL, which is a federally -funded program run by
several teachers, through the Job Training program. The students attend class on Monday
and work with the Clerk's Office Tuesday through Friday. Mrs. Scheidt brought them to this
meeting to get a broader view of government.
9.A.1. FIRST PUBLIC HEARING - REZONING OF PROPERTY
LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF 41ST STREET
(SOUTH GIFFORD ROAD) AND US1 FROM RM -8, RM -6 AND RS -6
TO MED (136± ACRES) (RZON 99-04-0218)
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 June 23, 1999:
TO: James E. Chandler
County Adialaisti-atur
HEAD CONCURRENCE
Robert
THROUGH: Sasan Rohan, AICP S'•rr
Chief, Long-Range�j,Planning
FROM: John Wachtel 401
Senior Planner, Long -Range Planning
DATE: June 23, 1999
RE: County Initiated Request to Rezone ±136 acres from RM -8, RM -6, and RS -6 to
MED (RZON 994)4-0218)
It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal consideration by the Board of County
Commissioners at its regular meeting of July 13, 1999.
July 13, 1999
10
•
This is a county initiated request to rezone ±136 acres located at the southeast corner of US 1 and
41st Street (South Gifford Road). The request involves rezoning the property from RM -8, Multiple -
Family Residential District (up to 8 units/acre), RM -6, Multiple -Family Residential District (up to
6 units/acre), and RS -6, Single -Family Residential District (up to 6 units/acre) to MED, Medical
District.
On March 17, 1998, the county adopted comprehensive plan amendments based on its Evaluation
and Appraisal Report. Those amendments added ±182 acres to the 37'h Street/US 1 Medical/
Commercial Node by extending the node's northern boundary to 41" Street. On April 14, 1998, the
Board of County Commissioners granted a land owner's request to rezone ±46 acres of the node,
located at the southwest corner of 41' Street and Indian River Boulevard, to MED. The purpose of
this request is to rezone the remaining ±136 acres of the node to MED, making the zoning and land
use designation consistent for the entire node.
On May 27, 1999, the Planning and Zoning Commission voted 5 to 0 to recommend that the Board
of County Commissioners approve the proposed rezoning.
State law provides some special requirements for rezoning requests, such as the subject request, that
are county initiated and involve more than ten acres. The most relevant of those special
requirements are the following:
• The Board must hold two advertised public hearings;
• One of the public hearings must be after 5:00 p.m. 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 .July 13, 19999 Board of Cuutity 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 July 23, 1999, at a time determined by the Board of County Commissioners. The
rezoning ordinance then can be adopted at the second hearing.
The western ±100 acres of the site are zoned RM -6 and consist primarily of citrus groves. The
exceptions are several small areas near 39`h Street which are either cleared land or contain native
uplands. The ±2 acre Hosie-Schuma m neighborhood park is also located in this area. The western
half of the remaining ±36 acres is zoned RS -6 and consists of citrus groves, while the eastern half
is zoned RM -8 and contains NHC Place, an adult living facility.
East of the subject property, across Indian River Boulevard, land is zoned RM -8 and contains a mix
of vacant uplands and estuarine wetlands. Although the county's zoning atlas depicts estuarine
wetlands within the county as having various zoning designations, all environmentally important
estuarine wetlands are deemed to be zoned Con -2, Estuarine Wetland Conservation District (up to
1 unit/40 acres).
July 13, 1999
11
BOOK
iOJ FACE
is
BOOK PAGE 759
Land in the southwest comer of 41' Street and Indian River Boulevard, north and east of the subject
property, is within the MED zoning district and consists of citrus groves. On the north side of 41'
Street, land consists of citrus groves and is zoned RM -6 and RM -8. The exception is the northwest
comer of 41' Street and Indian River Boulevard which is zoned RS -6.
West of the subject property, across US 1, land is within the CG, General Commercial, zoning
district and consists of a mix of commercial buildings and single-family homes. East of US 1, 39"
Street forms the southern boundary of the western portion of the subject property. South of 39'
Street land is zoned RM -8 and consists of the W.E. Geoffrey Subdivision of single-family homes.
Along the rest of the subject property's southern boundary, land is zoned MED and consists of
various medical uses.
The subject property is designated C/I, Commercial/Industrial, on the comprehensive plan's future
land use map. The C/I designation permits commercial and industrial zoning districts, including
the requested MED district. Also designated C/I is land abutting the subject property in the
southwest comer of 41' Street and US 1, land west of US 1, and land on the north side of 37te Street,
between 17th Avenue and Indian River Boulevard.
All other land surrounding the subject property, including land north of 41' Street and east of Indian
River Boulevard, is designated M-1, Medium -Density Residential -1, on the county future land use
map. The M-1 designation permits residential densities up to 8 units/acre.
Except for a few vacant upland areas, the subject property is currently used for citrus groves. No
wetlands exist on site. Eastern portions of the site are within an "AE" 100 year floodplain, with a
minimum base flood elevation requirement of seven feet NGVD.
The site is within the Urban Service Area of the county. Wastewater service is available to the site
from the Central Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant. Centralized potable water service is
available to the site from the North County Reverse Osmosis Plant.
Three major roads border the site. Abutting the site on the north is 41' Street. Classified as an urban
minor arterial on the future roadway thoroughfare plan map, 41' Street is a two lane road with
approximately 100 feet of public road right-of-way. Indian River Boulevard borders the site on the
east. Classified as an urban principal arterial on the future roadway thoroughfare plan map, Indian
River Boulevard is a four lane road with approximately 200 feet of public road right-of-way.
Abutting the site on the west is US 1. Classified as an urban principal arterial on the future roadway
thoroughfare plan map, US 1 is a four lane road with approximately 70 feet of public road right-of-
way.. No improvements to these roads are currently programmed.
July 13, 1999
12
•
In this section, an analysis of the reasonableness of the application will be presented. The analysis
will address:
• concurrency of public -facilities;
• compatibility with the surrounding area;
• consistency with the comprehensive plan;
• potential impact on environmental quality; and
• the applicable rezoning requirements.
This site is located within the county Urban Service Area, an area deemed suited for urban scale
development. The Comprehensive Plan establishes standards for: Transportation, Potable Water,
Wastewater, Solid Waste, Drainage and Recreation (Future Land Use Policy 3.1). The adequate
provision of these services is necessary to ensure the continued quality of life enjoyed by the
community. The Comprehensive Plan and Land Development Regulations also require that new
development be reviewed to ensure that the minimum acceptable standards for these services and
facilities are maintained
Policy 3.2 of the Future Land Use Element states that no development shall be approved unless it
is consistent with the concurrency management system component of the Capital Improvements
Element. For rezoning requests, conditional concurrency review is required
Conditional concurrency review examines the available capacity of each facility with respect to a
proposed project. Since rezoning requests are not projects, county regulations call for the
concurrency review to be based upon the most intense use of the subject property based upon the
requested zoning district. For commercial rezonings, the most intense use (according to the county's
Land Development Regulations) is retail commercial with 10,000 square feet of gross floor area per
acre of land proposed for rezoning. The site information used for the concurrency analysis is as follows:
1. Size of Area to be Rezoned: f136 acres
2. Existing Zoning District: 118 acres of RM -6 & RS -6 (up to 6
units/acre), & 18 acres of RM -8 (up to 8
units/acre)
3. Proposed Zoning District:
4. Most Intense Use of Subject Property
under Current Zoning District:
5. Most Intense Use of Subject Property
under Proposed Zoning District:
- Transportation
MED, Medical District
852 Single -Family Units
1,360,000 sq. ft. of Retail Commercial
(Shopping Center in the 6th Edition ITE
Manual).
The most intense use of the site allowed under the proposed rezoning is calculated to be 10,000
square feet of retail shopping center per acre of land proposed for rezoning. At that rate, the most
July 13, 1999
13
BOOK iJ PAGE 78@
Fr--
�-y.,
BOOK iUJ PAGE /61
intense use of the site would be 1,360,000 square feet of retail shopping center. Such a development
would be nearly as large as the 1,500,000 square foot Indian River Mall Regional Shopping Center
Project. A review of the traffic impacts that would result from such a development on the subject
property indicates that the existing level of service "D" or better on impacted roadways would not
be lowered The site information used for determining traffic impacts is as follows:
1. Use Identified in 6th Edition ITE Manual: Shopping Center
2. For 1,360,000 sq.ft. Shopping Centers in 6th Edition ITE Manual:
a. P.M. Peak Hour Trip Ends: 2.33/1,000 square feet
b. Inbound (P.M. Peak Hour): 50%
i. Northbound (P.M. Peak Hour): 60%
ii. Southbound (P.M. Peak Hour): 40%
C. Outbound (P.M. Peak Hour): 50%
i. Northbound (P.M. Peak Hour): 40%
ii. Southbound (P.M. Peak Hour): 60%
3. Peak Direction of Indian River Boulevard, from Vero Beach city limits to 53`d Street:
Northbound
4. Percentage of Project Trips on This Segment of Indian River Boulevard: 50
5. Formula for Determining Number of Peak Hour/Peak Season/Peak Direction Trips
Generated on the Most Impacted Segment of the Roadway Network (Indian River
Boulevard): Total Square Footage X P.M. Peak Hour Rate X Inbound P.M. Percentage
X Inbound -Northbound Percentage X Percentage of Trips on Indian River Boulevard
(1,3609000 X 2.33/19000 X.5 X.6 X.5 = 476)
6. Traffic Capacity on this segment of Indian River Boulevard, at a Level of Service "D":
1,890 peak hour/peak season/peak direction trips
7. Total Segment Demand (existing volume + vested volume) on this segment of Indian River
Boulevard: 679 peak hour/peak season/peak direction trips
To determine the number of trips that would be generated by the most intense use of the subject
property under the proposed zoning district, the maximum square footage allowed under the
proposed zoning (1,360,000) was multiplied by ITE's factor of 2.33 trips/1,000 square feet to
determine the total number of trips generated (3,169). Of these trips, 50% (1,585) will be inbound,
and 50% will be outbound. Of the inbound trips, 60% or 951 will be northbound.
Development on a site as large a; the subject site would likely have severai entrance/exit points. A
trip distribution model indicates that Indian River Boulevard would receive 50% of the trips
generated. Therefore, rather than assign all trips to one road, only 50%, or 476, of the 951 inbound -
northbound trips were assigned to Indian River Boulevard.
Using a modified gravity model and a hand assignment, the trips generated by the proposed use were
then assigned to impacted roads on the network. Capacities for all roadway segments in the county
are updated annually. Available capacity is the total capacity less existing and committed (vested)
traffic volumes; this is updated daily based upon vesting associated with project approvals.
The roadway segment that would be most impacted by development on the subject property is Indian
River Boulevard, from Vero Beach city limits to 53' Street. The traffic capacity for that segment
of Indian River Boulevard is 1,890 trips, while the Total Segment Demand (existing traffic volume
+ vested traffic volume) is 679 trips. The additional 476 trips associated- with the most intense us
allowed under the proposed zoning district would increase the total trips for that segment of Indian
River Boulevard to approximately 1,155, less than its capacity at LOS "D" (1,890).
Based on the above analysis, staff determined that Indian River Boulevard and all other impacted
roads can accommodate the additional trips without decreasing their existing levels of service.
July 13, 1999
14
•
- Water
A retail commercial use of 1,360,000 square feet on the subject property will have a water
consumption rate of 408 Equivalent Residential units (ERU), or 102,000 gallons✓day. This is based
upon a level of service standard of 250 gallons/ERU/day. Water lines extend to the site from the
North County Reverse Osmosis Plant which currently has a remaining capacity of approximately
2,400,000 gallons/day and therefore can accommodate the potable water demand associated with the
proposed zoning district.
- Wastewater
The subject property is serviced by the Central Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant. Based upon
the most intense use allowed under the proposed zoning district, development of the property will
have a wastewater generation rate of approximately 408 Equivalent Residential Units (ERU), or
102,000 gallonstday. This is based upon the level of service standard of 250 gallons/ERU/day. The
Central Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant currently has a remaining capacity of approximately
1,200,000 gallons/day and can accommodate the additional wastewater generated by the proposed
zoning district.
- Solid Waste
Solid waste service includes pick-up by private operators and disposal at the county landfill. For a
1,360,000 square foot commercial development on the subject site, solid waste generation will be
approximately 13,600 waste generation units (WGU) annually. A WGU is a Waste Generation Unit
measurement equivalent to one ton (2,000 pounds) of solid waste. Using the accepted conversion
rate of one cubic yard for every 1,200 pounds of compacted solid waste generated, the 1,360,000
square feet of commercial development would be expected to generate 22,667 cubic yards of
wastelyear.
A review of the solid waste capacity for the active segment of the county landfill indicates the
availability of more than 830,000 cubic yards. The active segment of the landfill has a 1 year
capacity, and the landfill has expansion capacity beyond 2010. Based on staff analysis, it was
determined that the county landfill can accommodate the additional solid waste generated by the
proposed zoning district.
- Drainage
All developments are reviewed for compliance with county stormwater regulations which require
on-site retention, preservation of floodplain storage and minimum finished floor elevations. In
addition, development proposals must meet the discharge requirements of the county Stormwater
Management Ordinance. Any development on the subject property will be prohibited from
discharging any runoff in excess of the pre -development rate.
In this case, the minimum floor elevation level of service standard applies, since the property lies
within a floodplain. Consistent with Stormwater Management Sub -Element Policy 1.2 and Section
930.07(2) of the county's LDRs, the finished floor elevation of any new buildings constructed within
a floodplain must be elevated at least six inches above the base flood level. Since the subject
property lies within Flood Zone AE -7, which is a special flood hazard area located within the 100 -
year floodplain, any development on this property must have a minimum finished floor elevation of
no less than 7.5 feet above mean sea level.
Besides the minimum elevation requirement, on-site retention and discharge standards also apply
to this request. With the most intense use of this site, the maximum area of impervious surface under
the proposed zoning classification will be approximately 95.2 acres. The estimated runoff volume,
based on that amount of impervious surface and the 25 year/24 hour design storm, will be
approximately 3,680,283 cubic feet. In order to maintain the county's adopted level of service, the
applicant will be required to retain approximately 1,081,159 cubic feet of runoff on-site. With the
soil characteristics of the subject property, it is estimated that the pre -development runoff rate is
386.61 cubic feettsecond.
July 13, 1999
15
BOOK PAGE 7
J
BOOK i0J FADE 76
Based upon staffs analysis, the drainage level of service standards will be met by limiting off-site
discharge to its pre -development rate of 386.61 cubic feettsecond, requiring retention of 1,081,159
cubic feet of runoff for the most intense use of the property, and requiring that all finished floor
elevations exceed 7.5 feet above mean sea level.
As with all development, a more detailed review will be conducted during the development approval
process.
- Recreation
Recreation concurrency requirements apply only to residential development. Therefore, this
rezoning request would not be required to satisfy recreation concurrency requirements.
Based on the analysis conducted, staff has determined that all concurrency -mandated facilities,
including drainage, roads, solid waste, water, and wastewater, have adequate capacity to
accommodate the most intense use of the subject property under the proposed zoning district.
Rezoning requests are reviewed for consistency with all policies of the comprehensive plan.
Rezoning requests must also be consistent 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. Commercial and industrial land uses are
located in nodes throughout the unincorporated areas of Indian River County.
The goals, objectives and policies are the most important parts of the comprehensive plan. Policies
are statements in the plan which identify the actions which the county will take in order to direct the
community's development. As courses of action committed to by the county, policies provide the
basis or all county laud ievelupment related decisions. While all comprehensive plan policies are
important, some have more applicability than others in reviewing rezoning requests. Of particular
applicability for this request are the following policies and objective.
- Future Land Use Element Policy 1.3
Future Land Use Element Policy 1.3 states that the county shall maintain its zoning districts to
ensure the implementation of the comprehensive plan. The subject request would change the zoning
of the subject property from districts that do not implement the comprehensive plan to a district that
does implement the comprehensive plan. For that reason, the subject request implements Future
Land Use Element Policy 1.3.
- Future Land Use Element Policy 1.15
The subject property has a C/I land use designation. Future Land Use Element Policy 1.15 states
that the CA land use designation is intended for a wide range of commercial uses. Since the request
is for a medical zoning district on the subject property, the request is consistent with Future Land
Use Element Policy 1.15.
- Economic Development Element Objective 1
Economic Development Element Objective 1 deals with reducing the county's unemployment rate.
The request promotes this objective by facilitating the continued growth of the health care industry
in the county. Past experience indicates that medical uses prefer to cluster near a hospital. By
allowing medical uses near Indian River Memorial Hospital, the request accommodates that
preference and thus encourages the growth the health care industry.
July 13, 1999
16
•
While the above referenced policies and objective are particularly applicable to this request, other
comprehensive plan policies and objectives also have relevance. For that reason, staff evaluated the
subject request for consistency with all plan policies and objectives. Based upon that analysis, staff
determined that the request is consistent with the comprehensive plan.
Staffs position is that the type of development allowed under the MED zoning district would be
compatible with the surrounding area. The site is in an area of the county that is anticipated to
become dominated by the health care industry and multiple -family uses. Most of the land bordering
the site consists either of major roads (US 1, 41' Street, or Indian River Boulevard) or other MED
zoned areas. Across the roads from the site, land is generally zoned either CG, RM -8, or RM -6.
Therefore, the site will primarily abut either similar uses or arterial roads on all sides. For that
reason, staff feels that MED uses on the subject property would be compatible with surrounding
uses.
The majority of the site has been cleared for agricultural production and contains no environmentally
important land, such as wetlands or native upland habitat. The exception is a small area of native
upland communities located near 39' Street. Because those parcels are less than 5 acres in size, the
county's native . upland set aside requirement does not apply. Therefore, neither commercial/
industrial, nor residential development of the site is anticipated to have any impact on the
environmental quality of the site. For that reason, no adverse environmental impacts associated with
this request are anticipated
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. The subject request meets those criteria.
The July 13, 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 least 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, the future use of the subject property already has been discussed at numerous public
hearings and public meetings, including meetings concerning the Evaluation and Appraisal Report
(EAR) and the EAR based amendments. Therefore, holding the second rezoning public hearing at
9:05 a.m. at a regular Board of County Commissioners meeting would be sufficient to ensure public
participation.
For that reason, staff feels that it would be appropriate to hold the second rezoning public hearing
at 9:05 a.m. on July 27, 1999.
Situated near Indian River Memorial Hospital and other medical uses, and bounded by three arterial
roads, the site is appropriate for the MED zoning district. Based on the analysis, staff has
determined that the request meets all concurrency criteria, is consistent with the comprehensive plan,
is compatible with surrounding areas, will have no negative impacts on environmental quality, and
meets all rezoning criteria. For these reasons, staff supports the request.
July 13, 1999
17
600K100 PAGE
•
BOOK iUJ PAGE 765
Staff recommends that Board of County Commissioners provide direction to staff regarding this
county initiated rezoning and direct staff to schedule the second rezoning public hearing for 9:05
a.m., at the regular commission meeting of July 27, 1999.
ATTACIRKENTIS
1. Rezoning Application
2. Location Map
3. Approved Minutes of the May 27, 1999 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
4. Rezoning Ordinance
Community Development Director Bob Keating explained that the next four public
hearings were initiated by the County and required two public hearings. He suggested the
second hearing for all four be held July 27, 1999. He believed them to be non -controversial
since the Board had seen them before mostly as Comprehensive Plan Amendments. He then
reviewed the following special requirements for rezoning requests which are specified by
State law in a county -initiated request which involves more than ten acres: the Board must
hold two advertised public hearings; one of the public hearings must be after 5:00 p.m. 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.
Director Keating then covered information for the first request which is set out in the
above memorandum.
Director Keating responded to a couple of questions from Vice Chairman Adams
concerning the landowners and public road right-of-way.
Commissioner Ginn questioned a calculation error in the minutes on page 29; 7000
should be 770, and Director Keating explained what he meant to say and 7000 was correct
but the 10% was not used correctly.
The Chairman opened the public hearing and asked if anyone wished to be heard in
this matter.
Attorney Michael O'Haire advised that he represented a majority of the landowners
and they are in favor of this change, the sooner the better.
July 13, 1999
18
It was determined that no one else wished to be heard and the Chairman closed the
public hearing.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Tippin, SECONDED BY
Commissioner Adams, the Board unanimously directed staffto
schedule the second rezoning public hearing on this matter at
the regular commission meeting July 27, 1999, at 9:05 a.m., as
recommended in the Memorandum.
9.A.2. FIRST PUBLIC HEARING - REZONING OF
ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE PROPERTIES LOCATED (1)
ALONG AlA BETWEEN SEA OAKS AND INDIAN RIVER SHORES
(CAIRNS) FROM RM -6 TO CON -1: (2) WEST OF A1A AT THE
INTERSECTION WITH JUNGLE TRAIL (KORANGY) FROM RS -1
AND A-1 TO CON -1; AND (3) NORTH OF CR512 AND WEST OF THE
ST. SEBASTIAN RIVER (CORACI) FROM A-1 AND A-2 TO CON -1
(RZON 99-04-0237)
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 June 30, 1999:
TO: James E. Chandler
^.ccnt,� Aumiristrator
HEAD CONCURRENCE
Community Development Director
THROUGH: Sasan Rohan4 AICP 15 - 4
Chief, Long -Range Planning
FROM: John WachtelA/
Senior Planner, Long -Range Planning
DATE: June 30, 1999
RE: County Initiated Request to Rezone 1103 Acres From RM -6 to Con -1; to Rezone
1533 Acres From RS -1 and A-1 to Con -1; and to Rezone:59,893 Acres From A-1
and A-2 to Con -1 (RZON 99-04-0237)
July 13, 1999
19
BOOK iJ :AGE.
BOOK �, _� ,�, `�
.0 j PAGE76-7 6-7
It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal consideration by the Board of County
Commissioners at its regular meeting of July 13, 1999.
This is a county initiated request involving three separate parcels, each of which contains
environmentally sensitive and environmentally important land now under some form of public
ownership. Attachments 2, 3, and 4 show the location of the subject properties. Summarized in the
table below, this request involves changing the zoning of each site.
This application serves the following three purposes:
1. to secure the necessary zoning to reflect the subject properties' public ownership;
2, to secure the necessary zoning to ensure that the subject properties' environmental
significance will be preserved; and
3. to secure the necessary zoning to be consistent with the subject properties' comprehensive
plan future land use designation.
On May 27, 1999, the Planning and Zoning Commission voted 5 to 0 to recommend that the Board
of County Commissioners approve the proposed rezoning.
State law provides some special requirements for rezoning requests, such as the subject request, that
are county initiated and involve more than ten acres. The most relevant of those special
requirements are the following:
July 13, 1999
0 0
Subject Property 1
Subject Property 2
Subject Property 3
KNOWN AS
Jungle Trail Conservation
Pelican Island National
Coraci
Area (Cairns)
Wildlife Refuge (including
Korangy property)
LOCATION
SR AIA between Sea Oaks
West of SR AIA at the
generally bordered by CR
& Indian River Shores
intersection with Jungle
512, I-95, the north county
Trail
line, and the St. Sebastian
River
ACREAGE
103
533
5,893
OWNERSHIP
State of Florida
Indian River County, State
State of Florida
of Florida, United States of
America
LAND USE
C-1, Publicly Owned or
C-1, Publicly Owned or
C-1, Publicly Owned or
DESIGNATION
Controlled Conservation
Controlled Conservation
Controlled Conservation
EXISTING
RM -6, Multiple -Family
RS -1, Single -Family
A-1, Agricultural District (up
ZONING
Residential District (up to 6
Residential District (up to
to 1 unit/5 acres); and A-2,
units/acre)
1 unit/acre); and A-1,
Agricultural District (up to 1
Agricultural District (up to
unit(10 acres)
1 unit/5 acres)
Con -1, Publicly Owned or
Con -1, Publicly Owned or
REQUESTED
Con -1, Publicly Owned or
ZONING
Controlled Conservation
Controlled Conservation
Controlled Conservation
District (zero density)
District (zero density)
District (zero density)
This application serves the following three purposes:
1. to secure the necessary zoning to reflect the subject properties' public ownership;
2, to secure the necessary zoning to ensure that the subject properties' environmental
significance will be preserved; and
3. to secure the necessary zoning to be consistent with the subject properties' comprehensive
plan future land use designation.
On May 27, 1999, the Planning and Zoning Commission voted 5 to 0 to recommend that the Board
of County Commissioners approve the proposed rezoning.
State law provides some special requirements for rezoning requests, such as the subject request, that
are county initiated and involve more than ten acres. The most relevant of those special
requirements are the following:
July 13, 1999
0 0
• The Board must hold two advertised public hearings;
• One of the public hearings must be after 5:00 p.m: 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 July 13, 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 July 23, 1999, at a time determined by the Board of County Commissioners. The
rezoning ordinance then can be adopted at the second hearing.
- Subject Property 1
Extending from the Atlantic Ocean to the Indian River Lagoon, Subject Property 1 consists of
undeveloped native upland plant communities and is zoned RM -6, Multiple -Family Residential
District (up to 6 units/acre). South of the easter portion of Subject Property 1 is the Island Club
Subdivision which is zoned RS -6, Single -Family Residential District (up to 6 unitslacre). A-1 zoned
citrus groves abut the central portion of Subject Property 1's south boundary. Land along the
wester portion of the site's souther boundary is zoned RM -6 and contains 1 or 2 single-family
houses. The Sea Oaks residential project abuts Subject Property 1 on the north.
- Subject Property 2
Located along the wester shore of the norther portion of the barrier island, Subject Property 2
contains coastal tropical hammock, estuarine wetlands, and inactive citrus groves. The United States
Fish and Wildlife Service eventually plans to restore the land containing groves to its natural state.
Generally, the southeastern 20% of Subject Property 2 is zoned A-1, Agricultural District (up to 1
unit/5 acres), while the remainder of the site is zoned RS -1, Single -Family Residential District (up
to 1 unit/acre). Land abutting Subject Property 2 on the east consists of citrus groves and is also
zoned RS -1.
Some estuarine wetlands may abut Subject Property 2's north boundary on the west side of SR AlA.
Although depicted as being zoned RS -1 in the county's zoning atlas, estuarine wetlands along the
Indian River Lagoon are given the Con -2, Privately Estuarine Wetlands Conservation District (up
to 1 unit/40 acres). Where Subject Property 2 borders SR AlA, land east of SR AlA is zoned RS -3,
Single -Family Residential District (up to 3 units/acre), and generally has not yet been cleared or
developed.
- Subject Property 3
Located west of the St. Sebastian River and north of CR 512, Subject Property 3 and lands to the
west and north contain pine flatwoods, xeric scrub, freshwater wetlands, and improved pasture lands.
The portion of Subject Property 3 that is east of I-95 is zoned A-1, while the portion that is west of
I-95 is zoned A-2.
Land abutting Subject Property 3 west of I-95 is also zoned A-2. Land north of Subject Property 3
is in Brevard County. Although zoned for agricultural and low-density residential use, that land is
a publicly owned conservation area.
July 13, 1999
21
BUR ��� PAGE J B
BOOK 100 PAGE_ 69
The St. Sebastian River acts as the eastern boundary of much of Subject Property 3. Most of the
land along the east bank of the river, across from Subject Property 3, is zoned RS -1. While some
land abutting the southern portion of Subject Property 3's eastern boundary is within the City of
Sebastian, other properties in that area are in the unincorporated part of the county. Unincorporated
land in that area is zoned A-1. City of Sebastian land in that area is zoned RS -20, Single -Family
Residential (20,000 square foot minimum lot size).
To the south of Subject Property 3, across CR 512, land is zoned A-1, RS -3, or CG, General
Commercial. A small portion of the southwest section of Subject Property 3 borders IL, Light
Industrial, zoned land
-Subject Property 1
Subject Property 1 is designated C-1, Publicly Owned or Controlled Conservation -1 (zero density),
on the county's future land use map. The C-1 designation permits conservation and passive
recreational uses. All lands bordering Subject Property 1 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.
- Subject Property 2
Subject Property 2 is designated C-1 on the county's future land use map. With the exception of
estuarine wetlands along the Indian River Lagoon, all surrounding properties 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.
The estuarine wetlands along the Indian River Lagoon are designated C-2, Privately Owned
Estuarine Wetlands Conservation -2. The C-2 designation permits residential uses with densities up
to 1 unit/40 acres on site or off site density transfer credits of up to 1 unittacre.
- Subject Property 3
Subject Property 3 is designated C-1 on the county's 5uture land use mal,. Laud abutting Subject
Property 3 west of I-95 is designated AG -2, Agricultural -2, on the county's future land use map.
The AG -2 designation permits agricultural uses and residential uses with densities up to 1 unit/10
acres.
The western portion of land abutting Subject Property 3 east of I-95 is designated AG -1 Agricultural -
1, on the county's future land use map. The AG -1 designation permits agricultural uses and
residential uses with densities up to 1 unit/5 acres. C/I, Commercial/Industrial, designated land abuts
the southwest portion of Subject Property 3, near the intersection of I-95 and CR 512. The C/I
designation permits various commercial and industrial zoning districts. Land along Subject Property
3's south boundary and south of CR 512 is designated L-1.
The southern portion of Subject Property 3's eastern boundary is the Sebastian city limits. Land
within the City of Sebastian that abuts Subject Property 3 is designated "Residential Use" on the
city's future land use map. That designation allows single-family residential development with
densities up to 4 units/acre.
The northern portion of Subject Property 3's eastern boundary is the St. Sebastian River. Land on
the east side of that part of the St. Sebastian River may contain estuarine wetlands or xeric scrub.
Land containing estuarine wetlands is designated C-2. Xeric scrub is designated C-3, Privately
Owned Xeric Scrub Conservation -3. The C-3 designation permits residential uses with densities up
July 13, 1999
22
•
to 1 unit/2.5 acres on site or off site density transfer credits of up to 1 unit/acre. Consistent with
Future Land Use Element Policy 1.7, land that is not estuarine wetlands or xeric scrub, based on an
environmental survey, is designated R, Rural Residential. The R designation permits residential uses
with densities up to 1 unit/acre.
Two county parks, Donald McDonald Park and Dale Winbrow Park, are also located along the east
side of the St. Sebastian- River in this part of the' county. Those parks are designated REC,
Recreation, on the county's future land use map. The REC designation permits a wide range of
recreational facilities and activities.
Land bounding Subject Property 3 on the north, in Brevard County, is designated for agricultural or
residential use with densities of up to lunit/acre or 1 unit/2.5 acres.
- 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 ±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 coastal
tropical hammock and estuarine wetlands associated with the Indian River Lagoon. The site is
within an "AE" 100 year floodplain, with a minimum base flood elevation requirement of seven to
nine feet NGVD.
- Subject Property 3
Subject Property 3 contains pine flatwoods, xeric scrub, freshwater wetlands, and improved pasture
lands. Listed species, including scrub jays and gopher tortoises, may reside on Subject Property 3.
Portions of the site are within an "A" 100 year floodplain. The "A" 100 year floodplain indicates
that no minimum base flood elevation requirement has been determined. Other portions of the site
are within an "AE" 100 year floodplain, with a minimum base flood elevation requirement of six feet
NGVD.
- Subject Property 1
Water lines extend to Subject Property 1 from the North County Reverse Osmosis Plant, while
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 North County Reverse Osmosis Plant.
Wastewater lines, however, do not extend to the site.
July 13, 1999
23
•
BOOK 1UU PAGE 7 70
BUUK 16J PAGE. it
- Subject Property 3
Although located outside of the urban service area, Subject Property 3 abuts the urban service area
boundary along the I-95/CR 512 C/I node and along portions of CR 512. At those points, both water
and wastewater lines extend to the site. The water lines extend from the North County Reverse
Osmosis Plant, while the wastewater lines extend from the North Regional 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.
The site also abuts Jungle Trail, a two-lane, unpaved, local road that has been designated by the
county as an historic and scenic road The county has also implemented special building setbacks
and vegetation protection areas along the entire length of Jungle Trail. Although the county has a
forty foot wide public road right-of-way for this segment of Jungle Trail, the actual width of the
traveled way ranges from eight feet to twenty-two feet.
- Subject Property 2
Subject Property 2 can be accessed from SR Al A, a two-lane road with approximately 100 feet of
public road right-of-way. The segment of SR AlA adjacent to Subject Property 2 is classified as an
rural 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.
The site also abuts Jungle Trail, a two-lane, unpaved, local road that has been designated by the
county as an historic and scenic road The county has also implemented special building setbacks
and vegetation protection areas along the entire length of Jungle Trail. Although the county has a
forty foot wide public road right-of-way for this segment of Jungle Trail, the actual width of the
traveled way ranges from eight feet to twenty-two feet.
- Subject Property 3
Subject Property 3 abuts CR 512, 102nd Terrace, and I-95. Because it is a limited access highway,
however, I-95 does not provide access to the site. Primary access to the site is provided by CR 512,
a two lane rural principal arterial with approximately 100 feet of public road right-of-way. That
segment of CR 512 is programmed for expansion to four lanes and 200 feet of public road right-of-
way by 2020.
The site can also be accessed, via CR 512, from 102'd Terrace. Classified as a rural major collector
on the future roadway thoroughfare plan map, 102°d Terrace is two lane road with approximately 80
feet of public road right-of-way. There are no plans to expand 102nd Terrace.
In this section, an analysis of the reasonableness of the request will be presented This section will
include the following:
• an analysis of the requested rezonings' impact on public facilities;"
• an analysis of the requested rezonings' compatibility with surrounding areas;
• an analysis of the requested rezonings' consistency with the comprehensive plan;
• an analysis of the requested rezonings' potential impact on environmental quality; and
• an analysis of the applicable rezoning requirements.
July 13, 1999
24
40
_I
•
The County Urban Service Area directs urban scale development into suitable areas. 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 rezoning
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. If the subject request is granted, ±6,529 acres with a development
potential of more than 2,000 units will be rezoned to Con -1. Since Con -1 zoned property has a zero
density, the proposed rezoning will result in a decrease of more than 2,000 units in the overall
development potential of the subject properties. Because of that overall decrease in land use
intensity of more than 2,000 units, this rezoning request is exempt from concurrency review.
It is important to note that adoption of the proposed rezoning will not impact any public facilities
or services.
Under the requested Con -1 zoning district, there 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 more than2,000 units allowed under the existing zoning districts, development
under the requested zoning districts will be limited to conservation uses and passive recreational
uses. In terms of traffic, noise, and aesthetics, the impacts associated with uses allowed under the
proposed Con -1 zoning district will be significantly less than those that would occur with
development under the existing zoning districts. 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 request is compatible with the surrounding area.
Rezoning requests are reviewed for consistency with all policies of the comprehensive plan.
Rezonings must also be consistent with the overall designation of land uses as depicted on the Future
Land Use Map, which include agriculture, residential, recreation, conservation, and commercial and
industrial land uses and their densities. Commercial and industrial land uses are located in nodes
throughout the unincorporated areas of Indian River County.
The goals, objectives and policies are the most important parts of the comprehensive plan. Policies
are statements in the plan which identify 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 rezoning decisions. While all
comprehensive plan objectives and policies are important, some have more applicability than others
in reviewing rezoning requests. Of particular applicability for this request are Future Land Use
Element Policies 1.3 and 1.6.
July 13, 1999
25
BOOK l PAGE
�7
F,
BOOK Wa PAGE 77
- Future Land Use Element Policy 1.3
Future Land Use Element Policy 1.3 states that the county shall maintain its zoning districts to
ensure the implementation of the comprehensive plan. The subject request would change the zoning
of the subject properties from districts that do not implement the comprehensive plan to districts that
do implement the comprehensive plan For that reason, the subject request implements Future Land
Use Element Policy 1.3.
- Future Land Use Element Policy 1.6
Future Land Use Element Policy 1.6 limits the C-1 land use designation to publicly owned land with
conservation and/or recreational uses. Since the Con -1 zoning district is also limited to publicly
owned land with conservation and/or recreational uses, the Con -1 zoning district is consistent with,
and allowed on, C-1 designated land. For these reasons, the request is consistent with Future Land
Use Element Policy 1.6.
As part of the staff analysis, all policies in the comprehensive plan were considered. Based upon
this analysis, staff determined that the proposed rezoning is consistent with the comprehensive plan.
The sites' existing zoning districts offer only limited, if any, environmental protections.
Development on the residentially zoned subject properties would be required to preserve only 15
percent of the upland habitat of the sites. Agriculturally zoned land is not required to preserve any
native upland habitat. In contrast, under the proposed Con -1 zoning district, 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
zoning districts, the proposed zoning district provides the sites with additional protection from
development. By prohibiting most types of development on the sites, the proposed rezonings will
ensure that the environmental quality of the sites will be preserved
For these reasons, the proposed rezonings are 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
The July 13, 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 least 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 holdingthe second rezoning public hearing at 9:05 a.m. at
a regular Board of County Commissioners meeting would be sufficient to ensure public
participation. Those factors include the following:
July 13, 1999
26
r�
u
C
•
• 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 future use of these properties already has been discussed at numerous public hearings
and public meetings, including Land Acquisition Advisory Committee meetings and other
meetings regarding the subject rezoning requests.
For those reasons, staff feels that it would be appropriate to hold the second rezoning public hearing
at 9:05 am. on July 27, 1999.
Based on the analysis, staff has determined that the proposed rezonings are 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 will ensure the preservation of
environmentally sensitive and important habitat. For these reasons, staff supports the request.
Staff recommends that Board of County Commissioners provide direction to staff regarding this
county initiated rezoning and direct staff to schedule the second rezoning public hearing for 9:05
am., at the regular commission meeting of July 27, 1999.
1. Rezoning Application
2. Subject Property 1 Location Map
3. Subject Property 2 Location Map
4. Subject Property 3 Location Map
5. Approved Minutes of the May 27, 1999 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
6. Rezoning Ordinance
Community Development Director Bob Keating reviewed the following special
requirements for rezoning requests which are specified by State law in a county -initiated
request which involves more than ten acres: the Board must hold two advertised public
hearings; one of the public hearings must be after 5:00 p.m. 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. Director Keating the reviewed the information contained in the
above memorandum concerning the subject matter.
The Commissioners had no questions.
The Chairman opened the public hearing and asked if anyone wished to be heard in
this matter. There being none, he closed the public hearing.
July 13, 1999
27
0
BOOK I U9 PAGE774
I
BOOK7'�
PAGE_? / 5
ON MOTION by Commissioner Adams, SECONDED BY
Commissioner Ginn, the Board unanimously directed staffto schedule
the second rezoning public hearing on this matter at the regular
commission meeting July 27, 1999, at 9:05 a.m., as recommended in
the Memorandum.
9.A.3. FIRST PUBLIC HEARING - REZONING OF PROPERTY
LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF 65TH STREET (SOUTH
WINTER BEACH ROAD) AND 1400± FEET WEST OF THE FECRR
FROM RM -6 TO RS -3 (LOST TREE VILLAGE) RZON 99-04-0238)
PROOF OF PUBLICATION OF ADVERTISEMENT FOR HEARWry
IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of June 23, 1999:
TO: James E. Chandler
County Administrator
HEAD CONCURRENCE
Community Development "Direct/
THROUGH: Sasan Rohani, AICP 154
Chief, Long -Range Planning
A/
FROM: John Wachtel
Senior Planner, Long -Range Planning
DATE: June 23,1999
RE: County Initiated Request to Rezone ±11.4 Acres From RM -6 to RS -3
(RZON 99-04-0238)
It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal consideration by the Board of County
Commissioners at its regular meeting of July 13, 1999.
This is a county initiated request to rezone ±11.4 acres from RM -6, Multiple -Family Residential
District (up to 6 units/acre) to RS -3, Single -Family Residential District (up to 3 units/acre). The
subject property is located on the north side of 65" Street (South Winter Beach Road), ±1,400 feet
west of the F.E.C. Railway.
July 13, 1999
28
•
On February 13, 1990, the county, approved its comprehensive plan, including a new future land use
map. After negotiation and amendment, that plan and map were found to be "In Compliance" by
the State Department of Community Affairs on August 15, 1991. With the adoption of the new
future land use map, the zoning of many parcels was no longer consistent with the future land use
map. For that reason, the county adopted a county -wide administrative rezoning on July 21, 1992.
Planning staff recently discovered that the subject property was mistakenly omitted from that
administrative rezoning. The purpose of this request is to change the zoning of the site to be
consistent with its land use designation.
On May 27, 1999, the Planning and Zoning Commission voted 5 to 0 to recommend that the Board
of County Commissioners approve the proposed rezoning.
State law provides some special requirements for rezoning requests, such as the subject request, that
are county initiated and involve more than ten acres. The most relevant of those special
requirements are the following:
• The Board must hold two advertised public hearings;
• One of the public hearings must be after 5:00 p.m. 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
a ,-✓crtiscd at least five days prior to the second hearing.
The July 13, 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 atter July 23, 1999, at a time determined by the Board of County Commissioners. The
rezoning ordinance then can be adopted at the second hearing.
The site and lands to the east, west and north consist of vacant undisturbed pine flatwoods and
possibly wetlands and scrub habitat. The subject property is zoned RM -6. Abutting land on the
north and west is zoned RS -3. Land bordering the site on the east is zoned EL, Light Industrial.
South of 65d' Street, much of the land in this area of the county has been approved for the Southern
Dunes Golf Course. Directly south of the subject property, land is zoned A-1, Agricultural (up to
1 unit/5 acres) and is undeveloped except for a trash transfer station and a transmission tower.
The subject property and land to the west and north are designated L-1, Low -Density Residential -1
on the future land use map. The L-1 designation permits residential uses with densities of up to 3
unitstacre. To the south of the site, land is designated L-2, Low -Density Residential -2, on the future
land use map. The L-2 designation permits residential uses with densities of up to 6 units/acre.
Property abutting the site on the east is designated C/I, Commercial/Industrial, on the future land use
map. The C/I designation permits various commercial and industrial zoning districts.
July 13, 1999
29
•
BOOK i a PAGE 7 7
r
BOOK i0J PAGE 777
The subject property is an undisturbed site containing pine flatwoods and possibly wetlands and
scrub habitat. Bald eagles, gopher tortoises and other protected species may reside on the site.
According to Flood Insurance Rating Maps, the subject property does not contain any flood hazard
areas.
The site is within the Urban Service Area of the county. Water lines extend from the North County
Reverse Osmosis Plant to the intersection of 65' Street and Old Dixie Highway, approximately
1,500 feet from the site. Wastewater lines extend from the North County Wastewater Treatment
Plant to the corner of 73`d Street and Old Dixie Highway, approximately one mile from the site.
The site is bounded on the south by 65t` Street. Classified as a rural major collector roadway on the
future roadway thoroughfare plan map, this segment of 65`h Street is a two lane road with
approximately 80 feet of public road right-of-way. No expansion of this segment of 65`h Street is
programmed.
In this section, an analysis of the reasonableness of the application will be presented. The analysis
will include a description of:
• concurrency of public facilities;
• compatibility with the surrounding area;
• consistency with the comprehensive plan;
• potential impact on environmental quality; and
• the applicable rezoning requirements.
This site is located within the county Urban Service Area, an area deemed suited for urban scale
development. The comprehensive plan establishes standards for: Transportation, Potable Water,
Wastewater, Solid Waste, Drainage, and Recreation. The adequate provision of these services is
necessary to ensure the continued quality of life enjoyed by the community. The comprehensive
plan also requires that new development be reviewed to ensure that the minimum acceptable
standards for these services and facilities are maintained.
Policy 3.2 of the Future Land Use Element states that no development shall be approved unless it
is consistent with the concurrency management system component of the Capital Improvements
Element. For rezoning requests, conditional concurrency review is required.
Conditional concurrency review examines the available capacity of each facility with respect to a
proposed project. Since rezoning requests are not projects, county regulations call for the
concurrency review to be based upon the most intense use of the subject property based upon the
requested zoning district. The site information used for the concurrency analysis is as follows:
1. Size of Area to be Rezoned:
2. Land Use Designation:
±11.4 acres
L-1, Low -Density Residential -1 (up to 3 units/acre)
July 13, 1999
30
•
0
3. Existing Zoning District:
RM -6, Multiple -Family Residential District
4. Proposed Zoning District: RS -3, Single -Family Residential District
5. Most Intense Use Under Existing Zoning District: 68 single-family units
6. Most Intense Use Under Proposed Zoning District: 34 single-family units
As per section 910.07(2) of the Concurrency Management Chapter of the County's Land
Development Regulations, projects which do not increase density or intensity of use are exempt from
concurrency requirements. This rezoning request is exempt from concurrency review because the
requested zoning would decrease the use intensity of the site.
Because the most intense use of the property would decrease, changing the property's zoning from
RM -6 to RS -3 would not create additional impacts on any concurrency facilities. In this case, a
detailed concurrency analysis will be done in conjunction with any new development on site. That
concurrency analysis will address facility service levels and demand.
With the subject property located in an area that is anticipated to be dominated by single-family,
low-density development, compatibility is not a major concern for this request. Since land to the
north and west is currently zoned RS -3, the request is for the continuation of an existing zoning
pattern. Land ownership in this part of the county also decreases the chances of incompatibilities
occurring. In this case, the owner of the subject property also owns most of the land abutting the
site.
For these reasons, development of the subject property under the requested RS -3 district would be
compatible with surrounding areas.
Rezoning requests are reviewed for consistency with all policies of the comprehensive plan.
Rezonings must also be consistent with the overall designation of land uses as depicted on the Future
Land Use Map, which include agriculture, residential, recreation, conservation, and commercial and
industrial land uses and their densities. Commercial and industrial land uses are located in nodes
throughout the unincorporated areas of Indian River County.
The goals, objectives, and policies are the most important parts of the comprehensive plan. Policies
are statements in the plan that identify the actions which the county will take in order to direct the
community's development. As courses of action committed to by the county, policies provide the
basis for all county land development decisions. While all comprehensive plan policies are
important, some have more applicability than others in reviewing rezoning requests. Of particular
applicability for this request are Future Land Use Element Policies 1.3 and 1.12.
- Future Land Use Element Policy 13
Future Land Use Element Policy 1.3 states that the county shall maintain its zoning districts to
ensure the implementation of the comprehensive plan. The subject request would change the zoning
of the subject property from a district that does not implement the comprehensive plan to a district
that does implement the comprehensive plan. For that reason, the subject request implements Future
Land Use Element Policy 1.3.
July 13, 1999
31
•
BOOK 1UJ PAGE s\
I
BOOK �. PAGE 7 7
- Future Land Use Element Policy1.12
Future Land Use Element Policy 1.12 states that the L-1, Low -Density Residential -1, land use
designation is intended for residential uses with densities up to three units/acre. Since the site is
located within an area designated L-1, the existing RM -6 zoning district, which allows densities up
to six units/acre, is not consistent with Future Land Use Element Policyl.12. The proposed RS -3
zoning district, however, limits densities to three units/acre. For that reason, the proposed rezoning
is consistent with Future Land Use Element Policyl.12.
While Future Land Use Element Policies 1.3 and 1.12 are particularly applicable to this request,
other comprehensive plan policies and objectives also have relevance. For that reason, staff
evaluated the subject request for consistency with all plan policies and objectives. Based upon that
analysis, staff determined that the request is consistent with the comprehensive plan.
Environmental protection regulations are the same for both the RM -6 and the RS -3 zoning districts.
Those regulations require that, prior to residential development of the site, the developer complete
an environmental survey to determine the extent of any jurisdictional wetlands on site. That survey
must be approved by the county's environmental planning staff. Any jurisdictional wetlands
determined to be located on the parcel are regulated by federal, state, and county agencies.
A survey of listed species would also be required prior to development of the site. If that survey
found any listed species, the developer would be required to coordinate with the appropriate state
and federal agencies.
Since the site contains native upland plant communities, the county's 10/15% set aside requirement
applies to the subject property. For these reasons, no significant adverse environmental impacts
associatcd with this request are anticipAed.
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. The subject request meets those criteria.
The July 13, 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 least 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, the following factors indicate that holding the second rezoning public hearing at 9:05
a.m. at a regular Board of County Commissioners meeting would be sufficient to ensure public
participation:
• The future use of the subject property already was discussed at previous public hearings and
public meetings when the comprehensive plan was adopted, and
• When, as in this case, zoning is not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, the
Comprehensive Plan prevails. For that reason, rezoning the subject property will not result
in a change in the allowed density on the subject property (Section 163.3194, Florida
Statutes).
For those reasons, staff feels that it would be appropriate to hold the second rezoning public hearing
at. 9:05 am. on July 27, 1999.
0
July 13, 1999
32
0
-I
•
The requested zoning is compatible with the surrounding area, and is consistent with the goals,
objectives, and policies of the comprehensive plan. Rezoning the site to RS -3 will have no negative
impacts on environmental quality or the provision of public facilities and services. The subject
property is located in an area deemed suitable for low-density, single-family residential
development. The request meets all applicable criteria. For those reasons, staff supports the request.
Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners provide direction to staff regarding this
county initiated rezoning and direct staff to schedule the second rezoning public hearing for 9:05
a.m., at the regular commission meeting of July 27, 1999.
1. Rezoning Application
2. Location Map
3: Approved Minutes of the May 27, 1999 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
4. "' Rezoning Ordinance
Community Development Director Bob Keating reviewed the following special
requirements for rezoning requests which are specified by State law in a county -initiated
request which involves more than ten acres: the Board must hold two advertised public
hearings; one of the public hearings must be after 5:00 p.m. 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. Director Keating the reviewed the information contained in the
above memorandum concerning the subject matter.
Director Keating then reviewed the information contained in the above memorandum
for the subject property.
The Commissioners had no questions.
The Chairman opened the public hearing and asked if anyone wished to be heard in
this matter. There being none, he closed the public hearing.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Stanbridge, SECONDED BY
Commissioner Tippin, the Board unanimously directed staff to
schedule the second rezoning public hearing on this matter at the
regular commission meeting July 27, 1999, at 9:05 a.m., as
recommended in the Memorandum.
July 13, 1999
33
BOOK iUJ PAGE _ d C)G
r �
BOOK 10a PAGE 78i
9.A.4. FIRST PUBLIC HEARING - REZONING OF PROPERTY
LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF 53RD STREET AND 600± FEET
EAST OF US1 FROM CG TO RM -6 MATALA - HARBORTOWN
MALLI =ON 99-04-0220)
PROOF OF PUBLICATION OF ADVERTISEMENT FOR HEARING
IS ON FILE IN TBE OFFICE OF TAE CLERK TO TAE BOARD
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of June 29, 1999:
TO: James E. Chandler
County Administrator
4DE TMENT HEAD CONCURRENCE
rt M. Keating,AICmunity Development irect
THROUGH: Sasan Rohani, AICP S • W_
Chief, Long -Range Planning
FROM: John Wachtel
Senior Planner, Long -Range Planning
DATE: June 29, 1999
RE: County Initiated Request to Rezone :kV Acres From CG to RM -6
(RZON 99-04-0220)
It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal consideration by the Board of County
Commissioners at its regular meeting of July 13, 1999.
This is a county initiated request to rezone ±67 acres from the CG, General Commercial, District to
the RM -6, Multiple -Family Residential District (up to 6 units/acre). The subject property is located
on the north side of 53`d Street, approximately 600 feet east of US 1.
On March 28, 1989, the county approved a Development Order (DO) for a 747,000 square foot
regional mall (the Harbortown Mall) to be built on the subject property. That DO stated that if
several deadlines for commencing development activity were not met, then the DRI development
approval would be `undone" and terminated
At the time of DO approval, a land use designation amendment was approved that changed the
designation of the subject property. That amendment redesignated the site from MD -1 (residential,
up to 8 units/acre) to Commercial Node. At that; time, the site was also rezoned from RM -6 to CG.
Deadlines for commencing development activity were also associated with that Land Use
Designation Amendment.
July 13, 1999
34
•
On March 17, 1998, the county adopted comprehensive plan amendments based on its Evaluation
and Appraisal Report (EAR). Because the necessary deadlines to commence development of the
subject property had not been met, the EAR based amendments changed the land use designation
of the subject property from C/I to M-1. The purpose of this request is to change the zoning of the
site to be consistent with the its current land use designation.
On May 27, 1999, the Planning and Zoning Commission voted 5 to 0 to recommend that the Board
of County Commissioners approve the proposed rezoning.
State law provides some special requirements for rezoning requests, such as the subject request, that
are county initiated and involve more than ten acres. The most relevant of those special
requirements are the following:
• The Board must hold two advertised public hearings;
• One of the public hearings must be after 5:00 p.m. 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 July 13, 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 July 23, 1999, at a time determined by the Board of County Commissioners. The
rezoning ordinance then can be adopted at the second hearing.
The site and land to the west are currently zoned CG and consist of a golf course driving range and
citrus groves. Land to the south is zoned RM -6 and consists of citrus groves. To the east, also zoned
RM -6, is the "River Club" portion of the Grand Harbor residential project. The subject site is
bounded on the north by the North Relief Canal. Land on the north side of that canal consists of
vacant woodlands and citrus groves and is zoned RS -3, Single -Family Residential (up to 3
units/acre).
The subject property and land to the south and east are designated M-1, Medium -Density
Residential -1 on the future land use map. The M-1 designation permits residential uses with
densities of up to 8 units/acre. To the north, across the canal, land is designated L-1, Low -Density
Residential -1 on the future land use map. The L-1 designation permits residential uses with densities
of up to 3 units/acre. Property to the west is designated C/I, Commercial/Industrial, on the future
land use map. The C/I designation permits various commercial and industrial zoning districts.
The_ subject property, a developed site, is not designated as environmentally important nor
environmentally sensitive by the comprehensive plan. No wetlands -or native upland plant
communities exist on the site. According to Flood Insurance Rating Maps, the subject property does
not contain any flood hazard areas.
July 13, 1999
35
BOOK PAGE
•
BOOK 101 PAGE 7C
The site is within the Urban Service Area of the county. Water lines extend to the site from the
North County Reverse Osmosis Plant. Wastewater lines extend from the Central Count:3 :Wastewater
Treatment Plant to the corner of 49" Street and US #1, approximately half a mile from the site.
The site is bounded on the south by 53'd Street. Classified as a rural principal arterial roadway on
the future roadway thoroughfare plan map, this segment of 53nd Street is a four lane road with
approximately 100 feet of public road right-of-way. This segment of 53'd Street is programmed for
expansion to 200 feet of public road right-of-way by the year 2020.
In this section, an analysis of the reasonableness of the application will be presented The analysis
will include a description of
• concurrency of public facilities;
• compatibility with the surrounding area;
• consistency with the comprehensive plan;
• potential impact on environmental quality; and
• the applicable rezoning requirements.
This site is located within the county Urban Service Area, an area deemed suited for urban scale
development. The comprehensive plan establishes standards for: Transportation, Potable Water,
Wastewater, Solid Waste, Drainage, and Recreation. The adequate provision of these services is
necessary to ensure the continued quality of life enjoyed by the community. The comprehensive
plan also requires that new development be reviewed to ensure that the minimum acceptable
standards for these services and facilities are maintained.
Policy 3.2 of the Future Land Use Element states that no development shall be approved unless it
is consistent with the concurrency management system component of the Capital Improvements
Element. For rezoning requests, conditional concurrency review is required.
Conditional concurrency review examines the available capacity of each facility with respect to a
proposed project. Since rezoning requests are not projects, county regulations call for the
concurrency review to be based upon the most intense use of the subject property based upon the
requested zoning district. The site information used for the concurrency analysis is as follows:
1. Size of Area to be Rezoned:
2. Land Use Designation:
3. Existing Zoning District:
4. Proposed Zoning District:
f67 acres
M-1, Medium -Density Residential -1 (up to 8 units/acre)
CG, General Commercial
RM -6, Multiple -Family Residential
5. Most Intense Use Under Existing Zoning District:
1670,000 sq. ft. of Retail Commercial (Shopping Center in the 6b Edition ITE Manual).
6. Most Intense Use Under Proposed Zoning District: 402 single-family units
July 13, 1999
36
As per section 910.07(2) of the Concurrency Management Chapter of the County's Land
Development Regulations, projects which do not increase density or intensity of use are exempt from
concurrency requirements. This rezoning request is exempt from concurrency review because the
requested zoning would not increase the use intensity of the site.
In this case, a detailed concurrency analysis will be done in conjunction with any new development
or changes of use on site. That concurrency analysis will address facility service levels and demand
Staff feels that the proposed rezoning will increase the compatibility of development on the subject
property with surrounding uses. With residentially designated land to the north, south, and east,
residential development is anticipated to dominate this area of the county. Additionally, past
experience indicates that many incompatibilities occur where commercial and residential uses abut.
By decreasing the length of the CG/RM-6 border, the proposed rezoning decreases the likelihood
of incompatibilities occurring.
For these reasons, development of the subject property under the requested RM -6 district would be
compatible with surrounding areas.
Rezoning requests are reviewed for consistency with all policies of the comprehensive plan.
Rezonings must also be consistent with the overall designation of land uses as depicted on the Future
Land Use Map; those uses include agriculture, residential, recreation, conservation, and commercial
and industrial land uses and their densities. Commercial and industrial land uses are located in nodes
throughout the unincorporated areas of Indian River County.
The goals, objectives, and policies are the most important parts of the comprehensive plan. Policies
are statements in the plan that identify the actions which the county will take in order to direct the
community's development. As courses of action committed to by the county, policies provide the
basis for all county land development decisions. While all comprehensive plan policies are
important, some have more applicability than others in reviewing rezoning requests. Of particular
applicability for this request are Future Land Use Element Policies 1.3, 1.13 and 1.14.
- Future Land Use Element Policy 1.3
Future Land Use Element Policy 1.3 states that the county shall maintain its zoning districts to
ensure the implementation of the comprehensive plan. The subject request would change the zoning
of the subject property from a district that does not implement the comprehensive plan to a district
that does implement the comprehensive plan. For that reason, the subject request implements Future
Land Use Element Policy 1.3.
- Future Land Use Element Policies 1.13 and 1.14
Future Land Use Element Policy 1.13 states that the M-1, Medium -Density Residential -1, land use
designation is intended for residential uses with densities up to eight units/acre. In addition, that
policy states.that those residential uses must be located within an existing or future urban service
area. Future Land Use Element Policy 1.14 specifically allows both single- and multiple -family
residential development with densities up to eight units/acre within the M-1 land use category.
July 13, 1999
UFA
0
.1 r�
BOOK .BUJ PAGE 7uq
BOOK 1W PAGE Z5
Because the subject property is located within an area designated as M-1 on the county's future land
use plan map and is located within the county's urban service area, and the proposed zoning district
would permit residential uses no denser than six units/acre, the proposed request is consistent with
Future Land Use Element Policies 1.13 and 1.14. _
While Future Land Use Element Policies 1.3, 1.13, and 1.14 are particularly applicable to this
request, other comprehensive plan policies and objectives also have relevance. For that reason, staff
evaluated the subject request for consistency with all plan policies and objectives. Based upon that
analysis, staff determined that the request is consistent with the comprehensive plan.
Environmental protection regulations are the same for both the CG and the RM -6 zoning districts.
Because the subject property is not environmentally significant nor environmentally important,
development of the site will not impact significant natural resources.
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. The subject request meets those criteria.
The Jul; 13, 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 least 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, the future use of the subject property already has been discussed at numerous public
hearings and public meetings, "including meetings concerning the Evaluation and Appraisal Report
(EAR) and the EAR based amendments. Therefore, holding the second rezoning public hearing at
9:05 a.m. at a regular Board of County Commissioners meeting would be sufficient to ensure public
participation.
For that reason, staff feels that it would be appropriate to hold the second rezoning public hearing
at 9:05 a.m. on July 27, 1999.
The requested zoning is compatible with the surrounding area, and is consistent with the goals,
objectives, and policies of the comprehensive plan. Rezoning the site, as requested, will have no
negative impacts on environmental quality or the provision of public facilities and services. The
subject property is located in an area deemed suitable for residential development. The request
meets all applicable criteria. For those reasons, staff supports the request.
Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners provide direction to staff regarding this
county initiated rezoning and direct staff to schedule the second rezoning public hearing for 9:05
a.m., at the regular commission meeting of July 27, 1999.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Rezoning Application
2. Location Map
3. Approved Minutes of the May 27, 1999 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
4. Rezoning Ordinance
July 13, 1999
38
•
Community Development Director Bob Keating reviewed the following special
requirements for rezoning requests which are specified by State law in a county -initiated
request which involves more than ten acres: the Board must hold two advertised public
hearings; one of the public hearings must be after 5:00 p.m. 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. Director Keating the reviewed the information contained in the
above memorandum concerning the subject matter.
Director Keating then reviewed the information contained in the above memorandum
with respect to the subject property.
Commissioner Stanbridge inquired about the commercial area on the west side and
Director Keating responded.
The Chairman opened the public hearing and asked if anyone wished to be heard in
this matter. There being none, he closed the public hearing.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Grin, SECONDED BY Commissioner
Stanbridge, the Board unanimously directed staff to schedule the
second rezoning public hearing on this matter at the regular
commission meeting July 27, 1999, at 9:05 a.m., as recommended in
the Memorandum.
9.A.5. PUBLIC HEARING - REZONING OF THE PROPERTY
LOCATED NEAR THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF 58TH AVENUE
AND 9TH STREET SW (OSLO ROAD) BETWEEN 9TH STREET SW
AND THE SOUTH RELIEF CANAL FROM RS -3 AND A-1 TO PD -
REOUESTED BY SUNTREE PARTNERS, INC. - TO BE KNOWN AS
CITRUS SPRINGS (Note: Hearing continued to 8/3/99
PROOF OF PUBLICATION OF ADVERTISEMENT FOR REARING
IS ON FME IN THE OFFICE OF TRE CLERK TO TRE BOARD
- The Board reviewed a Memorandum of July 6, 1999:
July 13, 1999
�1
- BOOK J00 PAGE 786
r �
BOOK iUJ PAGE 7U 7
TO: James E. Chandler
County Administrator
D HEAD CONCURRENCE:
Ro ert M. g, AICP
Community Development Direct1r,
THROUGH: Stan Boling, AICP
Planning Director
FROM: John W. McCoy ,Xr (�
Senior Planner, Community Development
DATE: July 6, 1999
SUBJECT: Suntree Partners Inc.'s Request to Rezone Approximately 21731 Acres from A-
1
1 (Agricultural) and RS -3 (Single -Family up to 3 units/acre) to PD (Planned
Development) and to Receive Conceptual PD Plan Approval for a Development
to be Known as Citrus Springs
It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal consideration by the Board of County
Commissioners at its regular meeting of July 13, 1999.
DESCRIPTION & CONDITIONS:
This is a request by Suntree Partners, Inc., through its agent Knight, McGuire and Associates, Inc.,
to rezone approximately 217.31 acres. Approximately 207 acres are zoned A-1, while the remaining
10 acres are zoned RS -3. As part of the PD rezoning request, a PD conceptual plan has been
submitted for review and approval. The subject site is located northeast of the intersection of 581
Avenue and 9m Street SW, and runs from 9t' Street SW to the South Relief Canal. The purpose of
this request is to secure a zoning which allows construction of single-family homes on lots of various
sizes, many of which are smaller that the RS -3 zoning district's minimum lot size, and also to allow
multi -family units and an accessory commercial use area that is internal to the project.
• Board of County Commissioners Consideration
Pursuant to Section 971.05 of the LDRs, the Bbard of County Commissioners is to consider the
appropriateness of the requested conceptual PD plan based on the submitted PD plan and suitability
of the site for that use. The Board may approve, approve with conditions, or deny the special
exception use. The County may attach any conditions and safeguards necessary to mitigate impacts
and to ensure compatibility of the use with the surrounding area.
♦ Planning and Zoning Action
At its regular meeting of June 10, 1999, the Planning and Zoning Commission voted unanimously
(6-0) to approve the project. The Planning and Zoning Commission recommended some
modifications to the originally proposed buffers which the staff has incorporated into the analysis
section of the report regarding buffers. Some of the buffer recommendations are in response to
concerns expressed by surrounding property owners at the Planning and Zoning Commission public
hearing. Thus, the staff s recommendation includes the increased buffers recommended by the
Planning and Zoning Commission.
July 13, 1999
40
•
♦ Development Approval Options Available to the Developer
Because most of the site is zoned A-1, Agricultural (1 unit / 5 acres), the applicant must rezone the
property to a residential zoning district to allow for residential development. Any rezoning action
must comply with the site's L-1, Low Density Residential 1 (up to 3 unitstacre), land use
designation. There are two options available to the developer to seek approval of the proposed
project. Either of the two options, if approved, would allow the applicant to proceed with his
project, as proposed.
These options are as follows:
1. Rezone the site to a standard residential zoning district which allows a density of no more
than 3 units/acre, and propose development under a normal subdivision and/or site plan
application, or a PD (planned development) application for special exception use approval.
2. Rezone the site to a PD zoning district that is tied to a conceptual PD plan proposing a
density not exceeding 3 unitslacre.
The developer has opted for a PD rezoning. If approved, the PD rezoning will effectively rezone the
property and approve the conceptual plan in one set of public hearings.
♦ The PD Zoning District, Generally
Several residential projects have been approved through the PD rezoning process. These include
Pointe West and Old Orchid Groves. Unlike standard zoning districts, there are no specific size or
dimension criteria for PD districts. Instead, the PD district is based on the underlying land use plan
designation for density and use limitations, and on compatibility requirements. In the PD zoning
district, setbacks and other typical zoning district regulations are established on a site by site basis
through approval of a conceptual PD plan. Adopted as part of the PD zoning for a property, the
conceptual plan serves as the zoning standard for the site.
A rezoning to the PD district requires the submission of a binding conceptual PD plan which, along
with certain PD district requirements, limits uses and sets -forth specific development standards on
the site. Thus, a PD rezoning allows a unique PD district to be developed specifically for each
development site.
In this case, the conceptual PD plan proposes the phased development of 645 residential units, which
include a mix of multi -family (23 1) units and detached single-family (414 units). Also included in
the project will be recreational amenities, certain buffers, and an internal accessory commercial area.
In planning staffs opinion, the PD rezoning option is the best alternative for approving residential
development on the subject site. Unlike other zoning districts, the PD zoning district allows the
county to consider the appropriateness of the proposed development design as part of a rezoning
request.
♦ The PD Rezoning Process
The PD rezoning review, approval, and development process is as follows:
STEP 1. Rezoning and conceptual PD plan approval: Review and recommendation made by
staff and by the Planning and Zoning Commission. Final action taken by the Board
of County Commissioners.
STEP 2. Preliminary PD plan (combination of site plan and preliminary plat) approval:
Review and recommendation made by staff. Final action taken by the Planning and
Zoning Commission, subject to the Board's action on the rezoning request.
July 13, 1999
41
•
BOOK J PAGE FLS
BOOK iO b PAGE 7U
STEP 3. Land Development Permit or Permit Waiver: Reviewed and issued by staff for
construction of subdivision improvements (roads, utilities, drainage).
STEP 4. Building Permit(s): Reviewed and issued by staff for construction of buildings.
STEP 5. Final PD Plat approval: Review and recommendation made by staff. Final action
taken by the Board of County Commissioners.
STEP 6 Certificate of Occupancy: Reviewed and issued by staff for use and occupancy of
buildings.
The applicant is pursuing STEP 1 of the process.
Once a PD conceptual plan is approved, only minor modifications to the conceptual plan can be
approved at a staff level. Any changes proposed to an approved conceptual plan that would intensify
the site use (e.g. increase the maximum number of lots) or reduce compatibility elements (e.g. reduce
buffering) can be approved only via a process involving public hearings held by both the Planning
and Zoning Commission and the Board of County Commissioners.
♦ Proposed PD District for the Project Site
The subject site has an L-1 land use designation. This underlying land use designation allows a
variety of single-family districts and a multi -family zoning district, each of which has a maximum
density of 3 units/acre or less. Since the land use designation controls the use of the property by
limiting the zoning districts applicable to the property, any rezoning must be compatible with the
uses and densities allowed by the property's land use designation. Once a specific PD rezoning is
approved for a site, the applicable PD conceptual plan adopted as part of the rezoning will limit the
type of specific uses, densities, and dimensional criteria allowed on the subject site.
Although PD zoning district parameters are flexible, certain standards related to uses, compatibility
(buffering), infrastructure improvements, dimensional criteria, and open space areas are set forth in
Chapter 915 (P.D. Process and Standards for Development Ordinance) of the county's land
development regulations (LDRs). As reflected in the proposed conceptual PD plan, the proposed
PD district for the subject site contains the following elements as compared with the traditional RS -3
zoning district. The project consists of 6 "villages" or pods, each of which contains a certain
residential product type. The individual "villages" are compared to the RS -3 zoning district
standards in the chart below.
July 13, 1999
42
•
VnJ AGES A and F (MULTI -FAMILY)
Development Parameters/Waivers
Zoning
RS -3
PROPOSED PD (A & F)
*Minimum Lot Size
12,000 sf
2,100 if
*Minimum Lot Width
80 ft.
30 ft.
*Minimum Lot Frontage
80 ft.
30 ft.
*Minimum Yard Setbacks:
Front
25 ft.
25 ft.
Side
15 ft.
0 ft.
Rear
25 ft.
25 ft.
Pools
Front
20 ft.
5 ft.
Side
15 ft.
2 &
Rear
10 ft.
5 ft.
Patios
Front
20 ft.
N/A
Side
15 ft.
0 ft.
Rear
10 ft.
5 ft.
Decks
Front
20 ft.
N/A
Side
15 &
0/10 ft.
Rear
10 ft.
5 ft.
Fences
Front
0 ft.
0 ft.
Side
0 ft.
0 ft.
Rear
0 ft.
0 ft.
Maximum Building Height35
ft.
35 ft.
Maximum Lot Coverage
Buildings
30%
40%
Impervious Area
60%
60%
Minimum Open Space
Lot
40%
20%
Phase
N/A
40%
Project
40%
40%
Min. R/W Width
50 ft.
50 ft.
July 13, 1999
43
•
BOOK DO PAGE 71 0
BOOK WJ. . PAG , ;
E�,'7
*Note: Village F units will have a 75' setback from the west perimeter property line.
*Note: The 2,100 sq. ft. lot will generally overlay the building, and the setbacks will
apply from any internal right-of-way lines or property lines.
*Note: The multi -family units shall be limited to 1 and 2 story combination units with no
more than 3 units attached Such a restriction limits the mass and scale of the
multi -family units.
VILLAGE C (SINGLE-FAMILY)
Development Parameters/Waivers
Zoning
RS -3
PROPOSED PD (C)
*Minimum Lot Size
12,000 sf
9,375 sf
*Minimum Lot Width
80 ft.
75 ft.
Minimum Lot Frontage on Curve
30 ft.
30 ft.
*Minimum Yard Setbacks:
Front
25 ft.
25 ft.
Side
15 ft.
10 ft.
Rear
25 ft.
25 ft.
Pools
Front
20 ft.
5 ft.
Side
15 ft.
10 ft.
2 ft.
Rear
10 ft.
Patios
Front
20 ft.
N/A
Side
15 ft.
10 ft.
Rear
10 ft.
Decks
Front
20 ft.
N/A
Side
15 ft.
10 ft.
Rear
10 ft.
Fences
Front
0 ft.
0 ft.
Side
0 ft.
0 &
Rear
0 ft.
0 ft.
Maximum Building Height
35 ft.
35 ft.
July 13, 1999
UJI
Maximum Lot Coverage
Zoning
Buildings
30%
40%
Impervious Area
60%
60%
Minimum Open Space
50 ft.
Minimum Lot Frontage
Lot
40%
20% -
Phase (overall in the village)
N/A
40%
Project
40%
40%
Min. R/W Width
50 ft.
50 ft.
*Note: Lots on project perimeter will meet the RS -3 standard lot size, RS -3 setbacks, and
the 25' PD perimeter setback.
VILLAGES B, D, and G (SINGLE-FAMMy)
Development Parameters/Waivers
Zoning
RS -3
PROPOSED PD (%D,G)
Minimum Lot Size
12,000 sf
6,250 sf
Minimum Lot Width
80 ft.
50 ft.
Minimum Lot Frontage
80 ft.
20 &
Minimum Yard Setbacks:
Front
25 ft.
25 ft.
*Side
15 ft.
0/10 ft.
Rear
25 ft.
25 ft.
Pools
Front
20 ft.
5 &
Side
15 ft.
2 ft.
Rear
10 ft.
5 ft.
Patios
Front
20 ft.
N/A
Side
15 ft.
0/10 ft.
Rear
10 ft.
5 ft.
Decks
Front
20 ft.
N/A
Side
15 ft.
0/10 ft.
Rear
10 ft.
5 ft.
July 13, 1999
45
BOOK iUJ PAGE 7
•
b
BOOK �,� PAGE 03
Fences
Zoning
Front
0 ft.
0 ft.
Side
0 ft.
0 i.
Rear
0 ft.
0 ft.
Maximum Building Height
35 ft.
35 ft.
Maximum Lot Coverage
Front
Buildings
30%
40%
Impervious Area
60%
60%
Minimum Open Space
25 ft.
Pools
Lot
40%
20%
Phase
N/A
40%
Project
40%
40%
Min. lZ/W Width
50 ft.
50 ft.
*Note: The opposite side from the 0' setback will be a 10' setback.
VILLAGE E (SINGLE-FAMILY)
Development Parameters/Waivers
Zoning
RS -3
PROPOSED PD (E)
Minimum Lot Size
12,000 sf
8,125 sf
Minimum Lot Width
80 ft.
65 ft.
Minimum Lot Frontage
80 ft.
25 ft.
Minimum Yard Setbacks:
Front
25 ft.
25 ft.
*Side
15 ft.
0/10 ft.
Rte'
25 ft.
25 ft.
Pools
Front
20 ft.
5 ft.
Side
15 ft.
2 ft.
Rear
10 ft.
5 ft.
_ Patios
Front
20 ft.
N/A
Side m
15 ft.
0/10 ft.
Rear
10 ft.
5 ft.
July 13, 1999
M.
0 _ •
:7
Decks
PROPOSED PD
RS -3 District
Front
20 ft.
N/A
Side
15 ft.
0/10 ft.
Rear
10 ft.
5 ft. -
Fences
limited to CN (Neighborhood Commercial)
Front
0 ft.
0 ft.
Side
0 ft.
0 &
Rear
0 ft.
0 ft.
Maximum Building Height
35 ft.
35 ft.
Maximum Lot Coverage
Buildings
30%
40%
Impervious Area
60%
60%
Minimum Open Space
Lot
40%
20%
Phase
N/A
40%
Project
40%
40%
Min. IbV Width 150&
50 ft.
*Note: The side opposite the 0' setback will be a 10' setback.
In the past, the Planning and Zoning Commission has requested a statement of "benefits" that the
county will receive in return for granting the requested PD waivers. In the case of the Citrus Springs
proposal, "benefits" would include: a variety of residential product, a coordinated pedestrian system,
integration of accessory commercial with internal recreational amenities, and mitigating buffers.
RS -3 District
PROPOSED PD
RS -3 District
Single -Family detached, accessory dwe-11ing
Same as RS -3, except multi -family ;wits, and
units, places of worship, etc. as listed in section
accessory commercial would be allowed in
911.07.
accordance with PD regulations. Commercial
uses would be regulated by section 915.12 and
limited to CN (Neighborhood Commercial)
type uses.
It should be noted that, if the PD rezoning is approved, the approved conceptual plan will be
included as an actual exhibit to the rezoning ordinance. Additional items which are controlled by
the conceptual plan include buffering and the overall subdivision layout.
July 13, 1999
47
•
BOOK 100 PAGE _'U"k
BOOK JUJ PAGE 7,0
The subject site consists mostly of active citrus, although some of the groves have been removed.
The site is generally northeast of the 5811 Avenue/9th Street SW intersection, with frontage on 9th
Street SW, 58th Avenue, and 5th Street SW. The overall project site is "split" by 5th Street SW.
To the north of the subject site is the South Relief Canal (250' of right-of-way) and then Hammock
Lakes PD Phase I and an existing grove which is proposed as Hammock Lakes PD Phase H. All of
the adjacent properties to the north are zoned RS -3.
To the east, all of the adjacent properties are in citrus and are zoned RS -3.
South of the subject site, across 9th Street SW, there is one home with the remainder in groves. The
majority of that property is zoned RS -3, with a portion at the west end (near 58th Avenue) zoned A 1.
West of the subject site, across 581 Avenue and south of 51 Street SW, the property is all in citrus
and zoned A-1. North of 5th Street SW there is a plant nursery and Emmanuel Baptist Church, both
of which are zoned A-1. There is a f 10 acre parcel located between the project site and the 58'
Avenue/9th Street SW intersection. That parcel is zoned A-1.
As is standard for PDs, the development will have a minimum 25' setback from all perimeter
property lines. There will be additional setbacks and buffering between the proposed multi -family
product and the project perimeters and where the project is adjacent to active agricultural uses.
These extra setbacks and buffers ensure that the development will be compatible with the zoning of
the surrounding area.
• Future Land Use Map Pattern
The subject property has an L-1 land use plan designation as do the properties to the north, east, and
south. The property to the west, across 58th Avenue, is outside the urban service area and has an AG-
I land use designation (Agricultural 1, up to 1 unit per 5 acres). The 10 acre parcel lying between
the southwest corner of the project and 58`h Avenue also has an L-1 land use designation.
• Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan
Rezoning requests are reviewed for consistency with the policies of the comprehensive plan and
must also be consistent with the overall designation of land uses as depicted on the Future Land Use
Map. Consistency with goals, objectives, and policies is also essential. The goals, objectives and
policies are the most important parts of the comprehensive plan. Policies are statements in the plan
which identify the actions which the county will take in order to direct the community's
development. As courses of action committed to by the county, policies provide the basis for all
county land development related decisions. While all comprehensive plan policies are important,
some have more applicability than others in reviewing rezoning requests. Of particular applicability
for this request are the following policies and objectives.
• Future Land Use Policies 53 and 5.4
Policy 5.3: Indian River county zoning districts shall permit a variety of residential building and
development styles.
Policy 5.4:Indian River County LDRs shall contain a special Planned Development (PD) zoning
district. That district shall be designated as an overlay on the County Zoning Atlas. "11ie PD zoning
district is intended to provide for the development of projects which require flexibility in order to
maximize open space and conserve natural features, provide alternative designs, incorporate
recreational facilities, and incorporate a mix of uses.
July 13, 1999
48
0
•
The proposed PD is consistent with these policies in that the PD plan proposes a variety of
residential product types in a design that exceeds open space minimums and buffers project
perimeters.
• Future Land Use Element Policies 1.11 and 1.12
Future Land Use Element Policy 1.12 states that the L-1, Low Density Residential 1, land use
designation is intended for residential uses with densities up to 3 units/acre. In addition, Future Land
Use Element Policy 1.11 states that these residential uses must be located within an existing or future
urban service area.
Since the subject property is located within an area designated as L-1 on the county's future land use
plan map and is located within the county's urban service area, the proposed zoning district proposes
residential uses less than 3 units/acre in accordance with the L-1 designation. Therefore, the
proposed request is consistent with Policies 1.11 and 1.12.
While the referenced policies and objectives are particularly applicable to this request, other
comprehensive plan policies and objectives also have relevance. For that reason, staff evaluated the
subject request for consistency with all plan policies and objectives. Based upon that analysis, staff
determined that the request is generally consistent with the comprehensive plan.
Based on population projections and current development patterns, residential development in this
area of the county is expected to increase and eventually become the dominant land use. Since the
project area is located within the Urban Service Area and is designated for low-density residential
development, the proposed rezoning is consistent with the comprehensive plan.
The property that will be most impacted by the proposed development and rezoning is the f 10 acre
parcel located adjacent to the southwest comer of the development. This adjacent, residentially
designated parcel is located between the proposed development and 58* Avenue on the west and
911 Street SW on the south. Given the additional setbacks and buffering proposed, the proposed
residential development should be compatible with the residential use of the not -included parcel .
For these reasons, staff feels that the requested PD rezoning will be compatible with the surrounding
zoning.
• Environmental Impacts and Concurrency
These issues will be analyzed in the PD plan analysis.
■
1.
2.
3.
r9
PD Plan Analysis
Size:
Zoning Classifications:
217.30 acres
Current: A-1, Agricultural (1 units/5 acres)
RS -3, Residential Single -Family (up to 3 units/acre)
Proposed: PD, Planned Development (up to 3 units/acre)
Land Use Designation:
Density:
July 13, 1999
L-1, Low Density 1 (up to 3 units/acre)
645 units on 217.30 acres = 2.96 units/acre
49
BOOK, 10J PAGE 796
BOOK i0 a PAGE 79 7.
5. Lot Size A-1 Minimum 200,000 sq. ft.
RS -3 Mnimum 12,000 sq. &
Ranges Proposed 2,100 -16,800 sq. ft._
6. Open Space: Required: 40%
Provided: 59.5% (creditable open space)
7. Recreation Area: Required: 7.74 acres
Provided: 10.45 acres
Note. The recreation area is provided via a clubhouse recreation complex, pedestrian
walkways, parks, and lake side areas.
S. Phasing:
The applicant is proposing to construct the development in two phases. Phase I will consist
of Villages D, E, and F (292 units), the recreation complex and some of the accessory
internal commercial area. Villages A,B,C, and G (353 units) will comprise Phase 11. Each
phase will be able to "stand alone" in regard to infrastructure improvements such as water,
sewer, stormwater management, road paving, and other required improvements (e.g.
buffering).
9. Environmental Issues:
Uplands: Since the site is over 5 acres, the native upland set-aside requirement
of LDR section 929.05 could potentially apply. However, the existing
site consists entirely of groves or pasture; therefore, no upland set-
aside is required.
Wetlands: Environmental planning staff indicates that there is not a high
probability of any wetlands on-site, given that the entire site was
citrus. Detailed environmental information will be required during
the preliminary PD review process. If any wetland areas are
identified at that time, the appropriate regulations would be applied,
and a corresponding re -design would be done (if necessary).
10. Concurrency Management:
Long-range planning staff has indicated that a conditional concurrency certificate will be
issued for this project prior to the Planning and Zoning Commission's consideration of this
item. Thus, all concurrency requirements related to conceptual PD plan and rezoning
approval have been satisfied.
11. Stormwater Management:
As with standard single-family subdivisions, the conceptual stormwater management plan
has been approved by the Public Works Department. This plan includes a system of
stormwater ponds. Final review and approval of the stormwater management plan shall be
accomplished through the land development permit process.
July 13, 1999
50
I
12. Thoroughfare Plan:
The Thoroughfare Plan classifies 96 Street SW as a major arterial roadway which
requires an ultimate right-of-way of 1301. Presently, 120' of right-of-wpy exists for
96 Street SW. The proposed conceptual plan accommodates the additional=10' of
right-of-way needed from this site to achieve the ultimate right-of-way. _
The Thoroughfare Plan classifies 56 Street SW as a collector road requiring 80' of
road right-of-way. Presently, 30' of road right-of-way exists. The applicant will need
to dedicate an additional 30' without compensation to create the local road minimum
of 60'. Also, the county is negotiating to Purchase an additional 20' of right-of-way
to complete the 80' of ultimate road right-of-way for 56 Street SW. The 20'
acquisition will take place outside of the development review process. The plan
does accommodate all 50' of additional road right-of-way needed for 56 Street SW.
The Thoroughfare Plan classifies 586 Avenue as an arterial roadway that requires an
ultimate right-of-way of 1301. No additional right-of-way is requiredfor the project
site, due to the location of the Indian River Farms Water Control District Lateral B
Canal along the east side of 586 Avenue.
13. Traffic Circulation:
The project will be accessed from 96 Street and 56 Street SW. For the portion of the
development between 96 Street SW and 56 Street SW, a main entry road will run from 96
Street SW to 56 Street SW. Individual "villages" will access the main entry road, which will
be dedicated to the public.
The project entry north of 56 Street SW will align with the proposed main entry road to the
south. The north area entrance road will branch out to provide access to the three Villages
located north of 56 Street SW.
A traffic impact analysis has been reviewed by Traffic Engineering. The review of that
analysis indicates that the following improvements are required to mitigate project traffic
impacts:
1. Westbound right -turn lane on 96 Street SW at the project's 96 Street SW entrance
2. West bound left -turn lane on 56 Street SW at the project's 56 Street SW entrance.
3. Eastbound left -turn lane on 56 Street SW at the project's 56 Street SW entrance.
4. Southbound left -turn lane on 586 Avenue (King's Hwy) at 56 Street SW/58th
Avenue intersection.
5. Three lane bridge over the Lateral B Canal to connect 56 Street SW to 586 Avenue
intersection.
6. Paving 56 Street SW from 586 Avenue to 43'd Avenue.
7. A southbound right -turn lane on 276 Avenue at its intersection with 86 Street.
A developer's agreement will control the timing of these and other required improvements. The
developer's agreement will need to be approved by the Board of County Commissioners prior to the
issuance of a land development permit.
July 139 1999
51
BOOK
PAGE`:
0-
BOOK iii PAGE J(J9
14. Utilities:
Connection to public water and wastewater services is mandatory. These utility provisions
have been approved by the Health Department and the County Utility Services Department.
The applicant will be extending both county water and sewer service improvements to the
site based on a separate developer's agreement with the Department of Utility Services. The
utilities developer's agreement will need to be approved by the Board of County
Commissioners prior to the issuance of a land development permit.
15. Dedications and Improvements:
Sidewalks. A 5' public sidewalk is required to be constructed along the site's 9*
Street SW and P Street SW frontages (north side of each street frontage). The
sidewalks are shown on the conceptual plan and will need to be constructed in
conjunction with the appropriate development phase.
Paving of 0 Street SW. 5t6 Street SW must be paved from 43rd Avenue to 5811
Avenue. The timing and any county contribution for such paving will be part of the
developer's agreement that will require Board of County Commissioners approval.
Bridge at 0 Street SW and Se Avenue: The applicant is responsible for constructing
the bridge over the Lateral B Canal. The developer's agreement will set the timing
and amount of any county contribution.
Emergency Access and Pedestrian Access: Emergency access and pedestrian access
points will be provided in Villages A and D and will provide emergency and
pedestrian access to 51 Street SW. These connections have been conceptually
approved by Emergency Services and Public Works, and will be constructed in the
appropriate phases. The applicant will need to obtain approval of Emergency
Services and Public Works for detailed designs of the emergency access points. Said
details will be reviewed under the appropriate land development permit applications.
Proposed PD Waivers: The proposed waivers available through the PD process were-
discussed
erediscussed in the PD zoning analysis. Please reference that section for waivers
proposed by the developer.
Pedestrian Circulation: The applicant has submitted an approvable internal
pedestrian circulation plan which provides for the emergency access points to
function as pedestrian accesses. The pedestrian plan consists of sidewalks on both
sides of all internal streets, a sidewalk along the west side of the main north/south
road and a path connecting the two cul-de-sacs in Village B. The sidewalks will be
constructed with the respective phases.
Accessory Commercial The applicant is proposing a maximum build -out of 12,900
sq. & of accessory commercial building area. This is allowed based on the criteria
of PD section 915.12. The proposed design meets the criteria, which are attached.
In staiTs opinion, the location of the accessory commercial away from the project
perimeter, and in conjunction with the project clubhouse and main north/south road,
- . is acceptable.
- --Road Names: The applicant is requesting the use of named roads rather than
numbered roads which fit into the county's street number grid system. Staff denied
this request. Then, the applicant appealed that denial to the Planning and Zoning
July 13, 1999
52
Commission. The Planning and Zoning Commission upheld the staff denial because
the applicant met none of the LDR criteria that would exempt the project from using
street numbers. These criteria are as follows:
(4) Named roads.-
(a)
oads:
(a) The requirement of number designations for roads in the
unincorporated county shall not apply to named roads established
prior to the date of this chapter.
(b) All new roads established in the unincorporated county shall be
issued a number designation in conformance with the grid pattern as
described herein, with the following exceptions:
1. Continuations of existing, named roads (roads with name
designations only), or
2. Roads on the barrier island, or
3. Private roads within a planned development or a private
subdivision that do not fit into the county's existing grid
system of east -west and north -south roads.
At the time of development plan application, staff shall apply these
criteria in its review of requests for use of road names. Staff
determinations shall be final unless appealed pursuant to the
provisions of 951.09(2).
The applicant is not continuing a named road pattern, and the project is not on the barrier island.
The roads within the subdivision can easily fit into the county's overall roadway numbering system,
such as was done in the hammock Lake Estates and Cypress Lake PDs located north of this project.
Therefore, the applicant should be required to meet the LDR requirements and use the street
numbers, such as 540 Avenue and 531d Avenue, which have been assigned to the project by planning
staff.
Landscape and Buffering:
July 13, 1999
West Side Village A (Multi Fmnily): A 50' wide buffer with a 75' setback is
proposed along the west side of Village A, where Village A abuts Lateral B
Canal and 58'h Avenue. The buffer is proposed to be a Type "B" with a 6'
opaque feature. A heavier than normal buffer is required since the developer
is proposing multi -family units (limited to 1 & 2 story combinations and a
maximum of 3 units attached).
Note. The Planning and Zoning Commission expressed concerns about this
specific area since it is adjacent to two existing single-family homes located
on approximately 10 acres. While the Planning and Zoning Commission
made no specific recommendation regarding this interface, it directed staff
to work with the applicant to "beef -up" the buffer. - Staff has meet with the
applicant and examined Bringing the proposed lake south to Oslo Road and
changing the product type to single-family units along this property line. The
applicant has indicated that he wants to proceed with the buffer as proposed
at the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting, and has included colorized
53
r
BOOK 109 PAGE
July 13, 1999
graphics to convey the extent of the proposed buffer. Staff believes the
proposed buffer is reasonable based on the proposed minimum setback (75),
proposed physical barrier (6' berm), and proposed landscape planting.
North Side of 5l Street SW: A 25' setback is required and depicted.from the
80' Thoroughfare Plan right-of-way to any hard surface, such as pavement.
In addition, a Type "B" buffer will be provided adjacent to the area where the
multi -family units are proposed and a Type "D" buffer along the remainder
where single-family units are proposed
South Side of 5' Street SW.- A 25' setback is required and a Type "D" buffer
is recommended where units are adjacent to 5t' Street SW. This buffer
recommendation has been added by staff since the report went to the
Planning and Zoning Commission. Staff is requesting it be a condition of
approval.
East Side of Village C (Single Family): An agricultural buffer is required and
depicted along the east property line of Village "C" since an active grove is
adjacent to the project. The buffer will need to consist of a 25' wide Type
"B" buffer. The buffer will be constructed along with the land development
improvements for Village C.
North project perimeter adjacent to South Relief Canal. The Planning and
Zoning Commission recommended a Type "C" buffer with a 6' opaque
feature adjacent to the multi -family area and a Type "D" buffer for the
remainder. Staff and Planning and Zoning Commission are requesting this
be a condition of approval.
East Side of 11111age G (Single -Family): An agricultural buffer is required
and depicted along the east property line of Village "G", since an active grove
is adjacent to the project. The buffer will need to consist of a 25' wide Type
"B" buffer. The buffer will be constructed along with the land development
improvements for Village G. In addition, a 75' setback will be provided
along the east side of Village G.
Not Included Parcel: There is a not -included parcel fronting on 51 Street SW
at the north end of Village G. Around that parcel, a 25' setback and a Type
"C" buffer will be provided on the development site. The buffer will be
constructed with the Village G subdivision improvements.
South End of Village G (Single Family): The Planning and Zoning
Commission recommended that the Type "D" buffer on a 3' berm be
increased to a Type "B" buffer on a 3'1berm. The staff concurs with this
recommendation. Staff and the Planning and Zoning Commission are
requesting this be a condition of approval.
Double Frontage Buffers: Double frontage buffers are required internal to the
project any place that a unit has a back or side yard that fronts a road. The
applicant has depicted the buffer locations on the plan, along the appropriate
segments of the main north/south road The buffers are in accordance with
section 913.O9(6)(C)5 and will be provided with the subdivision
improvements for the respective phase.
54
•
South and West Side of Village F (Multi -Family): Along the perimeter of
Village F, a 50' wide Type "B" buffer with a 6' opaque feature is required.
In addition, a 75' building setback is proposed by the applicant V _provide a
measure of compatibility. As previously stated, the multi -family units,will
be limited to 1 and 2 story combinations and a maximum of 3 units attached.
The Planning and Zoning Commission recommends extending this buffer-
p
to Village D along the lake area between the two villages. Staff and the
Planning and Zoning Commission are requesting that this be a condition of
approval.
West Side of Village D (Single Family): The west side of Village D is
adjacent to the Lateral B Canal and 58th Avenue. The Planning and Zoning
Commission recommended that this buffer be increased from a Type `C" with
a 6' feature to a Type "B" with a 6' feature. Staff and the Planning and
Zoning Commission are requesting that this be made a condition of approval.
IX _
The requested PD rezoning and corresponding conceptual PD plan are generally compatible with the
surrounding area, consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, meet all concurrency requirements, and
are consistent with the site's L-1 (Low Density 1 up to 3 units/acre) land use designation. The
subject property is suitable for residential development given its surrounding future land use map
and zoning pattern, and its proximity and direct access to 9'h Street SW and 5m Street SW.
Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners grant approval of the PD rezoning
request and the PD conceptual plan, subject to the following conditions:
1. The applicant shall use road numbers in accordance with LDR Chapter 951
standards. .
2. Via the final plat(s) or an acceptable off -plat dedication, the applicant shall dedicate
without compensation 30' of right-of-way for 5* Street SW.
3. That the buffers detailed in section 15 of this staff report are attached as conditions
of the PD rezoning approval.
4. Prior to the issuance of a land development permit, the applicant shall:
a. Apply for and obtain preliminary PD plan approval from the Planning and
Zoning Commission.
b. Obtain Board of County Commissioners approval of a developer's agreement
regarding provision of water and sewer utility improvements.
C. Obtain Board of County Commissioners approval of a developer's agreement
regarding the required off-site traffic -related improvements.
5. Prior to the issuance of a certificate of completion for any respective project phase
or village, the applicant shall:
a. Construct required buffers as described in the landscape and buffering section
of this report.
July 13, 1999
55
•
900K PAGE &n?
FF-
•
BOOK iOi PAGES03
b. Construct or bond -out off-site sidewalks (9* Street SW and 51h Street SW)
that are required for that project phase or village.
C. Construct any off-site roadway improvements required for that phase or
village, in accordance with an approved developer's agreement.
d. Construct any off-site utility improvements required for that project phase or
village, in accordance with an approved Utility Services developer's
agreement.
1. Application
2. Location Map
3. Conceptual PD Plan
4. Accessory Commercial Criteria
5. Buffer Graphics (colorized graphic by applicant); separate
6. Draft of Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes
7. Rezoning Ordinance
8. Colorized Multi -Family Building Elevation; separate
Planning Director Stan Boling reviewed the memo using a locationmap (page 94) and
conceptual plan (page 95) displayed on the ELMO, described the requested conceptual PD
plan in detail as in the above memorandum.
The Commissioners had many questions and comments concerning the conceptual
plan indicating their concerns about open green space, stormwater management, maintenance
of the stormwater tracts, buffering, boundary units abutting to existing home sites, turn lanes,
impact on traffic, setting precedent, cutbacks, sizes and quantities of the multi -family units,
as well as other concerns.
Chairman Macht had a concern that this development would look like Viera.
The Chairman opened the public hearing and asked if anyone wished to be heard in
this matter.
Sherry Jones, 5766 9' Street S.W., who owns and lives in a home which neighbors
an area of planned 2 -story triplexes, spoke in opposition to the multi -family units in the
conceptual plan which would be located near her property. She requested, at a minimum,
that Citrus Springs continue the 200' water management buffer in addition to the G berm
along the east side of her 2 acre lot instead of placing 4 triplexes there.
-_ Ellen Arnsmeier, 5768 9' Street S.W., who is also a close neighbor of the area west
of the planned 2 -story triplexes, spoke in opposition to the conceptual plan showing the
July 13, 1999
56
U
multi -family units located near her property. She stated the proximity was an infringement '
of her right to privacy which would lower the value of her home and acreage. She requested
the stormwater management area be increased along her property's east boundary. She
complained that no public notices were posted on the property to indicate it was to be -re-
zoned in order to notify the other property owners in the surrounding area.
Roy Hirschfeld, 4055 12t` Street S.W., was unaware of this plan until he read about
it in the local newspaper. He requested the Commissioners deny the request because of the
impact it would make in the area with respect to traffic, utilities, schools, as well as the
credibility, integrity, and stability of the existing zoning laws.
Fred Weinkauff, 230 44'h Terrace S.W., spoke as president of the Forest Lake
Property Owners Association and advised they were opposed to the project and the "down
zoning".
Rosemarie Wilson, 1490 5'Avenue S.W., expressed concerns aboutincreasedtraffic
and density. ff this (density) happened all over the county, it would mean over a million
new people.
Bruce Barkett, attorney for the applicants, gave a full presentation explaining the
conceptual plan's consistency with the County's land use L-1, and explained the
inconsistency of the current zoning with the Land Use Plan under the Comprehensive Plan.
He pointed out this project would fill a need in the county for market -rate housing, multi-
familyhousing andis consistentwiththe goals, policies and objectives ofthe Comprehensive
Plan. Mr. Barkett stated that the applicant had already agreed to (a) increased buffering as
requested by staff and the Planning and Zoning Commission and (b) to be held to a higher
standard as a result of the PD process. He believed the property owners nearby would have
raised arguments no matter what was planned to abut their property. He disagreed with a
point that Commissioner Ginn made about the percentage of open space, pointing out yards
are also included in the open space calculation. He displayed drawings of the typical 3 -unit
project and described how the units would be configured.
Mr. Barkett responded to a few questions from Commissioner Ginn and Vice
Chairman Adams.
David Knight, Knight McGuire & Associates, responded to an inquiry from Vice
Chairman Adams about the original set -backs and buffers explaining the difference between
what was originally required and what presently is in the plan subsequent to the PZC
meeting.
July 13, 1999
57
BOOK 10 0 PAGE 304
F,
BOOK iUJ PAGE O05
Vice Chairman Adams inquired about phasing of the construction and phasing of
perimeter buffering, and Mr. Barkett stated the buffering would go in as each community
is developed, that is, the entire perimeter buffering would not be going in along with the first
phase of development.
There was a discussion as to what could have been permitted on the properly if the
conceptual plan was not for a PD, and that the property could be rezoned appropriately to
RS -3 if the PD is denied.
Chairman Macht expressed concern about the 50' lot sizes which are not allowed in
the City of Vero Beach.
John Haley of Suntree Partners, 136 Lansing Island Drive, advised for the record
there was no relationship with the Viera property in Brevard County. He explained the
multi -family units are not intended to be rentals and no family lives above another. He
stated that the homeowner documents controlling the entire property will cover the water
management system. Their past performance in this matter can be verified with the St. Johns
River Water Management District. They are continuing to try to work through this process,
describing what they have conceded to already which exceeds the code requirements. They
are willing to work with the neighbors and have already increased the buffer. He expressed
a willingness to reduce the three-plex buildings down to two plexes or single family attached
homes to help minimize the scale of the buildings abutting the neighbors. They understood
an additional 10% density could be allowed under the TND, but felt it would not be
appropriate for the project. He hoped the Board would approve the request and asked for
questions.
Commissioner Stanbridge asked if the water retention areas needed to be so large, and
Mr. Haley deemed that an engineering question that had not been engineered for the
conceptual plan.
Vice Chairman Adams asked if the triplexes could not be moved and the "lake"
extended in their place, and Mr. Haley indicated the applicant's willingness to make the
entire project just single family and duplexes.
Chairman Macht inquired if that would become zero -lot -line, and Mr. Haley indicated
fiuther willingness to do whatever it takes to get this resolved. Chairman Macht stated that
a condition of his approval was the elimination of the concept or category of multi -family
and he would accept zero lot line.
Discussion ensued on zero lot lines.
July 13, 1999
58
0
•
•
Commissioner Ginn thought there was a place for mixed use but thought this was
inappropriate and believed there was too little recreational facilities. She also felt the impact
of this plan would be too great for the area. She_thought all that has been accomplished by
the PD designation is to allow increased densities. She was still opposed to the inclusion of
stormwater lakes in open space and felt it was improper.
Bill Terry, 4210 12t` Street S.W., suggested the Commissioners consider what has
happened in Dade, Broward and Palm Beach Counties with development. He felt much is
hidden in these plans and was opposed to the request.
Glenn Legwen, 5900 5' Street S.W., expressed concerns for the limited recreation
facilities, a bridge over the canal on 5'h Street SW between 43rd and 58* Avenues, the use of
non-native landscaping, and rate of impact fees.
Jill Halliday 915 471 Avenue S.W., was disappointed to see this coming to her area
and also it would be a big impact on the school population of Thompson Elementary.
Bob Swift, 6450 Glendale Road, was concerned about the impact on the traffic in the
area and hoped the developer's agreement would mandate that the 51 Street SW bridge and
improvements to Kings Highway and Oslo Road/Kmgs Highway intersection be in process
before a CO is granted. He also was concerned there was no turn lane on Oslo Road which
he felt was a safety consideration because of the speed limits. He supported the applicant's
request to naming roads versus numbering them.
Roy Hirschfeld spoke again saying he felt people in the neighborhood would be
agreeable to RS -3 zoning for the property. He hoped the Commissioners would not approve
this request.
Sherry Jones commented that the highest zoning possible for her property would be
RM -3 or 27 more homes. She felt people would not want to live there and raise children
because of the main roads with a history of so many traffic accidents.
It was determined that no one else wished to be heard and the Chairman closed the
public hearing.
Vice Chairman Adams had seen the Suntree development in Brevard County and
assured Chairman Macht it was nothing like Viera. She knows the Suntree group does
quality work. She believed the "heart" was there but there was concern because the Board
had seen some other small -lot -size -developments. Seeing many rooftops above the newly
July 13, 1999
59
BOOK 1W PAGE 806
BOOK 100 PAGE 890 J
planted trees is disheartening. She thought it was imperative for the "lake" to separate the
development from the existing homes, but she was not too concerned whether the buildings
were two or three units attached. Open space is very important to her between the individual
homes as well as the attached buildings.
MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Adams, SECONDED
BY Commissioner Stanbridge, to request that staff and the
applicant come back with something more compatible with the
desires they have heard at this meeting.
Under discussion, Commissioner Stanbridge felt it was too confusing to do redesign
work at the meeting; the Commissioners needed to see it in black -and -white. She wanted to
see more green spaces with trees which may help soften some areas. She thought water
retention areas should not be considered as part of open space; 30% only leaves a small
amount as open space.
Chairman Macht wanted a clarification ofthe motion and bottom line, the motion was
to see it again with the changes to comply with the concerns expressed.
Commissioner Ginn thought this was unfair to the developer and that the Board
needed to revisit some of the regulations because current compliance is not what the Board
wants to see for the county. There is just too much density.
Chairman Macht agreed, but it is necessary to operate under the existing regulations.
Director Keating interjected that if density is the concern, this plan falls absolutely
within the regulations. flit is building type, style or set backs, that is different. He reminded
them that Windsor was one of the first PD's approved. If the concern is stormwater lakes,
he pointed out this particular area of the county requires large retention areas. He asked for
feedback as to the characteristics the Commissioners do not like so staff can incorporate that
in changes for the fiAwe.
Commissioner Ginn thought inclusion of stormwater in the open space was not good.
She was also concerned about the lack of green space, which she views as two different
issues.
-.Chairman Macht thought this a flagship case which pointed out that the Board needs
to tighten up the regulations for PD's so future plans are not allowed to reach this extreme.
July 13, 1999
M
•
Commissioner Ginn pointed out that Windsor was attractive and the huge polo field
is green space. She called this "an inappropriate PD."
Vice Chairman Adams stated, at this point, that they cannot go back andinflict those
things on this plan, because it is consistent, and the Board needs to apply the existing
regulations.
Chairman Macht wanted to clarify whether this would require the developer to go
back through the entire process, and County Attorney Vitunac understood the motion would
give the developer two or three weeks to come back before the Board with a revised plan and
the public hearing would be reopened. As part of that, the developer would get rid of all the
triplexes and reduce the density by one unit for each triplex (reduced to a duplex) and put
a finger lake next to the two lots on the west -south.
Chairman Macht asked if everyone was clear on the motion as restated by County
Attorney Vitunac .
Commissioner Tippin recalled the whole concept of the PD makes a lot of sense in
the urban service area, but the densities are scary. He recounted having landscaped the first
zero lot line homes in John's Island. He believed the Type B buffer could be very attractive,
such as one on 4`' Street (Cypress Lake) which, if maintained, can completely hide the
houses from public view. He thought the area next to the Jones' and Armmeiers' properties
needed to be redesigned to give them the added protection and the two-story multi -family
should be reduced. He felt the Board could not put the "plague" upon the applicant of
having to go back to start the process over, but agreed the PD concept needed some tuning.
Chairman Macht verified the date for three weeks hence (August 31) and CALLED
FOR THE QUESTION.
MOTION CARRIED 4-1 (Commissioner Ginn opposed).
County Attorney Vitunac announced that the public hearing will be continued to 9:05
a.m. on August 3, 1999. It will not be re -advertised.
The Chairman CALLED A 541INUTE RECESS at approximately 11 a.m. The
meeting was RECONVENED soon after with all members present.
July 13, 1999
61
BOOK "` PAGE 608
I
BOOK i0 a_ PAGE 809
9.C. PUBLIC NOTICE ITEMS - PUBLIC HEARINGS SCHEDULED
FOR JULY 20.1999 - MORATORIUM SUGGESTEDMISCUSSED
L PINE HAMMOCK - PD SPECIAL EXCEPTION USE FOR
AN AGRICULTURAL PLANNED DEVELOPMENT (CAM
2. WALKING FOX FARMS - PD SPECIAL EXCEPTION USE
FOR ANAGRICULTURAL PLANNED DEVELOPMENT (SPRINGER
3. INDIAN RIVER COURTS - CONCEPTUAL SPECIAL
EXCEPTION SINGLE- AND MULTI -FAMILY PLANNED
DEVELOPMENT
The Chairman read a Memorandum of July 20, 1999 into the record:
TO: James E. Chandler
County Administrator
DPPIWN HEAD CONCURRENCE:
bert Keating, AICP
Community Developmento
4Pl
THROUGH: Stan Boling, CP
Planning Director 6�tN
FROM: John W. McCoy, AICP
Senior Planner, Current Development
DATE: July 2, 1999
SUBJECT: Notice of Scheduled Public Hearings for the July 20, 1999 Board Meeting
It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal consideration by the Board of County
Commissioners at its regular meeting of July 13, 1999.
Please be advised that the following public hearings have been scheduled for Board consideration at
its July 20, 1999 meeting.
Joan Cain's request for PD special exception use for an agricultural planned development to
be known as Pine Hammock. The subject property is between 40 Street and 811 Street in the
7000 block. (Quasi - judicial)
2. Brad SprhgWs request for PD special acception use for an agricultural planned development
to be known as Walking Fox Farms. The subject property is located on the south side of 1'
Street SW in the 6300 block. (Quasi -judicial)
3. Indian River Courts Limited Partnership's request for conceptual special exception use PD
approval for a 236 unit single and multi -family planned development. The subject property
is located near the northwest corner of Indian River Boulevard and 41° Street. (Quasi -
judicial)
The shove referenced public hearing dates are provided for the Board's information. No action is
needed
July 13, 1999
62
U
•
It seemed to Commissioner Ginn that more consideration should be given to the
Commissioners because it takes a great amount of time to study these. This week has been
extremely difficult with four meetings tomorrow and budget workshops coming up.. Too
much is being jammed into too short a time. Chairman Macht agreed. -
Vice Chairman Adams asked if the Board wanted to discuss a moratorium and
postpone these to a time certain; Commissioner Ginn agreed.
County Attorney Vitunac responded that moratoria have to be adopted by ordinance
and they are not favored in law. He preferred to call it a short postponement.
Commissioner Ginn favored a postponement until the Board can workshop or move
ahead with an adjustment to the PD regulations. She felt the momentum was moving toward
something she was not sure was wanted in the county.
Chairman Macht thought the increase in PD's was a sure sign the developers were
coming to Indian River County for something they cannot get elsewhere.
Vice Chairman Adams believed that staff has encouraged the PD's because it gives
the Commissioners a greater handle on defining the buffers and other things they have not
been able to define in the past. The Board ought to look at each one without assuming each
one is a 700 -lot PD; a lot of these agricultural PD's may be much smaller. She had not seen
any backup and assumed the others had not either.
Commissioner Stanbridge asserted it was necessary to re-evaluate the PD regulations
to see if there are some holes that need filling.
Commissioner Ginn enumeratedhermain.concerns: stormwatermanagement/designer
ponds and green space versus open space.
Chairman Macht added another concern: limits on reduction of setbacks.
County Attorney Vitunac suggested they go ahead with the public hearings announced
under this item and add other conditions if necessarys. The developer would have the choice
to comply or not get the PD. Later on, those requests can be put into the LDR's as a
standardized rule. Each PD requires special care because of certain aspects, that is what
makes it a PD.
Chairman Macht pointed out that each developer would have the right to revert back
to the underlying zoning, so the developer is not being deprived of any rights.
Commissioner Ginn felt that it is not fair to the developer to go through the whole
process and then have the Board of County Commissioners put the brakes on it. She was
not asking for small changes.
July 13, 1999
BOOK iUJ PAGE &'
BOOK PAGE.,
Vice Chairman Adams disagreed calling it a little refinement, not the brakes.
Commissioner Stanbridge suggested they go forward with these three which will give
them more experience and then they can re-evaluate the PD regulations based on what they
have seen. They will have more background regarding desired changes.
Commissioner Ginn was agreeable to move forward with that understanding.
Chairman Macht understood the Commissioners wanted to proceed with the three
hearings and suggested each one make their notes on what they want changed.
11. C.1. EXCHANGE CLUB -USE OF PARKING GARAGE FOR A
JAZZ, BLUES AND SWING FEST ON NOVEMBER 6, 1999 continued
from meeting of 7/6/991
General Services Director Tom Frame reviewed the additional information in his
memorandum of July 12, 1999 to which were attached drawings and plans he had received
from the Exchange Club. The Board had requested additional' at the last meeting
about the site plan, fencing, security issues, numbers of attendees, and related concerns. He
subsequently met with Mrs. Nancy Richards of the Exchange Club and Emergency Services
Director Doug Wright whose department has reviewed the layout and determined that 3,800
people could actually be on the top floor of the garage. Director Frame was concerned about
the use of the structure by that many people. He thought a review by a structural engineer
was appropriate to assure that undue stress would not be dynamic on that building. With
respect to the fencing, he recommended using the plastic -type barricade fencing (6' high) like
that used at construction sites. He was not convinced a chain link fence was the right way
to go because of attachment problems. He also thought there needed to be some type of
crowd control plan and was not sure the County should design it. He believed the Exchange
Club should provide that plan for review and acceptance by Emergency Services.
Commissioner Ginn and Chairman Macht believed people on top of the garage would
not have greater weight that automobiles.
Nancy Richards thanked stafffor their help, specifically Directors Frame and Wright
and Fire Chief John King, and the speed with which they set up a meeting. She agreed with
Director Frame's suggestions and concerns and will talk with the engineer of the building
regarding weight limits. She understood -that moving weight was different from stationary
weight. She felt that 3,800 people would not be a comfortable number up there. She has
July 13, 1999
received positive comments from the community. Home Depot's manager will assist with
the fencing and beautification. A major backer of Sunfest has expressed a desire to support
the event on a continuing basis. One of the club's members in the construction business will
help regarding the fencing. Other groups also want to help overcome any problems. Shead
an appointment with a fencing company coming up to get their recommendation if necessary.
She thought either Emergency Services or the Red Cross could help with an evacuation plan.
Vice Chairman Adams was still concerned about a crowd control plan, and Mrs.
Richards stated the plan was to use a "clicker" at the ingress/ticket spot to keep an accurate
count of those entering the concert. This was recommended by Emergency Services.
Chairman Macht was pleased to hear the plans to ticket people since that is a control
mechanism.
There was a brief discussion about how much weight the top floor would handle in
terms ofpeople versus automobiles and itwas determined an engineer should determine how
much weight could be safely accommodated.
Commissioner Stanbridge inquired if the openings on the second floor had been
considered. Mrs. Richards has looked at that area and thought the same fencing could be
used. The concern was that people would sit on the walls on the second floor. Mrs.
Richards planned to use the second floor for concessions and toilet facilities and some
parking and reserve the first floor for parking. Chairman Macht believed law enforcement
could enforce those concerns. Mrs. Richards expected to have at least 4 police officers in
attendance for crowd control.
Commissioner Ginn had some concerns as to whether the plastic fencing would be
sufficient and Director Frame explained the key is to secure people away from the wall.
Frank Coffey, 88 Cache Cay, hoped the Exchange Club would provide millions of
dollars of liability insurance because of lawsuits and large monetary awards and hoped the
County and City and taxpayers would not be held responsible in case someone gets hurt.
Commissioner Ginn advised she could not support the motion because she felt the
event belonged in the park. Her motion to disallow the event at the garage died for lack of
a second.
July 13, 1999
W
BOOK iOi PAGE Cmss;
BOOK iOb PAGE .&3
MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Adams, SECONDED
BY Commissioner Tippin to try the event at the courthouse
parking garage with the caveats: 1) that the fencing is provided,
2) that no more than 3,000 people are allowed on the top floor
at any one time, 3) the Exchange Club obtain liability insurance
holding the County harmless, 4) that all conditions must be
coordinated with staff and approved by staff.
Commissioner Ginn inquired about making some of individuals personally liable if
something goes wrong. She also did not like the idea of having liquor in a County garage,
believing that use of liquor was easier to control at the Downtown Friday events.
Commissioner Ginn thought it was a step in the wrong direction and a bad precedent.
Vice Chairman Adams and Chairman Macht thought liquor could be more controlled
in the garage because no one can walk out with it. Anybody who has had too much would
be escorted off the property.
Vice Chairman Adams pointed out this was not a rock concert.
Chairman Macht believed people enjoy this type of activity and it adds fun.
The Chairman CALLED THE QUESTION and the motion
carried 4-1 (Commissioner Ginn opposed).
11.C.2. CHILDREN'S HOME SOCIETY - PERMISSION TO SELL
PROPERTY DEEDED BY THE COUNTY - COUNTY TO RETAIN
RIGHT OF FIRST REFUSAL
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of July 7, 1999:
TO: Board of County Commissioners
FROM: Tom Frame, Director of General Services
DATE: July 7,1999
RE: Children's Home Society
In 1991 Indian River County deeded some excess County land to the Children's
Home Society of Florida, on condition that within a certain time period from the
date of the deed the home would build and maintain a shelter and counseling
July 13, 1999
_I
0
service for runaway children. In 1995 the County executed a document which
gave an additional five years for the Children's Home Society to complete its
building program. In addition to its promise to build a shelter for runaway
children the Society paid Indian River County $25,000.00 for the land.
The Society Is now before the County asking for permission to sell the property
free of any and all restrictions on the condition that the money raised will be
spent by the Society to buy another, better situated property to construct the
shelter.
Staff has no objection to this proposal since the Society is a non-profit
corporation serving a valid public purpose which benefits all the taxpayers of
Indian River County by providing a safe shelter for troubled teenagers.
Therefore it Is recommended that the Board of County Commissioners authorize
the County Attorney's Office to work with the Children's Home Society of Florida
to allow it to sell the referenced property and to ensure that the money raised
therefrom will be used for the purpose of establishing a runaway shelter on
different and more suitable land.
Amanda T. McGee, Executive Director of Children's Home Society, explained the
request to the Commissioners and advised that the CHS serves approximately 100 Indian
River County children per year at their runaway shelter. Proceeds from the sale of the
property would enable them to reinvest those funds in their current property and projects in
Indian River County, including the acquisition of land next to the group home.
There were no questions. Commissioner Ginn thought it made good sense to have the
two facilities adjacent and Chairman Macht agreed.
Public Works Director James Davis advised that his department is now designing
some roadway improvements on Oslo Road and areas will be needed for stormwater
treatment. He asked that the County be given right of first refusal on the property and a little
time to investigate whether that parcel would be suitable to meet the stormwater needs for
Oslo Road.
Ms. McGee indicated that request made sense.
MOTION WAS MADE by Vice Chairman Adams,
SECONDED BY Commissioner Tippin, to allow the Children's
Home Society to sell the property and use the proceeds for the
purpose of establishing a runaway shelter on different and more
suitable land adjacent to their current facility, and that the
County be given right -of -first refusal to purchase all or part of
the property for stormwater management.
July 13, 1999
67
•
BOOK
BOOK 1.0 j FACE 61
County Attorney Vitunac pointed out that presently the County had the right to buy
the property back for $25,000 and the right -of -first refusal might cost the County a lot more.
He thought they might want to retain the right to buy it back at $25,000 if it is needed.
Chairman Macht commented that was in "1991 dollars" and he thought they should
be allowed some accretion of value on the property. Several Commissioners agreed with his
comment.
Administrator Chandler pointed out it would have to come back to the Board should
the Public Works Department determine they need the site.
The Chairman CALLED THE QUESTION and the motion
carred unanimously.
11.C.3. PLUMBING CONTROLS FOR INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
JAIL
Deleted.
11.F. TERMINATION OF INSURANCE CONTRACT FOR
CONSULTING SERVICES - THE GEHRING GROUP
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of July 8, 1999 below:
TO: James E. Chandler
County Administrator
FROM: Ron aker
Director of Personnel
DATE: July 8, 1999
SUBJECT: Insurance Consultant
Staff requests consideration of the following information at the July 13, 1999, regular meeting of the
Board of County Commissioners.
Background
At the regular Board meeting on February 23, 1999, the Board approved staffs recommendation
to obtain an insurance consultant to provide a detailed review ofthe current health and life insurance
plans and to provide a detailed bid specification if deemed appropriate.
At the direction of the Board, staff prepared IRC Request for Proposal #9052 through which the
County requested proposals for an insurance consultant to review the employee health care plan.
July 13, 1999
68
6
Based on the proposals which were submitted in response to the RFP, the committee unanimously
recommended, and the Board approved, that The Gehring Group provide the consultant services at
a cost of $30,000 to be paid in 12 equal monthly installments.
Mr. Kurt Gehring, President of The Gehring Group signed a "Consultant's Certificatio- W' (see
attached) included in the RFP, which states his firm is not engaged in the sale of insurance products.
It has been recently discovered, however, that The Gehring Group does sell insurance products.
Recommendation
Based on the written opinion of the County Attorney (see attached memo dated July 1, 1999) and
subsequent discussions with him, the committee recommends that the Board terminate the consultant
agreement between Indian River County Board of County Commissioners and The Gehring Group
effectively immediately.
Administrator Chandler summarized the memorandum and reiterated the
recommendation to terminate the contract with The Gehring Group. He believed staff could
pick up the study based on the work done and bring back a recommendation to the Board by
the end of August.
Commissioner Ginn indicated she wished to review their report and Administrator
Chandler advised that was not on the agenda today as staff had just recently received it and
has not had the opportunity to review it.
ChairmanMachtwas confused and askedAdministrator Chandlerwhatthe Boardwas
being asked to do at this meeting, and Administrator Chandler responded "terminate the
contract with The Gehring Group."
Commissioner Ginn and Vice Chairman Adams wanted to hear from Mr. Gehring who
had requested to speak.
Kurt Gehring, 314 in Palm Beach County (sic), came to the meeting to apologize to
the Board and to Indian River County. When he received the RFP for contracting services
for consultant, there was a paragraph that was confusing as to what the County was looking
for with an insurance consultant. He asked Purchasing whether he could offer a proposal if
he did not receive any commissions on this particular group, also he put in writing that he
would not receive any commissions. He understood it would be okay and he went forward.
It was not until later that Mr. Baker noticed that they have agents and consultants on their
letterhead that raised the question if they were actually an agent. He clarified that 95% of
his business is municipal -based business and he receives a commission on 75% of that on
an exclusive agent -of -record basis, meaning no matter where the business went, he received
a commission. To him, this was not a conflict of interest. He understood that was the basis
July 13, 1999
gOU 1 J J PAGE ��.
M
LJ
BOOK AJ PAGE a1 7
of the concern, that he, as a consultant, received commissions on other cases. He was not
present to contest their decision, but was concerned about his reputation. In the insurance
industry a good reputation for ethics is all you have which is why he wanted to come today.
The package the County has received contains a lot of information on the work already done.
They were able to reduce the administrative fee by about $35,000; the stop -loss fees have
also come down; and they ave made various other recommendations. The biggest
recommendation, he felt, was that the County could reduce their fixed cost increase of 43%
down to 17% with these recommendations. One recommendation was that the County not
pay over $100,000 in insurance commissions plus the money to his firm for consulting fees.
This results in a duplication of effort. He posed the question whether the $100,000 to
insurance agents is warranted from the value they are bringing to the table. He recommended
the commissions for agents servicing the County's account be negotiated down or excluded.
Obviously if they are excluded, the local agent community will be upset. Rather than
exclude them, he recommended they open the consulting RFP to agents to resubmit. The
negotiating has already been done for October ? and he wanted to give them this
recommendation as difficult as it would be for future decision-making.
Administrator Chandler stated there was no question as to the fine reputation of The
Gehring Group and that was part of the consideration when they were retained. Nothing they
have done has diminished that. The County has determined in the past, with good reason,
that there should be a clear delineation and separation between the firm doing the evaluation
and the firm submitting an RFP. In this case, there has been a disagreement or
misunderstanding.
Administrator Chandler reiterated that with the report from The Gehring Group staff
will be able to move forward and come in with a recommendation to the Board by the end
of August.
Vice Chairman Adams thought the conflict was unintentional and that the work
product is very good and useful to the County. She supported the separation of services so
there is no appearance of conflict of interest and appreciated staff being alert to it.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Adams, SECONDED BY
Commissioner Stanbridge, the Board unanimously approved
staff's recommendation to . terminate the contract with The
- Gehring Group.
July 13, 1999
70
1
11.G.1. VERO LAKE ESTATES MASTER DRAINAGE PLAN
IMPROVEMENTS - CARTER AND ASSOCIATES - WORK ORDER
NO. 3.
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of July 6, 1999:
TO: James E. Chandler,
County Administrator
FROM: James W. Davis, P.E.,
Public Works Director
SUBJECT: Work Order No. 3 - Vero Lake Estates Master Drainage Plan
Improvements - Carter and Assoc.
DATE: July 6, 1999
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
Several grants have been received or are anticipated to be awarded
for funding construction of master drainage plan improvements in
Vero Lake Estates Subdivision. Construction permits for the
project have already been received from St. Johns River Water
Management District (SJRWMD). Approximately $250,000 in designated
funds from the Vero Lake Estates Municipal Services Taxing Unit
(VLE MSTU) are available for drainage improvements only in Vero Lake
Estates Subdivision. Within the past year, the County's Stormwater
Consultant, Carter Associates, Inc. has met with staff from SJRWMD
and has completed preliminary engineering for Phase 2 construction
improvements to enlarge existing lakes and route stormwater through
the Vero Lake Estates lake detention system. The attached Work
Order No. 3 to the Master Stormwater Engineering Services Agreement
with Carter Associates establishes a Scope of Work for final design
services at a cost of $58,130 for the $947,180 project.
ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS
It is anticipated that approximately 75% of the cost of the project
will be funded by state and federal grants. Since permitting has
already been accomplished, the design fee is approximately 6% of
the project cost. The alternatives presented are as follows:
Alternative No. 1
Approve the attached Work Order No. 3 and authorize the
Chairman's signature.
Alternative No. 2
Deny the approval.
July 13, 1999
L-_
71
BOOK UJ PAGE C
-I
BOOK JOO PAGE S1
RLCOMKENDATIONS AND FUNDING
Staff recommends Alternative No. 1 whereby Work Order No. 3 is
approved. Funding to be from the Vero Lake Estates Municipal
Service Taxing Unit.
ATTACiDCOU
Work Order No. 3
ON MOTION by Commissioner Adams, SECONDED BY
Commissioner Ginn, the Board unanimously approved
Alternative 1(approved Work Order No. 3 and authorized the
Chairman to sign same), as recommended in the Memorandum.
WORK ORDER IS ON FILE
IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD
11.G.2. JOINT COUNTY/SCHOOL DISTRICT FLEET
MANAGEMENT, FUELING, AND RELATED FACILITIES - OPTION
EXTENSION - ANNETTE ROBERTS, TRUSTEE
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of July 7, 1999:
TO: James E. Chandler,
County Administrator
FROM: James W. DavisP.E. l.Y
Public Works Directo
SUBJECT: Joint County/School District Fleet Management, Fueling, and
Related Facilities - Option Agreement to Purchase 25 Acre Site
DATE: July 7, 1999
DLSCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
On May 18, 1999, the Board authorized staff to present a purchase
option agreement to the owners of a 25 acre tract of land along
South Gifford Road to locate the subject facility. If a study
reveals that the site is suitable, purchase would commence. Due to
a delay by the seller(Annette Roberts, Trustee) in executing the
agreement, two dates must be changed and the option signed by the
Chairman. The option expiration date on page one was originally
June 30, 1999, and has now been extended to August 4, 1999. The
closing date on page 4 was originally July 31, 1999 and has now
been extended to Sept. 15, 1999.
- RECMMMATIONS AND FUNDING
It,.is recommended that the Board approve the above two date changes
and authorize the Chairman's signature.
ATTACffi�NT
Option Agreements
July 13, 1999
72
t
ON MOTION by Commissioner Adams, SECONDED BY
Commissioner Grin, the Board unanimously approved the date
changes and authorized the Chairman to sign the option
agreement, as recommended in the Memorandum.
OPTION ACRE M ENT AND ADDENDUM ARE ON FILE
IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERIC TO THE BOARD
11.G.3. CR510 PAVED SHOULDERS - FELIX EQUITIES, INC. -
FDOT JOB 88000-3605
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of July 7, 1999:
TO: James Chandler
County Administrator
THROUGH: James W. Davis, P.E.
Public Works Director
FROM: Terry B. Thompson, P. .
Capital Projects Manag
SUBJECT: Paved Shoulders on CR 510
FDOT State Job Number 88000-3605
DATE: July 7, 1999
Felix Equities, Inc. is under contract with the Florida Department of Transportation to widen
and resurface 58"' Avenue from 6e Street to 85"' Street, and construct paved shoulders
on CR 510 from US 1 to a point east of Jungle Trail. This work is being constructed with
Federal ISTEA Enhancement Funding.
Staff has requested that the FDOT provide the County with a cost proposal to revise the
shoulder pavement cross section on CR 510 from a paved shoulder to a full pavement
section that will support traffic loading. This will allow the County to widen CR 510 in the
future without removing the 1.5 meter (4.92 feet) wide shoulders which will not support
traffic loads.
The bid price for the shoulder pavement construction on CR 510 is $65,416.00. The
additional cost to the County to construct a full pavement section is $71,500.00. This price
is based on the contract quantities contained in the FDOT contract. After construction,the
County will pay Felix based on actual quantities measured in the field. Actual quantities
are estimated to be approximately 10% less than the bid quantities because of two projects
in the area that are under construction. Removing and reconstructing the shoulder in the
future, if a full pavement section is not constructed at this time, is estimated to cost
$180,000.00.
Because of the extensive paper work that would be required for the FDOT to process a
change order to their contract, they have requested that the County pay Felix directly for
July 13, 1999
73
BOOK iW PAGE Cry
BOOK
the additional cost of constructing a full pavement section. The work is scheduled to
commence on July 19, 1999.
RECOMMENDATIONS AND FUNDING
Staff recommends that the Board approve the attached proposal in the amount of $71,500.
Funding is from Traffic Impact Fees.
Proposal
ON MOTION by Commissioner Adams, SECONDED BY
Commissioner Ginn, the Board unanimously approved the
proposal from Felix Equities, Inc., in the amount of $71,500, as
recommended in the Memorandum.
Commissioner Stanbridge advised that a lot of people from the Sea Oaks area are
concerned about beautification of the comer.
Public Works Director James Davis believed that section of Wabasso Road is within
the Wabasso Corridor Plan and as development occurs, the development will provide the
landscaping.
11.GA REPLACE DRAINAGE CULVERTS - KINGS HIGHWAY
(58TH AVEMM NORTH OF KIWANIS HOBART PARK - FELIX
EQUITIES, INC.
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of July 12, 1999:
TO: James E. Chandler,
County Administrator
FROM: James W. Davis, P.E.,
Public Works Director
SUBJECT: Replacement of Drainage Culverts beneath Kings Highway (58th
Avenue) North of Kiwanis Hobart Park
DATE: July 12, 1999
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
-.4
The Florida DOT's Contractor, Felix Equities, Inc. is constructing
paved shoulder bike paths along Kings Highway from N. Winter Beach
Road (69th Street) to Wabasso Road (85th Street). A large drainage
July 13, 1999
74
•
�1
pipe beneath the road needs replacement. Due to the following: 1)
the size of the pipe (2-48" concrete pipes side-by-side);_2_j: the
existence of a 24" water main crowing the pipe, 3) the need to
replace the pipes this week, and 4) scheduled projects that the
Road and Bridge Division is performing, staff requested a price
from Felix Equities to perform the labor to do the replacement.
Originally, Felix requested $22,000 to replace the pipes. Staff
has negotiated the price down to $15,000.
ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS
Due to the fact that the Contractor is already mobilized to widen
the road, the alternatives are as follows:
Alternatives No.l
Issue a purchase order to Felix Equities in the amount of
$15,000 to replace the pipe. Funding will be from
budgeted funds in the Road and Bridge Division
Transportation Fund 111-214.
Alternatives No. 2
Leave the existing deteriorated pipe beneath the new
widened pavement.
RECOMMENDATIONS AND FUNDING
Staff recommends Alternative No. 1 whereby an emergency purchase
order is issued to Felix Equities for $15,000 to replace the pipe.
Funding from Fund 111-214.
RECEIVED
JUL 12 1999
CLERK TO THE BOARD
ON MOTION by Commissioner Adams, SECONDED BY
Commissioner Ginn, the Board unanimously approved
Alternative No. 1 to issue an emergency purchase order to Felix
Equities, Inc., for $15,000 to replace the drainage pipe as
described, as recommended in the Memorandum.
July 13, 1999
75
BOOK PAGE 0
BOOK`�
�-0j PA,,E 6 ,1`
12. BLUE GOOSE PROPERTY - OPTION RIGHT RELINQUISHED
INEXCHANGE FOR CONSERVATION EASEMENT FROM THOMAS
H. COLLINS AND GRETCHEN P. COLLINS
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of July 6, 1999:
TO: The Board of County Commissioners
FROM: YiT' William G. Collins II - Deputy County Attorney
DATE: July 6, 1999
SUBJECT: The Blue Goose Property - Agreement to Relinquish Option Right
in Exchange for Conservation Easement
Pursuant to Board direction, presented for approval is an agreement to relinquish
the County's purchase option in exchange for a conservation easement from
Tom Collins who has a backup agreement to purchase from the sellers, Daniel I.
Preuss, Trustee; Barbara B. Lynch, Trustee; and Wayne C. Sommers.
If approved by the Board, the agreement to relinquish the option will be delivered
to Mr. Collins' attorney, Richard Candler, Esq., to be held in escrow pending the
sale of the 1.93± acre property in question to Collins and Collins' subsequent
execution of the 1.64± acre conservation easement as set out in the agreement
to Indian River County. All documents would be delivered from escrow
simultaneously.
RECOMMENDATION:
Authorize the Chairman to execute the attached Agreement to Relinquish Option
Right in Exchange for Conservation Easement.
Accept the Conservation Easement as described and set out as Exhibits B and
C to the Agreement, when delivered from escrow.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Ginn, SECONDED BY
Commissioner Tippin, the Board authorized the Chairman to
execute the Agreement to Relinquish Option Right in Exchange
for Conservation Easement and accepted the Conservation
Easement as described and set out as Exhibits B and C to the
Agreement, when delivered from escrow, as recommended in
the Memorandum. (Vote: 4-1, Commissioner Stanbridge_
opposed)
COPY OF AGREEMENT IS ON FILE
IN TIM OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD
July 13, 1999
76
B.A. CHAIRMAN MRCHT - AUGUST 10, 1999 REGULAR
MEETING CANCELED
Chairman Macht had forgotten to add this matter at the beginning of the meeting and
asked the Commissioners to allow him to do so since it was very short. He suggested -the
Commissioners cancel the August 10, 1999 meeting since at least two Commissioners will
not be available.
MOTION WAS MADE by Vice Chairman Adams,
SECONDED BY Commissioner Stanbridge, to cancel the
August 10, 1999 regular meeting of the Board of County
Commissioners.
Under discussion, Commissioner Ginn thought the Board needed to bring up the need
for a specified vacation period.
Chairman Macht suggested she put it on the agenda again for discussion. He hoped
that the 5th Tuesday of August (August 31, 1999) would also be kept free.
Administrator Chandler anticipated there would be no need for a meeting that day.
The Chairman CALLED THE QUESTION and the motion
carried unanimously.
13A VICE CHAIRMAN ADAMS -SHARED TITLE WORKSHOP
- ORLANDO - JULY 14, 1999
Vice Chairman Adams reminded the Commissioners of the shared title meeting
tomorrow at 10:00 a.m. at the Airport Radisson Hotel in Orlando. She explained that
representatives of Florida Department of Environmental Protection would be present, along
with Commissioners from other counties and representatives of the water management
district in support of the County's request. This is the final boost. She expected the meeting
would take about two hours; no staff will be needed since this is a policy the Board is
supporting. The Commissioners will give their testimony and reasons why they would like
see shared title.
There was a brief discussion about all riding together, the sunshine law, and the
newspaper's reporter was invited to go along with them.
July 13, 1999
77
BOOK PAGE
BOOK D° PAGES,7`1
B.C. COMMISSIONER GINN - ADVISORY COMMITTEE FOR
COUNTY ADMINISTRATION BUILDING
Commissioner Ginn wanted to put into action by a motion the establishment of an
advisory committee for the County Administration Building as discussed at their last
meeting. The matter could come back in a couple of weeks, and in the meantime the
Commissioners could submit their ideas in writing as to direction and number of appointees.
The other Commissioners understood that they had actually decided to form a
committee at the last meeting and just the specifics need to be addressed. It is not, however,
a high priority at this time because of other pressing matters.
There was CONSENSUS to bring the matter back after the budget process has been
completed.
13A L COMMISSIONER STANBRIDGE - MITIGATION PLAN OF
HORSE'S HEAD, LTD. FOR HOLE -IN -THE -WALL ISLAND - ST.
JOHNS RIVER WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT (OLD WINTER
BEACH BRIDGE ROAD) AND LOST TREE ISLAND CONCERNS -
SOVEREIGNTY LAND APPLICATION - U.S. COAST GUARD
Commissioner Stanbridge stated her concerns about the mitigation plan that Horse's
Head, Ltd has proposed for the roadbed on Hole -in -the Wall Island which she believed was
on the agenda of the Governing Board of the SJRWMD meeting in Palatka. She pointed out
the roadbed on the Island is not only an environmental concern, but it also involves County
property. She asked County Attorney Vitunac for an update of the investigation being done
by his office.
County Attorney Vitunac recounted the ownership history of the road and roadbed
that was originally claimed by the County in 1923 by posting and viewing. It was a County
Road until 1941 when a Special Act of the State named it a state road Shortly thereafter, the
bridge burned down and it was lost to history as far as a paper trail. The next action was in
1959 when the County, by formal resolution, advertised and abandoned all County roads in
that area. Based on that, Horse's Head, Ltd. claims title to the road and Hole -in -the -Wall
Island and is attempting to use it for mitigation value. Horse's Head was unaware of the
1941 deed which made it a State road. He and Assistant County Attorney Terrence P.
O'Brien have been working for two weeks and have not found any document taking the road
from the Stette and making it a County Road The best they can guess is the road remained
a State Road for 40 years and was out of everyone's mind because the bridges were burned
July 13, 1999
78
•
When people talked about Old Winter Beach Road, they were talking about the roads on the
mainland. Therefore, when the County abandoned all County Roads in 1959, it -did not
abandon the road on Hole -in -the -Wall Island. He told all this to the SJRWMD attorney last
night, she was unimpressed. It did not matter to her whether it was a State Road or not, the
Governing Board liked the idea of opening it up (for water retention).
In response to Chairman Macht's request for a meaning of "opening it up", County
Attorney Vitunac stated they wanted to breach the road so it would not act as a dyke for
internal water retention.
Commissioner Stanbridge strongly advocated the retention of this roadbed, not based
solely on its history, but for its legitimate position in long-range planning because the County
still has bridgeheads on both sides of the river which may need to be used in the future.
Chairman Macht submitted it also should be noted that Horse's Head, Ltd. is an
associate or successor to Lost Tree Village Corporation. He continued that it is also very
interesting and disquieting that Governor Jeb Bush's appointment to the Board of Directors
of SJRWMD is an engineer who either worked for them (HHL or LTVC) or was a
consultant.
Vice Chairman Adams inquired whether anyone had spoken with Henry Dean, the
Executive Director of the SJRWMD about these concerns.
Commissioner Stanbridge had not because she was trying to learn if they had pulled
the item from their agenda. If so, she felt it would stay off the agenda until the legal question
is resolved.
Chairman Macht asked if the Murphy Act would produce a strong enough question
to do that.
County Attorney Vitunac responded that was not the concern of the SJRWMD. He
wanted to FAX a letter to them before 1 p.m. saying that we claim the County still has title
to that road and Horse's Head does not have a right to that road.
Vice Chairman Adams thought if there is a concern about an unethical relationship
of one of their governing members, it needed to be stated in the letter to be faxed so it would
be out on the table.
Commissioner Stanbridge cautioned that even if the person in question abstained,
the vote would be very hard to undo.
County Attorney Vitunac suggested that he and Commissioner Stanbridge call Mr.
Dean at the conclusion of the meeting.
July 13, 1999
79
BOOK iU PAGE -
•
J
Fr - 1-1
BOOK PAGE
(CLERK'S NOTE: A copy of the letter to Mr. Dean has been filed with the
backup of this meeting.)
At the conclusion of the brief Solid Waste Disposal District meeting, Commissioner
Ginn expressed concern about Lost Tree and the channel (the bridgehead) from Silver Shores
Road. She understood an extension to August 16' had been granted for any complaints and
asked if County Attorney Vitunac had received a letter concerning same.
County Attorney Vitunac advised that the meeting was postponed.
Commissioner Ginn inquired as to the legality of the ownership of that submerged
land (the channel).
Chairman Macht thought there was no question as to title as the Court has declared
that it belongs to the State and the State has the power to convey.
Commissioner Ginn stated that was contrary to the information she got.
Commissioner Stanbridge pointed out that Lost Tree has de -linked the question of the
State ownership of sovereignty land from the SJRWMD permit. They usually go together
and the SJRWMD will not issue a permit if there is a question of sovereign land involved.
The Lost Tree people have been successful in de -linking these agencies, so now there are two
issues: the subdivision on the islands and the issue on the sovereign lands. It is "divide and
conquer", because each agency looks at only the request that affects them, not the overall
situation that the County will have to appeal. The Coast Guard will look at the navigability
of the waterway, not the 9' of fill on the islands, etc. It is very complicated and that is why
she has been so insistent that the County hit the deadlines. Even though they say they extend
it, at some point in time they will say "the deadline was July 16" and we will be able to say
" yes, we presented our resolution."
July 13, 1999
80
•
14A SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL DISTRICT
The Chairman announced that immediately upon adj ournment of the meeting, the
Board -would reconvene sitting as the Board of Commissioners for the Solid Waste Disposal
District.
Those Minutes are being prepared separately.
There being no further business, upon motion duly made and seconded, the Chairman
adjourned,the meeting at 12:15 p.m..
ATTEST:
Jeffrey K. Barton, Clerk
Minutes approved g q 1 r
July 13, 1999
81
•
11
BOOK' j0j PAGE C