Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout7/27/1999MINUTES ATTACHED BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS INDIAN RIVER COUNTYv FLORIDA A G E N D A TUESDAY, JULY 27,1999 - 9:00 A.M. County Commission Chamber County Administration Building 1840 25th Street, Vero Beach, Florida 32960 Kenneth R Macht, Chairman (District 3) Fran B. Adams, Vice Chairman (District 1) Caroline D. Ginn, (District 5) Ruth Stanbridge (District 2 John W. Tippin, (District 4) James E. Chandler, County Administrator Charles P. Vitunac, County Attorney Jeffrey K. Barton, Clerk to the Board 9:00 a.m. 1. CALL TO ORDER BACKUP PAGES 2. INVOCATION 3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - James E. Chandler 4. ADDITIONS to the AGENDA/EMERGENCY ITEMS 13.A.2. Welcome to Kim Massung newly appointed Executive Aide to the Board of County Commissioners 13.8. Clarification of False Alarm Ordinance 133). St. Johns River Water Management District - Notice of Intent to Deny Permit Application of Lost Tree Village Corporation 5. PROCLAMATION and PRESENTATIONS Presentation of Proclamation Honoring James W. Hyde for Receiving the Florida Narcotics Officer of the Year Award 1 6. APPROVAL OF M MUTES None 7. CONSENT AGENDA A. Approval of Wan -ants (memorandum dated July 15,1999) 2-10 B. Windsor Properties Inc.'s Request for Final PD Plat Approval for Windsor Plat 20 (memorandum dated July 21, 1999) 11-27 C. Bid Award: IRC #9069 Flat Bed Sign Truck (Public Works / Traffic Eng. Div.) (memorandum dated July 19,1999) 28-34 D. 2000 Holiday Schedule (memorandum dated July 19,1999) 35-36 E. Dept. of Agriculture, Request for proposal (memorandum dated July 16,1999) 37-40 F. Recently Acquired Properties - Tax Cancellation (memorandum dated July 21, 1999) 41-51 BOOK AJ PAGE 8016 r, 9:05 A.M. BOOK 10i PAGE 39' 8. CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS and GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES None 9. PUBLIC ITEMS A. PUBLIC HEARINGS 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 41s ST. BACKUP PAGES (SO. GIFF. RD.) & US 1, AND DESCRIBED HEREIN, AND PROVIDING FOR EFFEC- TIVE DATE (Quasi Judicial) . (memorandum dated July 13, 1999) (2nd of two public hearings) 52-66 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 RIVER SHORES; AND FROM RS -1 AND A-1 TO CON -1 FOR PROPERTY LOCATED WEST OF SR AIA, AT THE INTERSECTION WITH 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 PRO- VIDING FOR EFFECTIVE DATE (QuasWudicial) (memorandum dated July 13, 1999) (2nd of two public hearings) 67-88 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 July 13, 1999) (2nd of two public hearings) 89-100 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 July 13, 1999) (2nd of two public hearings) 101-111 5. John Dean's Request for Special Exception Use Approval for an Office Annex for the Samaritan Center Residential Center Quasi -Judicial (memorandum dated July 12, 1999) 112-121 V 9:05 A.M. 9. PUBLIC ITEMS (cont'd.): BACKUP A. PUBLIC HEARINGS (cont'd.): PAGES 6. Larry & Pamela Candy's Request for Planned Development (PD) Special Exception Use for an Agricultural PD to be Known as Canady Planned Development Quasi -Judicial (memorandum dated July 13, 1999) 122-132 7. Request for Authorization to Submit an Applica- tion for Section 9 Mass Transit Capital and Operating Funds Legislative (memorandum dated July 21, 1999) 133-149 B. PUBLIC DISCUSSION MMS None C. PUBLIC NOTICE ITEMS None 10. COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S MATTERS None 11. DEPARTMENTAL MATTERS A. Community Development None B. Emergency Services None C. General Services 1. Proposed Deeding of Property to Humane Society of Vero Beach, Inc. (memorandum dated July 20, 1999) 150-155 2. Fuel Dispensers, Indian River County Sheriffs Office (memorandum dated July 19, 1999) 156-162 D. Leisure Services None E. Office of Management and Budget None F. Penonnel Retirees' Life Insurance (memorandum dated July 21, 1999) 163-165 G. Public Works Developer's Agreement for Offsite Roadway and Drainage Improvements - Pointe West Development (memorandum dated July 21, 1999) 166-172 H. Utilities Welton Convenience Store Developer's Agreement Final Pay Request (memorandum dated July 13, 1999) 173-182 I. human Services None 60 IOU FA(,E 898 BOOK 100 PAGE 6.09 12. COUNTY ATTORNEY BACKUP None PAGES 13. COMMISSIONERS ITEMS A. Chairman Kenneth R. Macht Sale of Property by Trustees to Lost Tree Village Corporation 183-1831 B. Vice Chairman Fran B. Adams C. Commissioner Caroline D. Ginn D. Commissioner Ruth Stanbridge E. Commissioner John W. Ti ppirt 14. SPECIAL DISTRICTSBOARDS A. Emergency Services District Approval to Execute a Saber Pumper Purchase Agreement for Station #11 on A Sole Source Standardized Basis from Pierce Manufacturing, Inc., and Funding Authorization (memorandum dated July 23, 1999) 184-186 B. Solid Waste Disposal District 1. Approval of Minutes - meeting of 7/13/99 2. Recycling & Education Grant Litter Control Grant Waste Tire Grant (memorandum dated July 13, 1999) 187-216 3. Bid Award: IRC #9065 / One (1) Dump Truck (memorandum dated July 16, 1999) 217-221 C. Environmental Control Board 1. Approval of Minutes - meeting of 5/25/99 2. Quarterly Report (memorandum dated July 19,1999) 222-224 15. ADJOURNMENT Anyone who may wish to appeal any decision which may be made at this meeting will need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made which includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal will be based. Anyone who needs a special accommodation for this meeting may contact the county's Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) coordinator at 567-8000 x408 at least 48 hours in advance of meeting. Meeting may be broadcast live on TCI Cable Channel 13 - rebroadcast various times throughout the week Falcon Cable Channel 35 - rebroadcast Friday evening 0 is INDEX TO MINUTES BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MEETING OF JULY 279 1999 1. CALL TO ORDER ............................................... 1 2. INVOCATION .................................................. 1 3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ....................................... 1 4. ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA ................................... 1 5. PROCLAMATIONS - HONORING JAMES W. HYDE - FLORIDA NARCOTICS OFFICER OF THE YEAR AWARD ...................... 2 6.A. APPROVAL OF MINUTES ....................................... 2 7. CONSENT AGENDA ........................................ 3 7.A. Approval of Warrants ................................ .... 3 7.B. Windsor Plat 20 - Final PD Plat Approval - Contract for construction of Required Improvements - Cash Deposit and Escrow Agreement ...... 10 7.C. Bid Award #9069 - Flat Bed Sign Truck - Traffic Engineering - Johnny Stamm Manufacturing ................................. 12 7.D. 2000 Holiday Schedule - Board of County Commissioners and Constitutional Officers 13 7.E. Resolution #99-067 - Approval of Submission of Application to Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services for Urban and Community Forestry Grant Funds for Trees and Beautification Projects - CR 512, Phase III (Roseland Road to I-95) ...................... 15 7.F. Resolutions #99-068 thru #99-072 - Tax Cancellations on Recently Acquired Properties -1) 58th Avenue R/W - First Church of God; 2) CR512 R/W - King; 3) Oslo Road/27th Avenue R/W - Elwill Associates; 4) 16th Street R/W - Wolin; 5) Drainage/Retention Site - 44th Avenue & 19th Street - Mathis ............................................ 18 9.A.1. PUBLIC HEARING - ORDINANCE #99-017 - COUNTY -INITIATED REQUEST TO REZONE +136 ACRES FROM RM -8, RM -6, AND RS -6 TO MED (S.E. CORNER US1 AT 41ST STREET (SOUTH GIFFORD ROAD) .. 24 9.A.2. PUBLIC HEARING - ORDINANCE #99-018 - COUNTY INITIATED REQUEST TO REZONE THREE ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE PARCELS - JUNGLE TRAIL CONSERVATION AREA (CAIRNS); PELICAN ISLAND NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE (INCLUDING KORANGY PROPERTY); AND ST. SEBASTIAN RIVER BUFFER PRESERVE (+5,893 ACRES - CORACI PROPERTY) ................................... 34 1 600K 100 FACUE,300 r BOOK �� PAGE �{ 9.A.3. PUBLIC HEARING - ORDINANCE #99-019 - COUNTY INITIATED REQUEST TO REZONE ±11.4 ACRES FROM RM -6 TO RS -3 (OWNER: LOST TREE VILLAGE CORPORATION) - VICINITY OF 65TH STREET (SOUTH WINTER BEACH ROAD) AND FECRR TRACKS .................... � 46 9.A.4. PUBLIC HEARING - ORDINANCE #99-020 - COUNTY INITIATED REQUEST TO REZONE ±67 ACRES FROM CG TO RM -6 (PROPERTY OWNED BY JOHN HATALA - HARBORTOWN MALL) - VICINITY OF 53RD STREET (NORTH SIDE) AND EAST OF US#1 ....................... 53 9.A.5. PUBLIC HEARING -SAMARITAN CENTER OFFICE ANNEX -SPECIAL EXCEPTION USE APPROVAL (BISHOP OF DIOCESE OF PALM BEACH) ............................................................. 60 9.A.6. PUBLIC HEARING - LARRY & PAMELA CANADY'S REQUEST FOR PD SPECIAL EXCEPTION USE FOR AN AGRICULTURAL PD - CANADY PLANNED DEVELOPMENT ..................................... 65 9.A.7. PUBLIC HEARING - RESOLUTION #99-073 - AUTHORIZATION TO SUBMIT FY 1998/99 GRANT APPLICATION FOR MASS TRANSIT CAPITAL AND OPERATING ASSISTANCE - COUNCIL ON AGING - COMMUNITY COACH...................................................... 70 11.C.1. COUNTY DEED FOR FIVE ACRES TO HUMANE SOCIETY OF VERO BEACH, INC . ............................................ 74 11.C.2. FUEL DISPENSERS, INDIAN RIVER COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE - SOUTHERN PETROLEUM SYSTEMS ........................ 77 1 LF. LIFE INSURANCE INCREASE FOR COUNTY EMPLOYEES RETIRING ON OR AFTER OCTOBER 1, 1999 .................................... 79 11.G. POINTE WEST DEVELOPMENT - DEVELOPER'S AGREEMENT FOR OFFSITE ROADWAY AND DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS ............ 80 1 LH. WELTON CONVENIENCE STORE - LONE CABBAGE TRADING COMPANY - DEVELOPER'S AGREEMENT - FINAL PAY REQUEST ... 86 13.A.1. CHAIRMAN MRCHT - SALE OF PROPERTY BY BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE INTERNAL IMPROVEMENT TRUST FUND OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA TO LOST TREE VILLAGE CORPORATIOW 13.A.2 CHAIRMAN MACHT - WELCOME TO KIM MASSUNG, NEW ADMINISTRATIVE AIDE TO THE BOARD ................... 89 13.B. VICE CHAIRMAN ADAMS - CLARIFICATION OF FALSE ALARM ORDINANCE (ORDINANCES 99-010 AND 99-015) - PUBLIC HEARING SCHEDULED FOR AUGUST 24, 1999 ............................. 89 13.D. COMMISSIONER STANBRIDGE - ST. JOHNS RIVER WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT - NOTICE OF INTENT TO DENY PERMIT APPLICATION OF LOST TREE VILLAGE CORPORATION ............ 90 2 14.A. EMERGENCY SERVICES DISTRICT .............................. 93 14.B. SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL DISTRICT ............................ 93 14.C. ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL BOARD ........................... 93 DOCUMENTS MADE PART OF THE RECORD - LOST TREE VILLAGE CORPORATION SPECIAL WARRANTY DEED ...................... 93 3 BOOK i0J PAGE X302 July 27, 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 27, 1999. Present were Kenneth R Macht, Chairman; Fran B. Adams, Vice Chairman; Caroline D. Ginn; Ruth Stanbridge; and John W. Tippin. Also present were Public Works Director James Davis, Acting 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. and welcomed Kim. Massung, the newly appointed Executive Aide to the Board of County Commissioners. 2. INVOCATION Commissioner Ginn delivered the invocation. 3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Acting County Administrator/Public Works Director James Davis led the Pledge to the Flag. 4. ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA Vice Chairman. Adams requested the addition of 13.B. - Clarification on the False Alarm Ordinance. Commissioner Stanbridge requested the addition of 13.D. concerning a permit application of Lost Tree Village Corporation to the St. Johns River Water Management District. ON MOTION by Commissioner Ginn, SECONDED BY Commissioner Stanbridge, the Board unanimously added the requested items to the agenda. JULY 279 1999 1 BOOK 103 PAGE 90" r • GOOK 10J PAGE JJ4 5. PROCLAMATIONS - HONORING JAMES W. HYDE - FLORIDA NARCOTICS OFFICER OF THE YEAR AWARD The Chairman read the following and presented it to James W. Hyde: PROCLAMATION HONORING JAMES W. HYDE FOR RECEIVING THE FLORIDA NARCOTICS OFFICER OF THE YEAR AWARD WHEREAS, James W. Hyde was a 12 year veteran ofhe Sheriffs Office and is now working with the U.S Drug Enforcement Administration Task Force in Ft. Pierce, Florida; and WHEREAS, through dedicated and persistent investigation, Jun Hyde was successful in apprehending a career criminal ending a local million dollar marijuana growing operation; and WHEREAS, by his resourcefulness, Jim was able to recover 5107,000 from the Bon's Swiss bank accounts, and confiscated approximately s50,000 worth of equipment: NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT PROCLAIMED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA that JAMES W. HYDE be commended for his initiative and tenacity in bringing this long tens criminal to justice. The Board further expresses its appreciation to James W. Hyde for a job well done, and wishes him well in his future endeavors. Dated this 27 day of July, 1999. 6.A. APPROVAL OF MINUTES None. JULY 27,1999 BOARD OF COUNTY COMAMSIONERS IND RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA enneth R. acht, Chairman 2 0 • 7. CONSENT AGENDA 7.A. Approval of Warrants The Board reviewed a Memorandum of July 15, 1999: TO: HONORABLE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS DATE: JULY 159 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 July 14 to July 15, 1999. Attachment: ON MOTION by Commissioner Adams, SECONDED BY Commissioner Grin, the Board unanimously approved the list of warrants issued by the Clerk to the Board for the period July 14-15, 1999, as requested. CHECK NAME CHECK CHECK NUMBER DATE AMOUNT 0020070 AMERICAN DENTAL PLAN (FLORIDA) 1999-07-14 1,267.76 0020071 IRC EMPLOYEE HEALTH INSURANCE- 1999-07-14 6,475.00 0020072 HIGHMARK LIFE INSURANCE 1999-07-14 3,744.30 0265599 A A FIRE EQUIPMENT, INC 1999-07-15 896.60 0265600 ABC-CLIO INC 1999-07-15 38.52 0265601 ACTION TRANSMISSION AND 1999-07-15 475.90 0265602 ADVANCED GARAGE DOORS, INC 1999-07-15 35.00 0265603 AIRBORNE EXPRESS 1999-07-15 14.00 0265604 ALBERTSONS SOUTHCO #4357 1999-07-15 158.19 0265605 ALPHA ACE HARDWARE 1999-07-15 46.31 0265606 AMERICAN BUSINESS INTERIORS 1999-07-15 344.74 0265607 AUTO SUPPLY CO OF VERO BEACH, 1999-07-15 417.23 0265608 ACTION DIESEL INJECTION 1999-07-15 67.03 0265609 AQUAGENIX LAND -WATER 1999-07-15 191.00 0265610 A A ELECTRIC SE, INC 1999-07-15 158.29 0265611 A S C E CONTINUING EDUCATION 1999-07-15 885.00 0265612 ADDISON OIL CO 1999-07-15 1,084.12 0265613 A T & T WIRELESS SERVICES 1999-07-15 346.96 0265614 ALDEN ELECTRONICS, INC 1999-07-15 375.00 0265615 A T & T 1999-07-15 32.33 JULY 279 1999 3 • BOOK 1,9 PAGE 905 ®OK PAGE 006 CHECK NAME CHECK CHECK NUMBER DATE AMOUNT 0265616 ALL COUNTY MOWER & EQUIP CO 1999-07-15 257.83 0265617 ARCHITECTS & DESIGNERS 1999-07-15 214.11 0265618 AMERICAN REPORTING 1999-07-15 167.00 0265619 ARCH PAGING 1999-07-15 648.97 0265620 AMERIPATH FL, INC 1999-07-15 137.92 0265621 AMERISYS, INC 1999-07-15 4,670.97 0265622 ANICOM 1999-07-15 210.00 0265623 APPLIED TECHNOLOGY AND 1999-07-15 33,699.24 0265624 AMERITREND HOMES 1999-07-15 1,000.00 0265625 ACTIVITY RESOURCES CO INC 1999-07-15 11.10 0265626 ALDANA, PETER R MD, PA 1999-07-15 200.00 0265627 ALNET TRANSPORTATION INC 1999-07-15 63.00 0265628 ABLE 2 PRODUCTS CO 1999-07-15 275.00 0265629 BARTH CONSTRUCTION 1999-07-15 500.00 0265630 BARTON, JEFFREY K -CLERK 1999-07-15 3,426.25 0265631 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 1999-07-15 3,001.87 0265632 BETTER BUSINESS FORMS, INC 1999-07-15 352.80 0265633 BARTON, JEFFREY K- CLERK 1999-07-15 40,258.27 0265634 BERGGREN EQUIPMENT CO, INC 1999-07-15 2,692.87 0265635 BURGOON BERGER CONSTRUCTION 1999-07-15 500.00 0265636 BARNETT BAIL BONDS 1999-07-15 894.00 0265637 BUILDING OFFICIALS ASSOCIATION 1999-07-15 190.00 0265638 BOB'S BARRICADES, INC 1999-07-15 500.00 0265639 BAKER & TAYLOR INC 1999-07-15 920.60 0265640 BRODART CO 1999-07-15 2,380.27 0265641 BOYNTON PUMP & IRRIGATION 1999-07-15 901.07 0265642 BLUE CROSS BLUE SHIELD OF 1999-07-15 217.70 0265643 BREVARD ORTHOPAEDIC CLINIC 1999-07-15 27.55 0265644 BAKER & TAYLOR ENTERTAINMENT 1999-07-15 9.32 0265645 BELLSOUTH 1999-07-15 24,711.26 0265646 BEAZER HOMES, INC 1999-07-15 500.00 0265647 BOBCAT OF ORLANDO 1999-07-15 3,000.00 0265648 BLUE CROSS/BLUE SHIELD OF 1999-07-15 34,315.56 0265649 BMG 1999-07-15 92.19 0265650 BAGY JO INC 1999-07-15 284.25 0265651 HEISER, ROBERT B 1999-07-15 500.00 0265652 BREVARD ORTHHOPAEDIC CLINIC 1999-07-15 62.55 0265653 BELLSOUTH 1999-07-15 600.60 0265654 CAMERON & BARKLEY COMPANY 1999-07-15 745.74 0265655 CHANDLER EQUIPMENT CO, INC 1999-07-15 1,574.80 0265656 CLEMENTS PEST CONTROL 1999-07-15 406.50 0265657 COMMUNICATIONS INT'L INC 1999-07-15 18,761.63 0265658 CONSOLIDATED ELECTRIC SUPPLY 1999-07-15 37.14 0265659 CORBIN, SHIRLEY E 1999-07-15 490.00 0265660 CROOM CONSTRUCTION CO 1999-07-15 1,000.00 0265661 CHAMBER OF COMMERCE 1999-07-15 17,656.65 0265662 COASTAL REFINING & MARKETING 1999-07-15 11,651.24 0265663 CLINIC PHARMACY 1999-07-15 51.62 0265664 CITGO PETROLEUM CORP 1999-07-15 2,162.17 0265665 CUSTOM CARRIAGES, INC 1999-07-15 35.50 0265666 COOGAN, MAUREEN 1999-07-15 387.28 0265667 CALL ONE, INC 1999-07-15 26.68 0265668 CUES, INC 1999-07-15 213.88 0265669 CLIFFORD, MIKE 1999-07-15 100.00 0265670 CAMPBELL, STEPHANIE 1999-07-15 249.77 0265671 CRAWFORD, SANDY 1999-07-15 5.00 0265672 CENTER FOR EMOTIONAL AND 1999-07-15 25.00 0265673 COPYCO, INC 1999-07-15 93.51 0265674 CORPORATION OF THE PRESIDENT 1999-07-15 150.00 0265675 COMMERCIAL EQUIPMENT LEASING 1999-07-15 672.00 0265676 CARQUEST AUTO PARTS 1999-07-15 920.79 0265677 CIBA SPECIALTY CHEMICALS 1999-07-15 7,779.24 JULY 27, 1999 4 0 CHECK NAME CHECK CHECK NUMBER DATE AMOUNT 0265678 COUNTRY CLASSIC 1999-07-15 292.00 0265679 CHARLESTON PLACE HOTEL 1999-07-15 238.00 0265680 DAILY COURIER SERVICE 1999-07-15 816.00 0265681 DAVES SPORTING GOODS 1999-07-15 1,264.56 0265682 DELTA SUPPLY CO 1999-07-15 52.32 0265683 DEMCO INC 1999-07-15 5.61 0265684 FLORIDA DEPT OF MANAGEMENT 1999-07-15 3,534.96 0265685 DICKERSON-FLORIDA, INC 1999-07-15 143,687.98 0265686 DOCTOR'S CLINIC 1999-07-15 2,389.88 0265687 DATA SUPPLIES, INC 1999-07-15 1,844.61 0265688 DATA FLOW SYSTEMS, INC 1999-07-15 1,095.20 0265689 DEAF SERVICE CENTER OF THE 1999-07-15 212.50 0265690 DUNKELBERGER ENGINEERING & 1999-07-15 13,795.87 0265691 DADE PAPER COMPANY 1999-07-15 763.48 0265692 DAVIS, BRENDA 1999-07-15 9.28 0265693 DAYTONA BEACH HILTON HOTEL 1999-07-15 178.00 0265694 DOWNTOWN PRODUCE INC 1999-07-15 172.60 0265695 DIPEPPO, GRACE 1999-07-15 1,209.05 0265696 E -Z BREW COFFEE SERVICE, INC 1999-07-15 39.50 0265697 ESOUIRE REPORTING INC 1999-07-15 406.00 0265698 EVANS, FLOYD 1999-07-15 62.50 0265699 E S I INTERNATIONAL INC 1999-07-15 29,689.00 0265700 ERCILDOUNE BOWLING LANES 1999-07-15 172.50 0265701 EMERGENCY MEDICINE ASSOCIATES 1999-07-15 175.00 0265702 ELPEX, INC 1999-07-15 181.00 0265703 ELITE FIRE & SAFETY 1999-07-15 1,556.00 0265704 EDLUND & DRITENBAS 1999-07-15 3,497.41 0265705 EVERGLADES GROUP, INC, THE 1999-07-15 49.80 0265706 FEDEX 1999-07-15 58.75 0265707 FELLSMERE, CITY OF 1999-07-15 18.37 0265708 FLORIDA ASSOCIATION OF 1999-07-15 115.00 0265709 FLORIDA BAR, THE 1999-07-15 190.00 0265710 FLORIDA EAST COAST RAILWAY CO 1999-07-15 575.00 0265711 FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY 1999-07-15 5,158.61 0265712 FRASER ENGINEERING & TESTING 1999-07-15 95.00 0265713 FLOWERS BAKING COMPANY OF 1999-07-15 140.93 0265714 OCLC/FOREST PRESS 1999-07-15 20.00 0265715 FLINN, SHEILA I 1999-07-15 154.00 0265716 FALZONE, CHRISTOPHER 1999-07-15 38.62 0265717 FLORIDA ANIMAL LEAGUE 1999-07-15 70.00 0265718 F A P A 1999-07-15 825.00 0265719 F & W PUBLICATIONS INC 1999-07-15 96.04 0265720 FACTICON, INC 1999-07-15 5.75 0265721 FACAA TREASURER 1999-07-15 75.00 0265722 FREIGHTLINER TRUCKS OF SOUTH 1999-07-15 227.04 0265723 FIRESTONE TIRE & SERVICE 1999-07-15 614.13 0265724 GALE GROUP, THE 1999-07-15 410.19 0265725 GATOR LUMBER COMPANY 1999-07-15 36.22 0265726 GAYLORD BROTHERS, INC 1999-07-15 1,182.29 0265727 GLIDDEN COMPANY, THE 1999-07-15 7.42 0265728 GOODKNIGHT LAWN EQUIPMENT, INC 1999-07-15 136.09 0265729 GRAYBAR ELECTRIC CO INC 1999-07-15 120.87 0265730 GOODYEAR AUTO SERVICE CENTER 1999-07-15 484.88 0265731 GOLF ASSOCIATES SCORECARD 1999-07-15 902.11 0265732 GOLD STAR OF THE TREASURE 1999-07-15 2,124.00 0265733 GRILL REFILL, INC 1999-07-15 93.00 0265734 GRAVITY PUBLISHING 1999-07-15 18.15 0265735 GREENHAVEN PRESS INC 1999-07-15 24.44 0265736 H W WILSON CO 1999-07-15 305.00 0265737 HUNTER AUTO SUPPLIES 1999-07-15 671.05 0265738 HARPRING, JAMES G 1999-07-15 49,569.25 JULY 2791999 5 • 600K i00 PAGE 2307 GOOK iUo FnUE 90 CHECK NAME CHECK CHECK NUMBER DATE AMOUNT 0265739 HELD, PATRICIA BARGO 1999-07-15 161.00 0265740 HIBISCUS CHILDREN'S CENTER 1999-07-15 2,928.76 0265741 HAMMOND & SMITH, PA 1999-07-15 3,800.00 0265742 HARTSFIELD, CELESTE L 1999-07-15 150.50 0265743 HEALTHSOUTH TREASURE COAST 1999-07-15 390.00 0265744 HOMETOWN PET CARE CENTER 1999-07-15 58.25 0265745 HUNT, FRANK 1999-07-15 46.80 0265746 HANSEN, SUSAN 1999-07-15 191.40 0265747 HOLLOMAN III, WILLIE JAMES 1999-07-15 206.00 0265748 INDIAN RIVER COUNTY SOLID 1999-07-15 2,923.89 0265749 INDIAN RIVER COUNTY HEALTH 1999-07-15 468.00 0265750 INDIAN RIVER COUNTY 1999-07-15 75.00 0265751 INSTRUMENTATION SERVICES, INC 1999-07-15 380.00 0265752 INDIAN RIVER BATTERY, INC 1999-07-15 791.66 0265753 INDIAN RIVER COUNTY 1999-07-15 45.00 0265754 INDIAN RIVER COUNTY UTILITY 1999-07-15 1,313.21 0265755 INDIAN RIVER COUNTY BAR 1999-07-15 125.00 0265756 INDIAN RIVER OXYGEN, INC 1999-07-15 574.25 0265757 INGRAM LIBRARY SERVICES 1999-07-15 77.69 0265758 INDIAN RIVER ANIMAL HOSPITAL 1999-07-15 15.00 0265759 INDIAN RIVER MEMORIAL HOSPITAL 1999-07-15 1,176.18 0265760 INDIAN RIVER COUNTY SCHOOL 1999-07-15 1,265.00 0265761 INDIAN RIVER COUNTY 1999-07-15 170.00 0265762 INDIAN RIVER COUNTY 1999-07-15 50.00 0265763 INDIAN RIVER ALL -FAB, INC 1999-07-15 38.97 0265764 IRC EMPLOYEE HEALTH INSURANCE- 1999-07-15 304,678.66 0265765 IMI -NET, INC 1999-07-15 450.00 0265766 INDIAN RIVER INDUSTRIAL 1999-07-15 430,870.52 0265767 INTERIM COURT REPORTING 1999-07-15 133.00 0265768 IRRIGATION CONSULTANTS UNLIMIT 1999-07-15 1.14 0265769 INDIAN RIVER HAND 1999-07-15 984.76 0265770 JACOBS ELECTRIC MOTOR REPAIR 1999-07-15 58.98 0265771 JANIE DEAN CHEVROLET, INC 1999-07-15 40.69 0265772 JIFFY PHOTO CENTER 1999-07-15 17.00 0265773 JR REPORTING ASSOCIATES, INC 1999-07-15 423.50 0265774 JAFFE, ROBERT F, ES 1999-07-15 37.50 0265775 JORDAN, MARIA 1999-07-15 155.00 0265776 JAMES P YOUNG CONSTRUCTION CO 1999-07-15 8,337.00 0265777 JONES CHEMICALS, INC 1999-07-15 3,354.00 0265778 KNIGHT & MATHIS, INC 1999-07-15 19.50 0265779 KELLY TRACTOR CO 1999-07-15 663.81 0265780 KAPCO/KENT 1999-07-15 257.00 0265781 KT MOWER & EQUIPMENT 1999-07-15 400.42 0265782 K & M ELECTRIC SUPPLY INC 1999-07-15 41.16 0265783 LUCAS WATERPROOFING CO, INC 1999-07-15 36,000.00 0265784 LOWE'S HOME CENTERS, INC 1999-07-15 305.83 0265785 LEWIS, RUTH A 1999-07-15 43.18 0265786 L B SMITH, INC 1999-07-15 1,632.77 0265787 LIGHT SOURCE BUSINESS SYSTEMS 1999-07-15 135.99 0265788 LIBRARIES UNLIMITED, INC 1999-07-15 54.87 0265789 LESCO, INC 1999-07-15 68.85 0265790 LAWYERS TITLE INSURANCE 1999-07-15 592.35 0265791 LETTS, DAVID 1999-07-15 447.00 0265792 LARGE PRINT LIBRARY DISCOUNTER 1999-07-15 38.67 0265793 LOEWS MIAMI BEACH HOTEL 1999-07-15 900.00 0265794 MCCORKLE RADIOLOGY 1999-07-15 18.00 0265795 MICKLER'S FLORIDIANA, INC 1999-07-15 30.14 0265796 MID COAST TIRE SERVICE, INC 1999-07-15 74.95 0265797 MIKES GARAGE 1999-07-15 140.00 0265798 MIRACLE RECREATION EQUIPMENT 1999-07-15 393.00 0265799 MAGANA, IGNACIO M D 1999-07-15 450.00 JULY 2791999 CHECK NAME CHECK CHECK NUMBER DATE AMOUNT 0265800 MEDICAL RECORD SERVICES, INC 1999-07-15 37.02 0265801 MCMASTER-CARR SUPPLY COMPANY 1999-07-15 23.61 0265802 MARTIN COUNTY PETROLEUM 1999-07-15 1,206.31 0265803 MIDWEST TAPE EXCHANGE 1999-07-15 61.97 0265804 M C B COLLECTION SERVICES 1999-07-15 63.23 0265805 MELROE 1999-07-15 31,804.00 0265806 MICROMARKETING, LLC 1999-07-15 18.43 0265807 MR BOB PORTABLE TOILET 1999-07-15 421.80 0265808 MICKLE, VALERIE 1999-07-15 61.71 0265809 MGB CONSTRUCTION INC 1999-07-15 500.00 0265810 MAS, OGLA 1999-07-15 200.00 0265811 MEDICAL SERVICES COMPANY, INC 1999-07-15 265.29 0265812 MUNOZ, CARLA 1999-07-15 190.55 0265813 MC CANN, JOSEPH E 1999-07-15 72.32 0265814 MEYER, NORMAN MD 1999-07-15 131.75 0265815 NASCO 1999-07-15 569.67 0265816 NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF 1999-07-15 100.00 0265817 NICOSIA, ROGER J DO 1999-07-15 520.00 0265818 NEFF MACHINERY, INC 1999-07-15 389.39 0265819 NATIONAL AMBULANCE BUILDERS, 1999-07-15 194.93 0265820 NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF 1999-07-15 465.00 0265821 NATIONAL PROPANE CORP 1999-07-15 401.64 0265822 NU CO 2, INC 1999-07-15 68.59 0265823 NATIONSBANK, N A 1999-07-15 10.75 0265824 NIGH, NORMAN 1999-07-15 319.30 0265825 OMNIGRAPHICS, INC 1999-07-15 37.30 0265826 ON IT'S WAY 1999-07-15 352.00 0265827 OFFICE DEPOT, INC 1999-07-15 2,159.97 0265828 O'NEIL, LEE & WEST 1999-07-15 26,829.18 0265829 ORLANDO HAND SURGERY ASSOCIATE 1999-07-15 26.10 0265830 ORLANDO, KAREN M 1999-07-15 301.00 0265831 ORT, DENIS M & NANCY SUSAN 1999-07-15 24.05 0265832 PEACE RIVER ELECTRIC 1999-07-15 168.78 0265833 PEPSI -COLA COMPANY 1999-07-15 129.00 0265834 PERKINS INDIAN RIVER PHARMACY 1999-07-15 82.46 0265835 PETTY CASE 1999-07-15 59.74 0265836 POSTMASTER 1999-07-15 331.00 0265837 PROCTOR CONSTRUCTION 1999-07-15 500.00 0265838 PORT PETROLEUM, INC 1999-07-15 791.91 0265839 PRESS JOURNAL 1999-07-15 129.00 0265840 PAR -MAIL 1999-07-15 30.23 0265841 PERKINS MEDICAL SUPPLY 1999-07-15 61.00 0265842 PANGBURN, TERRI 1999-07-15 24.00 0265843 PRESS JOURNAL/STUART NEWS 1999-07-15 2,719.65 0265844 PRAXAIR DISTRIBUTION 1999-07-15 68.25 0265845 PRICEWATEREOUSECOOPERS LLP 1999-07-15 11,640.00 0265846 POE AND BROWN INSURANCE AGENCY 1999-07-15 451.75 0265847 PROSPER, JANET C 1999-07-15 413.00 0265848 QUALITY BOOKS, INC 1999-07-15 928.79 0265849 QUINLAN PUBLISHING GROUP 1999-07-15 93.81 0265850 RADIOSHACK 1999-07-15 4.68 0265851 RIFKIN, SHELDON H PHD 1999-07-15 1,450.00 0265852 ROSELAND VOLUNTEER FIRE DEPT 1999-07-15 8.00 0265853 RUSSELL CONCRETE, INC 1999-07-15 6.15 0265854 ROBERTS & REYNOLDS PA 1999-07-15 2,712.33 0265855 RANGER CONSTRUCTION IND, INC 1999-07-15 41,119.33 0265856 R & G SOD FARMS 1999-07-15 80.00 0265857 RUBBER STAMP EXPRESS & MORE 1999-07-15 35.40 0265858 RSR 1999-07-15 2,445.07 0265859 ROYAL CUP COFFEE 1999-07-15 42.75 0265860 RAPP, PAMELA 1999-07-15 12.00 0265861 ROMANO, CHRISTINA 1999-07-15 19.31 JULY 279 1999 7 BOOK FAGS t&K 109 PAGES -10 CHECK NAME CHECK CHECK NUMBER DATE AMOUNT 0265862 RIVERA, MANUEL ALCIDES 1999-07-15 300.00 0265863 SCHOPP, BARBARA G 1999-07-15 269.50 0265864 SCOTTY'S, INC 1999-07-15 253.29 0265865 SEBASTIAN BUSINESS SUPPLY, INC 1999-07-15 40.91 0265866 SEBASTIAN VOLUNTEER FIRE DEPT 1999-07-15 57.00 0265867 SEWELL HARDWARE CO, INC 1999-07-15 248.96 0265868 SHERWIN-WILLIAMS 1999-07-15 53.01 0265869 SHAW, DAVID D C 1999-07-15 157.50 0265870 SOUTHERN EAGLE DISTRIBUTING, 1999-07-15 203.70 0265871 SOUTHERN ELECTRIC SUPPLY 1999-07-15 235.25 0265872 STURGIS LUMBER & PLYWOOD CO 1999-07-15 413.59 0265873 SUNSHINE PHYSICAL THERAPY 1999-07-15 180.00 0265874 ST LUCIE PAPER & PACKAGING,INC 1999-07-15 1,155.36 0265875 SERVICE REFRIGERATION CO, INC 1999-07-15 2,945.00 0265876 SIMON & SCHUSTER 1999-07-15 1,178.14 0265877 SALEM PRESS, INC 1999-07-15 177.75 0265878 SHADY OAK ANIMAL CLINIC 1999-07-15 40.50 0265879 SAFETY EQUIPMENT COMPANY 1999-07-15 4,475.05 0265880 SOUTHERN SEWER EQUIPMENT SALES 1999-07-15 94.95 0265881 SEXTON, HILDY 1999-07-15 160.00 0265882 SUN BELT MEDICAL SUPPLY, INC 1999-07-15 1,185.51 0265883 SELIG CHEMICAL IND 1999-07-15 48.96 0265884 SAFECO, INC 1999-07-15 163.50 0265885 SYSCO FOOD SERVICES OF 1999-07-15 883.39 0265886 STEWART MINING INDUSTRIES INC 1999-07-15 4,643.70 0265887 SEBASTIAN POLICE DEPARTMENT 1999-07-15 25.00 0265888 SIMS, MATTHEW 1999-07-15 121.80 0265889 STM/SAVE THE MOMENT 1999-07-15 61.00 0265890 SEBASTIAN EMERGENCY PHYSICIANS 1999-07-15 29.00 0265891 STILLER, MARSHA 1999-07-15 68.00 0265892 SHIELDS, VANESSA 1999-07-15 38.62 0265893 SUN TRUST BANK BANK SOUTH 1999-07-15 562.95 0265894 SUMMERLIN,S SEVEN SEAS INC 1999-07-15 7,450.00 0265895 SECURITYLINK FROM AMERITECH 1999-07-15 172.06 0265896 SMITH, JEFFREY R 1999-07-15 12.25 0265897 STEWART, SARAH LYNN 1999-07-15 38.62 0265898 TRIMM HEATING-AIRCONDITION,INC 1999-07-15 1,834.00 0265899 HIGHMARK LIFE INSURANCE 1999-07-15 6,148.26 0265900 SMITH, TERRY L 1999-07-15 37.12 0265901 TREASURE COAST MASSAGE THERAPY 1999-07-15 182.00 0265902 TRADEWINDS 1999-07-15 930.00 0265903 TELECOMMUNICATIONS 1999-07-15 295.45 0265904 TRAVELHOST OF TREASURE COAST & 1999-07-15 190.00 0265905 T C BILLING CORPORATION 1999-07-15 11,057.77 0265906 THERMOGAS COMPANY 1999-07-15 59.81 0265907 TEST, SANDRA L, ATTORNEY 1999-07-15 10,000.00 0265908 UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 1999-07-15 40.00 0265909 ULVERSCROFT LARGE PRINT 1999-07-15 719.60 0265910 U S WIRE -TIE SYSTEMS 1999-07-15 517.15 0265911 US FILTER DISTRIBUTION GROUP 1999-07-15 7,646.44 0265912 UNIVERSITY PARK MEDIA 1999-07-15 194.40 0265913 UNIPSYCH BENEFITS OF FL,INC 1999-07-15 6,447.60 0265914 VELDE FORD, INC 1999-07-15 824.60 0265915 VERO BEACH VOLUNTEER FIRE 1999-07-15 37.00 0265916 VERO BEACH, CITY OF 1999-07-15 6,854.31 0265917 VERO CHEMICAL DISTRIBUTORS,INC 1999-07-15 77.10 0265918 VERO LAWNMOWER CENTER, INC 1999-07-15 135.07 0265919 VERO BEACH, CITY OF 1999-07-15 343.61 0265920 VERO BEACH, CITY OF 1999-07-15 40.61 0265921 VERO BEACH, CITY OF 1999-07-15 77.00 0265922 VERO LAKE ESTATES VOLUNTEER 1999-07-15 18.00 JULY 279 1999 8 CHECK NAME CHECK CHECK NUMBER DATE AMOUNT 0265923 VERO BOWL 1999-07-15 296.00 0265924 VERO BEARING & BOLT 1999-07-15 113.69 0265925 VOLUNTEER ACTION CENTER 1999-07-15 50.00 0265926 VALENTINI, PATRICK 1999-07-15 16.53 0265927 VERO BEACH CYCLING & FITNESS 1999-07-15 1,360.00 0265928 WAL-MART STORES, INC 1999-07-15 632.25 0265929 WALGREENS PHARMACY #03608 1999-07-15 1,128.94 0265930 WALGREENS PHARMACY #4248 1999-07-15 87.98 0265931 WALSH, LYNN 1999-07-15 24.36 0265932 WAL-MART STORES, INC 1999-07-15 58.28 0265933 WILLHOFF, PATSY 1999-07-15 104.00 0265934 WILLIAM THIES & SONS, INC 1999-07-15 137.50 0265935 WINDOW SERVICE & SERVICE INC 1999-07-15 3,550.00 0265936 WATERWORKS CAR WASH 1999-07-15 115.75 0265937 WAL*MART STORE 931 1999-07-15 4.48 0265938 WAREFORCE INC 1999-07-15 520.95 0265939 WEST GROUP PAYMENT CTR 1999-07-15 275.75 0265940 WASTE MANAGEMENT 1999-07-15 85,903.86 0265941 WOLFE, ERIN 1999-07-15 33.47 0265942 WILLIAMS, JAMES 1999-07-15 52.40 0265943 XEROX CORPORATION 1999-07-15 340.73 0265944 ZEE MEDICAL SERVICE 1999-07-15 170.70 0265945 ZIMMERMANN, KARL 1999-07-15 21.60 0265946 BRANDON CAPITAL CORPORATION 1999-07-15 85.33 0265947 BURGOON BERGER CONSTRUCTION CO 1999-07-15 36.06 0265948 CROOM CONSTRUCTION CO 1999-07-15 101.50 0265949 R ZORC & SONS BUILDERS 1999-07-15 27.85 0265950 PROCTOR CONSTRUCTION CO, INC 1999-07-15 139.14 0265951 BRANDENBURG, H LANCE 1999-07-15 45.97 0265952 HOLT, JOHN SCOTT 1999-07-15 4.47 0265953 CIPRIANO, ARTHUR & LINDA 1999-07-15 51.44 0265954 TIPTON, DELBERT S 1999-07-15 23.67 0265955 WIGGINS, JAMES & NINA J 1999-07-15 43.59 0265956 GILLESPIE, RITA M 1999-07-15 49.78 0265957 GREENAWAY, THOMAS & NADINE 1999-07-15 5.14 0265958 HODGSON, CLAUDE W 1999-07-15 23.31 0265959 GHO VERO BEACH INC 1999-07-15 201.38 0265960 WILLERT, GEORGE 1999-07-15 58.51 0265961 PRICE, DAVID & LINETTE 1999-07-15 22.88 0265962 CORNERSTONE SELECT HOMES INC 1999-07-15 62.55 0265963 VALUE CLOTHING CO INC 1999-07-15 82.20 0265964 MGB CONSTRUCTION INC 1999-07-15 106.81 0265965 BARTEL, IRENE J 1999-07-15 39.25 0265966 KRZENSKI, JIMMY 1999-07-15 15.39 0265967 COLLINS, MARCIA 1999-07-15 61.76 0265968 HINZMAN, FRANK D 1999-07-15 34.64 0265969 O'NEAL, MICHELLE 1999-07-15 16.12 0265970 NGO, LIEN THI 1999-07-15 54.62 0265971 DAVIS, JOHN S 1999-07-15 32.31 0265972 SMITH, RICHARD W 1999-07-15 42.39 0265973 RUPPERT, DAVID P 1999-07-15 78.33 0265974 IRIZARRY, RACHEL 1999-07-15 60.07 0265975 ENGEL III, HENRY 1999-07-15 10.21 0265976 GOVEA, RACIEL 1999-07-15 78.64 0265977 BARRETT, MICHAEL S 1999-07-15 71.41 0265978 WILLIAMS, JOHN & ANGELA 1999-07-15 32.77 0265979 FISH N BUBBLES CRAFT CO 1999-07-15 39.70 0265980 VICTORY, BRUCE 1999-07-15 29.00 0265981 KENSINGTON ASSOCIATION 1999-07-15 25.71 0265982 ADAIR, DR DONNA W 1999-07-15 35.26 0265983 ROBB, MICHAEL 1999-07-15 39.20 JULY 279 1999 0 500K IOU PAGE O'L GOOK 100 PAGE X10 CHECK NAME CHECK CHECK NUMBER DATE AMOUNT 0265984 CALABRESE, JAMES & THERESA 1999-07-15 52.58 0265985 TERZI, CARL J 1999-07-15 52.50 0265986 MAC WILLIAM, BARBARA 1999-07-15 100.00 0265987 MORILLO, FELICIA 1999-07-15 52.29 0265988 FRETZ, BARBARA A 1999-07-15 54.48 0265989 CARDAMAN, MICHAEL F 1999-07-15 54.80 0265990 KLEBRA, FRANK L 1999-07-15 54.92 0265991 LA ROUCHE, CYNTHIA 1999-07-15 52.52 0265992 NUTTER, HELEN 1999-07-15 55.24 1,640,999.03 7.B. Windsor Plat 20 - Final PD Plat Awroval - Contract for construction o Required Improvements - Cash Deposit and Escrow Agreement The Board reviewed a Memorandum of July 21, 1999: TO: James E. Chandler County Administrator HEAD CONCURRENCE: —Robert M. Keating, Al Community �/Develop t DWr � -15. THROUGH: Stan Boling, AICP Planning Director FROM: John W. McCoy, AICpn/ M Senior Planner, Current Development DATE: July 21, 1999 SUBJECT: Windsor Properties Inc.'s Request for Final PD Plat Approval for Windsor Plat 20 It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at its regular meeting of July 27, 1999. Windsor Plat 20 is a 5 lot subdivision of a 9.04 acre parcel of land located on the east side of S.R. A 1 A at the south end of the Windsor Development. The proposed final plat is consistent with the JULY 27, 1999 10 approved conceptual PD. The subject property is zoned RS -3 (residential, single-family up to 3 units/acre) and is developed at a density of 0.55 units. On August 27, 1998, the Planning and Zoning Commission granted preliminary PD plan/plat approval for Windsor Plat 20. The developer, Windsor Properties, Inc., subsequently obtained a land development permit and has completed construction of most of the required subdivision improvements. The developer is now requesting final plat approval and has submitted the following: 1. A final plat in substantial conformance with the approved preliminary PD plat. 2. Contract for construction for the remaining required improvements. 3. An approved cost estimate from the project engineer. 4. A cash escrow agreement to guarantee construction. ANALYSIS: The majority of the required subdivision improvements have been constructed, with the exception of sidewalks, road markers, street lights, swale improvements, and sodding. At this time, the applicant is proposing to "bond -out" these remaining required improvements for this development, as provided for in the county's land development regulations. Public Works staff has reviewed and approved the submitted engineer's cost estimate and corresponding security amount which represent 115% of the estimated cost to construct the required improvements. In addition, the County Attorney's Office has reviewed and approved the submitted contract for construction and the cash escrow agreement. It should be noted that all improvements within Windsor Development will be private, except for the utility facilities. The utility facilities will be dedicated to Indian River county as required by the Utility Services Department. Based on the above analysis, staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners: 1. Grant final plat approval for the Windsor Plat 20, 2. Authorize the chairman to sign the contract for construction of remaining required improvements, and 3. Authorize the chairman to sign the cash escrow agreement that guarantees performance of the construction contract. ATTACHMENTS: Application 1. 2. Location Map 3. Plat Graphic 4. Contract for Construction (copy) 5. Cash Escrow Agreement (copy) JULY 279 1999 11 BOOK 109 PAGE J31 600K ON MOTION by Commissioner Adams, SECONDED BY Commissioner Ginn, the Board unanimously granted final plat approval for the Windsor Plat 20 and authorized the Chairman to sign the Contract for Construction of Remaining Required Improvements and the Cash Escrow Agreement, as recommended in the Memorandum. COPIES OF CONTRACT FOR CONSTRUCTION OF REQUIRED IlNPROVEMENTS AND CASH DEPOSIT AND ESCROW AGREMRgT ARE ON FILE WITH THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD 109 FAGS 21 7. C. Bid Award #9069 -Flat Bed Sign Truck - Trak Engineering - Johnny Stamm Manufacturing The Board reviewed a Memorandum of July 19, 1999: DATE: July 19, 1999 TO: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS THRU: James E. Chandler, County Administrator Tom Frame, General Services Director 4wl— FROM: Fran Boynton -Powell, Purchasing Manager SUBJECT: Bid Award: IRC #9069 Flat Bed Sign Truck Public Works/Traffic Engineering Division BACKGROUND INFORMATION Bid Opening Date: Advertising Dates: Specifications Mailed to: Replies: July 7, 1999 at 2:00 P.M. June 23, 30, 1999 Twenty-five (25) Vendors One (1) Vendor Note: A "No Bid" response was received from three dealers stating that at this time, they are unable to bid on a year 2000 vehicle and could not supply a 1999 vehicle of this size because of the 1999 balance out from the manufacture. VENDOR BID TOTAL MAKE MODEL YEAR Johnny Stamm Mfg. Ft. Pierce, Fl $34,450.00 Ford F450 1999 Delivery Time: 60 — 90 days after receipt of order. JULY 27, 1999 12 TOTAL AMOUNT OF BID SOURCE OF FUNDS ESTIMATED BUDGET RECOMMENDATION $34,450.00 Public Works/ Other Equipment 111-245-541-06642 $30,000.00 Traffic Division will transfer monies from other line items to cover additional cost. Staff recommends that the bid be awarded to Johnny Stamm Mfs.. as the sole bidder meeting specifications as set forth in the Invitation to Bid. (See Department Memo.) ON MOTION by Commissioner Adams, SECONDED BY Commissioner Grin, the Board unanimously awarded Bid #9069 to Johnny Stamm Mfg. in the amount of $34,450.00, as recommended in the Memorandum. 7.D. 2000 Holiday Schedule - Board of County Commissioners and Constitutional Qo iters The Board reviewed a Memorandum of July 19, 1999: TO: James Chandler County} Administrator FROM: Rosi Baker Personnel Director DATE: July 19, 1999 SUBJECT: 2000 Holiday Schedule For consideration by the Board of County Commissioners: proposed schedule of holidays for Indian River County employees for 2000. Holiday County Observance New Year's Day Friday, December 31, 1999 Good Friday Friday, April 21, 2000 Memorial Day Monday, May 29, 2000 Independence Day Tuesday, July 4, 2000 Labor Day Monday, September 4, 2000 Veteran's Day Friday, November lo, 2000 Tag Day Thursday, November 23, 2000 Day after Thanksgiving Friday, November 24, 2000 Christmas Eve Friday, December 22, 2000 Christmas Day Monday, December 25, 2000 NOTE: Please see attached for the holiday schedules of the other constitutional officers. JULY 27,1999 13 BOOK 109 PAGE915 • .P, l� u HOLIDAY SCHEDULE FOR 2000 Clerk of Court Tax Collector Supervisor Property Same as BCC BCC of Elections Appraiser New Year's Day Fri., 12/31/99 Same as BCC Same as BCC Martin Luther King, Jr. Day Not observed Same as BCC Same as BCC Good Friday Fri., 4/21/00 Same as BCC Same as BCC Memorial Day Mon., 5/29/00 Same as BCC Same as BCC Day before Independence Day Not observed Same as BCC Same as BCC Independence Day Tues., 7/4/00 Same as BCC Same as BCC Labor Day Mon., 9/4/00 Same as BCC Same as BCC Veteran's Day Fri., 11/10/00 Same as BCC Same as BCC Thanksgiving Day Thurs., 11/23/00 Same as BCC Same as BCC Day after Thanksgiving Fri., 11/24/00 Same as BCC Same as BCC Christmas Eve Fri., 12/22/00 Same as BCC Same as BCC Christmas Day Mon., 12/25/00 Same as BCC Same as BCC Day after Christmas Not observed Same as BCC Same as BCC Clerk of Court Tax Collector Sheriff Same as BCC Same as BCC Not observed* Same as BCC Mon., 1/17/00 Same as BCC Same as BCC Same as BCC Same as BCC Same as BCC Same as BCC Same as BCC Mon., 7/3/00 Same as BCC Mon., 7/3/00 Same as BCC Same as BCC Same as BCC Same as BCC Same as BCC Same as BCC Same as BCC Same as BCC Same as BCC Same as BCC Same as BCC Same as BCC Same as BCC Same as BCC Same as BCC Not observed Same as BCC Not observed Same as BCC Same as BCC Same as BCC Same as BCC Same as BCC Tues., 12/26/00 *Included in 1999 holiday schedule due to Sheriff electing to observe Fri., 12/31/99, in lieu of Mon., 12/27/99. Co F- CD ON MOTION by Commissioner Adams, SECONDED BY Commissioner Ginn, the Board unanimously approved the proposed holiday schedule for Indian River County employees for 2000, as set out in the Memorandum. 7.E. Resolution #99-067 -Approval of Submission ofApj2 cation to Florida Department ofAgriculture and ConsumerServices for Urban and Community Forestry Grant Funds for Trees and Beaudric�ado_n Projects - CR -512. Phase III (Roseland Road to MS, The Board reviewed a Memorandum of July 16, 1999: TO: James Chandler, County Administrator THROUGH: James W. Davis, P.E., Public Works Director AND Christopher J. Kafer, Jr., P.E., County Engin FROM: Robert S. Skok, Civil Engineer Ino. SUBJECT: Department of Agriculture, Request for Proposal DATE: July 16, 1999 DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS CONSENT AGMA Staff is attempting to meet the requirements for a "Request for Proposal" from the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services. The Department offers an Urban and Community Forestry (U&CF) Grant Program in which Indian River County could receive a possible $10,000.00 grant for tree planting and beautification projects. One of the requirements is a resolution indicating support for the project. ANALYSIS The Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services has sent out "Request for Proposal' (RFP) for their Urban and Community Forestry Grant Program. Indian River County was placed in Region 2 (see attachment "J") in which $140,000 is allocated for 17 eounties in the region. The maximum of any one grant is $25,000.00. Staff will be attempting to obtain a grant listed as a Category 2, Demonstration or site specific projectsin which the maximum grant amount is $10,000.00. The grant could be used for the upcoming project CR 512, Phase III (Roseland Road to I-95). Funds may only be used for purchase and planting of trees/palms. Purchase and planting of shrubs and ground covers JULY 279 1999 15 BOOK DO FAGS 91 7 GOOK i0J PAGE A8 would not be reimbursed. Up to 10% of the grant award could be used for each of the following: irrigation system, rental equipment, and site preparation. A maximum of $10.00 per tree may be spent on planting materials and/or watering. The maximum allowable cost per tree or palm is $250.00 for purchase and planting. REC0NS4ENDATIONS Staff recommends the Board approve the attached Resolution for submission of the application for grant funds and authorize the Chairman to execute the Resolution, and any agreements and documents associated with the grant. ATTACIIlVIENTS 1. Resolution 2. Request for Proposal 3. Landscape Plan for CR 512, Phase III ON MOTION by Commissioner Adams, SECONDED BY Commissioner Ginn, the Board unanimously adopted Resolution No. 99-067 approving the submission of application to the Department of Agriculture & Consumer Services for Urban and Community Forestry Grant Funds and authorizing the execution of the agreements and documents associated with the Grant. COPY OF REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL AND ASSOCIATED DOCUMENTS ARE ON FILE IN TBE OFFICE OF TBE CLERK TO TBE BOARD RESOLUTION NO. 99- 67 A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMIISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, FOR APPROVAL OF THE SUBMISSION OF APPLICATION TO THE DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE & CONSUMER SERVICES FOR URBAN AND COMMUNITY FORESTRY GRANT FUNDS AND AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF AGREEMENTS AND DOCUMENTS ASSOCIATED WITH 'ITIS GRANT. WHEREAS, the State of Florida, Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services is requesting proposals from local governments for grant funds; and WHEREAS, Indian River County approves of making application to the State of Florida, Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services; and JULY 279 1999 16 0 0 • WHEREAS, the State of Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services has requested Indian River County execute and deliver to the State of Florida an agreement for the Request for Proposal; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY CON IISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that the Chairman of the Board is hereby authorized to make, execute, and deliver to the State of Florida, Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services and Agreement for the aforementioned. The foregoing resolution was moved for adoption by Commissioner Adams and the motion was seconded by Commissioner M nn and, upon being put to a vote, the vote was as follows: Chairman Kenneth R Macht Aye Vice Chairman Fran B. Adams Aye Commissioner Caroline D. Ginn Aye Commissioner John W: Tippin Aye Commissioner Ruth Stanbridge Aye The Chairman thereupon declared the resolution duly passed and adopted this 7 7 day of 1999. Jeffrey on, Clerk JULY 279 1999 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA ay Kenneth R. acht, Chairman 17 BOOK PAGE �jq GOOK I. 0 PAGE'0 7.F. Resolutions #99-068 thru #99-072 - Tax Cancellations on Recentl AAcquired Properties -1) 58th Avenue R,IW- First Church off' Gods 2) CR512 R/W - King; 3) Oslo Road/27th Avenue R/W - EMU Associates; j)- Street R/W - Wolin: 5 Drainage/Retention Site - 44th Avenue & 19th Street - Mathis The Board reviewed a Memorandum of July 21, 1999: TO: Board of �Corqmissioners 64-9-1 FROM: Lea R. Keller, CLA Legal Assistant - County Attorney's Office DATE: July 21,1999 RE: Recently Acquired Properties - Tax Cancellation The County recently acquired some property and, pursuant to Section 196.28, Florida Statutes, the Board, after formally accepting the property, may cancel and discharge any taxes owed on it as long as it was acquired for public purpose. Such cancellation must be done by resolution of the Board, with a certified copy being forwarded to the Tax Collector (along with copies sent to the Property Appraiser and Fixed Assets). Requested Action: Board authorize the Chairman to sign the attached six resolutions which cancel taxes upon the land that the County recently acquired. Attachments.- Resolutions 6 Leon/s: 1. R/W 58th Avenue - First Church of Sod of hero Reach Z. R/W - CR 051Z - King 3. ,e1W - OS/0 6 00* Avenue - E/wi// Assoc. 4. R/W - 16'* Street - Wolin 5. 0,rainoge/Retention Site - iNathis ON MOTION by Commissioner Adams, SECONDED BY Commissioner Ginn, the Board unanimously adoptedResolution 99-068 canceling certain delinquent taxes upon publicly owned lands, pursuant to Section 196.28, Florida Statutes. (R/W 58" Avenue - First Church of God of Vero Beach) JULY 279 1999 18 -I • Re: R/W - 581" Avenue First Church of God of VB RESOLUTION NO. 99-6_ A RESOLUTION OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, CANCELLING CERTAIN DELINQUENT TAXES UPON PUBLICLY OWNED LANDS, PURSUANT TO SECTION 196.28, FLORIDA STATUTES. WHEREAS, Section 196.28, Florida Statutes, allows the Board of County Commissioners of each County to cancel and discharge any and all liens for taxes, delinquent or current, held or owned by the county or the state, upon lands heretofore or hereafter conveyed to or acquired by any agency, governmental subdivision, or municipality of the state, or the United States, for road purposes, defense purposes, recreation, reforestation, or other public use; and WHEREAS, such cancellation must be by resolution of the Board of County Commissioners, duly adopted and entered upon its minutes properly describing such lands and setting forth the public use to which the same are or will be devoted; and WHEREAS, upon receipt of a certified copy of such resolution, proper officials of the county and of the state are authorized, empowered, and directed to make proper entries upon the records to accomplish such cancellation and to do all things necessary to cavy out the provisions of Section 196.28, F.S.; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that: 1. The right of way is hereby accepted and any and all liens for taxes, delinquent or current, against the property described in OR Book 1283, Page 741, which was recently acquired by Indian River County for future right of way are hereby canceled, pursuant to the authority of Section 196.28, F.S. 2. The Clerk to the Board of County Commissioners is hereby directed to send a certfed copy of this resolution to the Tax Collector and the Property Appraiser. The resolution was moved for adoption by Commissioner Adams , and the motion was seconded by Commissioner G inn , and, upon being put to a vote, the vote was as follows: Chairman Kenneth R. Macht Aye Vice Chairman Fran B. Adams Aye Commissioner Ruth M. Stanbridge Aye Commissioner Caroline D. Ginn Ay e Commissioner John W. Tippin Aye The Chairman thereupon declared the resolution duly passed and adopted this 2 7 t hday of J u 1 V BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Att Barton, Clerk By B Kenneth R. acht Deputy Clerk Chairman td�R i Il`d Ur"".1 �� �_ � :'�'7•r •i!t;lt. � s gel{i�:ks� �i yes il0 JULY 279 1999 19 Af�froved .. Admlrl Letat • Da:e'. BOOK F'tiGE 9 r GOOK hJ PAGE 2 ON MOTION by Commissioner Adams, SECONDED BY Commissioner Ginn, the Board. manimously adopted Resolution No. 99-069 canceling certain delinquent taxes upon publicly owned lands, pursuant to Section 196.28, Florida Statutes. (R/W - CR#512 - John A. King) RESOLUTION NO. 99- 6 9 A RESOLUTION OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, CANCELLING CERTAIN DELINQUENT TAXES UPON PUBLICLY OWNED LANDS, PURSUANT TO SECTION 196.28, FLORIDA STATUTES. WHEREAS, Section 196.28, Florida Statutes, allows the Board of County Commissioners of each County to cancel and discharge any and all liens for taxes, delinquent or current, held or owned by the county or the state, upon lands heretofore or hereafter conveyed to or acquired by any agency, governmental subdivision, or municipality of the state, or the United States, for road purposes, defense purposes, recreation, reforestation, or other public use; and WHEREAS, such cancellation must be by resolution of the Board of County Commissioners, duly adopted and entered upon its minutes properly describing such lands and setting forth the public use to which the same are or will be devoted; and WHEREAS, upon receipt of a certified copy of such resolution, proper officials of the county and of the state are authorized, empowered, and directed to make proper entries upon the records to accomplish such cancellation and to do all things necessary to cant' out the provisions of Section 196.28, F.S.; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that: 1. The right of way is hereby accepted and any and all liens for taxes, delinquent or current, against the property described in OR Book 1282, Page 1535, which was recently acquired by Indian River County for future right of way are hereby canceled, pursuant to the authority of Section 196.28, F.S. 2. The Clerk to the Board of County Commissioners is hereby directed to send a certified copy of this resolution to the Tax Collector and the Property Appraiser. The resolution was moved for adoption by Commissioner A d a m s , and the motion was seconded by Commissioner G i n n , and, upon being put to a vote, the vote was as follows: Chairman Kenneth R. Macht A�e Vice Chairman Fran B. Adams Commissioner Ruth M. Stanbridge Aye Commissioner Caroline D. Ginn Aye Commissioner John W. Tippin Aye The Chairman thereupon declared the resolution duly passed and adopted this 2 7 t h day of .l ! ! 1 v .1999. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Atte Barton, Cler ` By By: Kenneth R. Macht Deputy Clerk Chairman JULY 279 1999 0 TAX ;IATIN"AM yes no I LL Iowan i.xff ei Apc•;.reG GT.r i Ad• .:rtm"fe. zzi L•:gel 'T71ge1 C� Oevt I Rlsk Mgr, 0 • U ON MOTION by Commissioner Adams, SECONDED BY Commissioner Ginn, the Boardunanimously adopted Resolution No. 99-070 canceling certain delinquent taxes upon publicly owned lands, pursuant to Section 196.28, Florida Statutes. (R/W Oslo Road & 27' Avenue - Elwill Assoc.) RESOLUTION NO. 99- 7 0 A RESOLUTION OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, CANCELLING CERTAIN DELINQUENT TAXES UPON PUBLICLY OWNED LANDS, PURSUANT TO SECTION 196.28, FLORIDA STATUTES. WHEREAS, Section 196.28, Florida Statutes, allows the Board of County Commissioners of each County to cancel and discharge any and all liens for taxes, delinquent or current, held or owned by the county or the state, upon lands heretofore or hereafter conveyed to or acquired by any agency, governmental subdivision, or municipality of the state, or the United States, for road purposes, defense purposes, recreation, reforestation, or other public use; and WHEREAS, such cancellation must be by resolution of the Board of County Commissioners, duly adopted and entered upon its minutes properly describing such lands and setting forth the public use to which the same are or will be devoted; and WHEREAS, upon receipt of a certified copy of such resolution, proper officials of the county and of the state are authorized, empowered, and directed to make proper entries upon the records to accomplish such cancellation and to do all things necessary to cavy out the provisions of Section 196.28, F.S.; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that: 1. The right of way is hereby accepted and any and all liens for taxes, delinquent or current, against the property described in OR Book 1283, Page 1365, which was recently acquired by Indian River County for future right of way are hereby canceled, pursuant to the authority of Section 196.28, F.S. 2. The Clerk to the Board of County Commissioners is hereby directed to send a certified copy of this resolution to the Tax Collector and the Property Appraiser. The resolution was moved for adoption by Commissioner Adams , and the motion was seconded by Commissioner r, i n n , and, upon being put to a vote, the vote was as follows: Chairman Kenneth R. Macht Aye Vice Chairman Fran B. Adams Aye Commissioner Ruth M. Stanbridge Aye Commissioner Caroline D. Ginn Aye Commissioner John W. Tippin Aye The Chairman thereupon declared the resolution duly passed and adopted this -Z7 t hday of Jul y '1999. BOARD OF C, LINTY COMMISSIONERS Attest: J. K. Barton, Cler By BY Kenneth R. Macht Deputy Clerk Chairman AX CERTIFICATES OUTST-ANDIiNG T yvs no CURRENT PROBATED 17:"! Ri... iY L ru t Ga LVOSITED WITH TAX COLLECTOR JULY 27o 1999 21 ...an.� 1aI nPyLwud T-CGate I rim BOOK 100, PAGES"' BOOK ON MOTION by Commissioner Adams, SECONDED BY Commissioner Ginn, the Boardunanimously adopted Resolution No. 99-071 canceling certain delinquent taxes upon publicly. owned lands, pursuant to Section 196.28, Florida Statutes. (R/W 16* Street - Sanford and Greta Wolin) RESOLUTION NO. 99.71 A RESOLUTION OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, CANCELLING CERTAIN DELINQUENT TAXES UPON PUBLICLY OWNED LANDS, PURSUANT TO SECTION 196.28, FLORIDA STATUTES. WHEREAS, Section 196.28, Florida Statutes, allows the Board of County Commissioners of each County to cancel and discharge any and all liens for taxes, delinquent or current, held or owned by the county or the state, upon lands heretofore or hereafter conveyed to or acquired by any agency, governmental subdivision, or municipality of the state, or the United States, for road purposes, defense purposes, recreation, reforestation, or other public use; and WHEREAS, such cancellation must be by resolution of the Board of County Commissioners, duly adopted and entered upon its minutes properly describing such lands and setting forth the public use to which the same are or will be devoted; and WHEREAS, upon receipt of a certified copy of such resolution, proper officials of the county and of the state are authorized, empowered, and directed to make proper entries upon the records to accomplish such cancellation and to do all things necessary to carry out the provisions of Section 196.28, F.S.; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that: 1. The right of way is hereby accepted and any and all liens for taxes, delinquent or current, against the property described in OR Book 1"3 , Page �sN, which was recently acquired by Indian River County for future right of way are hereby canceled, pursuant to the authority of Section 196.28, F.S. 2. The Clerk to the Board of County Commissioners is hereby directed to send a certified copy of this resolution to the Tax Collector and the Property Appraiser. The resolution was moved for adoption by Commissioner Adams , and the motion was seconded by Commissioner G i nn , and, upon being put to a vote, the vote was as follows: Chairman Kenneth R. Macht Aye Vice Chairman Fran B. Adams Aye Commissioner Ruth M. Stanbridge Aye Commissioner Caroline D. Ginn Aye Commissioner John W. Tippin Aye PAGE CN The Chairman thereupon declared the resolution duly passed and adopted this 2 7 t h day of July 91999. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS A Barton, Cler By .07 Kenneth R. Macht Deputy Clerk Chairman .,..a n.r '"7 npGraveU Da.n AtlTllfl rTAOXCERTIFIGATES Ot;�STf;F;r'7'�" 9yes no Leal Bu39et.Devi �'�PRL'91�Tt C , . $ i Risk Mgr. OEPOSITEO YdiTN TAX COLL' U i Uri JULY 279 1999 22 ON MOTION by Commissioner Adams, SECONDED BY Commissioner Ginn, the Board unanimously adopted Resolution No. 99-072 canceling certain delinquent taxes upon publicly owned lands, pursuant to Section 196.28, Florida Statutes. (Drainage/Retention Site - 44th Avenue & 19t` Street - Ethel Mathis) RESOLUTION NO. 99. 7 2 A RESOLUTION OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, CANCELLING CERTAIN DELINQUENT TAXES UPON PUBLICLY OWNED LANDS, PURSUANT TO SECTION 196.28, FLORIDA STATUTES. WHEREAS, Section 196.28, Florida Statutes, allows the Board of County Commissioners of each County to cancel and discharge any and all liens for taxes, delinquent or current, held or owned by the county or the state, upon lands heretofore or hereafter conveyed to or acquired by any agency, governmental subdivision, or municipality of the state, or the United States, for road purposes, defense purposes, recreation, reforestation, or other public use; and WHEREAS, such cancellation must be by resolution of the Board of County Commissioners, duly adopted and entered upon its minutes properly describing such lands and setting forth the public use to which the same are or will be devoted; and WHEREAS, upon receipt of a certified copy of such resolution, proper officials of the county and of the state are authorized, empowered, and directed to make proper entries upon the records to accomplish such cancellation and to do all things necessary to carry out the provisions of Section 196.28, F.S.; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that: 1. The right of way is hereby accepted and any and all liens for taxes, delinquent or current, against the property described in OR Book 1282, Page 2371, which was recently acquired by Indian River County for future right of way are hereby canceled, pursuant to the authority of Section 196.28, F.S. 2. The Clerk to the Board of County Commissioners is hereby directed to send a certified copy of this resolution to the Tax Collector and the Property Appraiser. The resolution was moved for adoption by Commissioner A d a m s , and the motion was seconded by Commissioner G i n n , and, upon being put to a vote, the vote was as follows: Chairman Kenneth R. Macht Aye Vice Chairman Fran B. Adams Aye Commissioner Ruth M. Stanbridge Ay e Commissioner Caroline D. Ginn //�� Commissioner John W. Tippin Aye Aye The Chairman thereupon declared the resolution duly passed and adopted this 2 7 t h day of July , 1999. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Attest! Barton, Cler By By. enneth R. Macht Deputy Clerk Chairman r T C•Ef;:T' . " .. . ' . _ y©s no _-- uum f6wr G A4 roves Clete Admin Legal //�� p i'iiu'•...., _�:Gi+:,`.. Dept Risk Mgr. JULY 27, 1999 23 GOOK PACE I • BOOK i UJ PAGE 926 9.A.1. PUBLIC HEARING - ORDINANCE #99-017 - COUNTY INITIATED REQUEST TO REZONE f 136 ACRES FROM RM -8. RM -6s AND RS -6 TO MED (S.E. CORNER US1 AT 41ST STREET (SOUTH GIFFORD ROAD PROOF OF PUBLICATION OF ADVERTISEIVIEENT FOR HEARING IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD The Board reviewed a Memorandum of July 13, 1999: TO: James E. Chandler County Administrator DE TMENT HEAD CONCURRENCE Robert M. Keating, AIC *7r'w THROUGH: Sasan Rohani, AIC- %2 Chien Long -Range P annmg FROM: John Wachtel Senior Planner, Long -Range Planning DATE: July 13,1999 RE: County Initiated Request to Rezone 1136 acres from RM -8, RM -6, and RS -6 to MED (RZON 99-04-0218) It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at its regular meeting of July 27, 1999. This is a county initiated request to rezone ±136 acres located at the southeast corner of US 1 and 41" 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 41s` 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. On July 13, 1999, the Board of County JULY 279 1999 24 0 Commissioners held a public hearing on the proposed rezoning. At that meeting, the Board voted 5 to 0 to hold a second public hearing on the proposed rezoning at its regular business meeting on July 27, 1999. 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 first rezoning public hearing was held at the July 13, 1999 Board of County Commissioners meeting. At that meeting, the Board voted 5 to 0 to hold the second rezoning public hearing at the July 27, 1999 Board of County Commissioners meeting. Because that meeting meets the requirements for the second hearing, the rezoning ordinance can be adopted following that public 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 39h Street which are either cleared land or contain native uplands. The ±2 acre Hosie -Schumann 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 unitl40 acres). 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, 391h Street forms the southern boundary of the western portion of the subject property. South of 391' 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. JULY 27,1999 25 IDA - BOOK FAGE I 900K i 0J PAGE 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 37" Street, between 17`h 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. In this section, an analysis of the reasonableness of the application will be presented. The analysis will address: • concurrency of public facilities; • compatibility with the surrounding area; • consistency with the comprehensive plan; and • potential impact on environmental quality. This site is located within the county Urban Service Area, an area deemed suited for urban scale development. The Comprehensive Plan establishes standards for: Transportation, Potable Water, Wastewater, Solid Waste, Drainage and Recreation (Future Land Use Policy 3.1). The adequate provision, of these services is necessary to ensure the continued quality of life enjoyed by the JULY 27,1999 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: 2. Existing Zoning District: 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 ±136 acres 118 acres of RM -6 & RS -6 (up to 6 units/acre), & 18 acres of RM -8 (up to 8 units/acre) MED, Medical District 852 Single -Family Units 1,360,000 sq. ft. of (Shopping Center in Manual). Retail Commercial the 6th Edition ITE 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 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 53rd Street: Northbound JULY 279 1999 phi • 600K iu` PAGE q.3,9 F, GOOK i00 FACE �A 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 (1,360,000 X 2.33/1,000 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 as the subject site would likely have several 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'd 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. - 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 gallons/day. This is based upon the level of service standard of 250 gallons/ERU/day. The • JULY 279 1999 28 0 I 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 comtiacted 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 feet/second. Based upon staffs analysis, the drainage level of service standards will be met by limiting off-site discharge to its pre -development rate of 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. JULY 279 1999 29 600K I i FADE RI'LL r 600K lea PAGE `j - 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 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 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 C/I 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. 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. JULY 27, 1999 30 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 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. Based on the analysis, staff and the Planning and Zoning Commission recommend that the Board of County Commissioners approve this request to rezone the subject property to the MED, Medical, District by adopting the attached ordinance. ATTACHMENTS 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 requirements concerning County -initiated zoning amendments and stated that this and the next three hearings are the second and final hearings on same. Director Keating then reviewed the specific information relative to this request for rezoning and recommended the Board adopt the proposed ordinance. JULY 279 1999 31 GOOK BOOK 100 PAGEOM' 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 Adams, SECONDED BY Commissioner Ginn, the Board unanimously adopted Ordinance No. 99-017 amending the Zoning Ordinance and the accompanying Zoning Map from RM -8, RM -6, and RS -6 to MED, for property located at the southeast comer of 4l' Street (South Gifford Road) and US -1. ORDINANCE NO. 99- 17 AN ORDINANCE OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE AND THE ACCOMPANYING ZONING MAP FROM RM -8, RM -6, AND RS -6 TO MED, FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF 41sT STREET (SOUTH GIFFORD ROAD) AND US 1, AND DESCRIBED HEREIN, AND PROVIDING FOR EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission, sitting as the local planning agency on such matters, has held a public hearing and subsequently made a recommendation regarding this rezoning request; and WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, did publish its Notice of Intent to rezone the hereinafter described property; and WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners has determined that this rezoning is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan of Indian River County; and WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners has held two public hearings pursuant to this rezoning request, at which parties in interest and citizens were heard; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED, by the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, that the zoning of the following described property situated in Indian River County, Florida, to -wit: In Section 25, Township 32 South, Range 39 East: The North 17.9 Acres of the Southwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter. The North 18.1 Acres of the Southeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter lying West of Indian River Boulevard. The Southwest Quarter of the Southeast Quarter lying West of Indian River Boulevard, less the South 663.9 feet. In Section 26, Township 32 South, Range 39 East: The North 57.3 Acres of the East half of the Southeast Quarter. The Northwest Quarter of the Southeast Quarter lying East of U.S. Highway #1 (State Road 5). JULY 279 1999 32 I • ORDINANCE NO. 99- 17 Be changed from RM -8, RM -6 and RS -6 to MED. All with the meaning and intent and as set forth and described in said Land Development Regulations. This ordinance shall become effective upon filing with the Department of State. Approved and adopted by the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, on this 27th day of July, 1999. This ordinance was advertised in the Press -Journal on the 30" day of June, 1999 for a public hearing to be held on the 136 day of July, 1999. This ordinance was also advertised in the Press -Journal on the 10 day of July, 1999 for a public hearing to be held on the 27h day of July, 1999 at which time it was moved for adoption by Commissioner A d a m s , seconded by Commissioner G i n n , and adopted by the following vote: Chairman Kenneth P— Macht Aye Vice -Chairman Fran B. Adams AMP Commissioner Caroline D. Ginn A'y P Commissioner Ruth M. Stanbridge A y e Commissioner John W. Tippin Aye BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY BY: Kenjdefh R. Macht, Chairman ATTEST BY: effrarton, Cl7k This ordinan a was filed with the Department of State on the following date: ?- 4- �l9 u\v\j\rz\cimed\rconord.ord JULY 27,1999 33 0 BOOK .�� PACE , 0 BOOK i0J PAGE) 9.A.2. PUBLIC HEARING - ORDINANCE #99-018 - COUNTY INITIATED REQUEST TO REZONE THREE ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE PARCELS - JUNGLE TRAIL CONSERVATION AREA (CAIRNS): PELICAN ISLAND NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE (INCLUDING KORANGY PROPERTY); AND ST. SEBASTIAN RIVER BUFFER PRESERVE (±5.893 ACRES - CORACI PROPERTY, PROOF OF PUBLICATION OF ADVERTISEMENT FOR HEARING IS ON FILE IN TAE OFFICE OF TAE CLERK TO TAE BOARD The Board reviewed a Memorandum of July 13, 1999: TO: James E. Chandler County Administrator DEPARTMENT HEAD CONCURRENCE Robert M. Keating, AICP Community Development Director THROUGH: Sasan Rohani, AICP S // Chien Long-RangePlanning FROM: John Wachtel/At/ Senior Planne , Long -Range Planning DATE: July 139 1999 RE: County Initiated Request to Rezone +103 Acres From RM -6 to Con -1; to Rezone ±533 Acres From RS -1 and A-1 to Con -1; and to Rezone -+5,893 Acres From A-1 and A-2 to Con -1 (RZON 99-040237) It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at its regular meeting of July 27, 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. JULY 279 1999 34 • 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 rezonings. On July 13, 1999, the Board of County Commissioners held a public hearing on the proposed rezonings. At that meeting, the Board voted 5 to 0 to hold a second public hearing on the proposed rezonings at its regular business meeting on July 27, 1999. 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. JULY 279 1999 35 il BOOK 100 PAGE�� 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 AlA 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) REQUESTED Con -1, Publicly Owned or Con -1, Publicly Owned or Con -1, Publicly Owned or ZONING Controlled Conservation I 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 rezonings. On July 13, 1999, the Board of County Commissioners held a public hearing on the proposed rezonings. At that meeting, the Board voted 5 to 0 to hold a second public hearing on the proposed rezonings at its regular business meeting on July 27, 1999. 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. JULY 279 1999 35 il BOOK 100 PAGE�� 600K PAGE��,8 The first rezoning public hearing was held at the July 13, 1999 Board of County Commissioners meeting. At that meeting, the Board voted 5 to 0 to hold the second rezoning public hearing at the July 27, 1999 Board of County Commissioners meeting. Because that meeting meets the requirements for the second hearing, the rezoning ordinance can be adopted following that public 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 eastern portion of Subject Property 1 is the Island Club Subdivision which is zoned RS -6, Single -Family Residential District (up to 6 unitstacre). A-1 zoned citrus groves abut the central portion of Subject Property 1's south boundary. Land along the western portion of the site's southern 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 western shore of the northern 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 AIA. 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 AIA, land east of SR AIA 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 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). JULY 279 1999 36 -I 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 unitstacre. 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 lunit/40 acres on site or off site density transfer credits of up to 1 unittacre. - Subject Property 3 Subject Property 3 is designated C-1 on the county's future land use map. Land 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, Commerciabindustnal, 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 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 unittacre. JULY 279 1999 37 8 0 0 K FaG BOOK J09 PAGE'3-1 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 1 unit/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 27,1999 38 - 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 AIA, 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, 102°d 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, fiom 102nd Terrace. Classified as a rural major collector on the future roadway thoroughfare plan map, 102nd 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; and • an analysis of the requested rezonings' potential impact on environmental quality. JULY 27,1999 39 600K X00 FACE' BOOK i00 PAGE 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 than 2,000 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 27, 1999 40 10 0 0 LJ - 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 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. 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. Based on the analysis, staff and the Planning and Zoning Commission recommend that the Board of County Commissioners approve this request to rezone the subject properties to Con -1 by adopting the attached ordinance. 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 JULY 279 1999 41 BOOK FACE �' F, 600K 100 PAGE J AaA Community Development Director Bob Keating reviewed the memorandum and described the three properties which would be affected by this rezoning request. He displayed a graphic of each location on the ELMO and recommended the Board adopt the proposed ordinance. 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 Ginn, SECONDED BY Commissioner Stanbridge, the Board unanimously adopted Ordinance No. 99-018 amending the Zoning Ordinance and the accompanying Zoning Map from RM -6 to CON -1 for property located along SR AlA between Sea Oaks and Indian River Shores; and from RS -1 and A-1 to CON -1 for property located west of SR AlA at the intersection with Jungle Trail; and from A-1 and A-2 to CON -1 for property located north of CR 512 and west of the St. Sebastian River. ORDINANCE NO. 99- 18 AN ORDINANCE OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE AND THE ACCOMPANYING ZONING MAP FROM RM -6 TO CON -1 FOR PROPERTY LOCATED ALONG SR AIA BETWEEN SEA OAKS AND INDIAN RIVER SHORES; AND FROM RS -1 AND A-1 TO CON -1 FOR PROPERTY LOCATED WEST OF SR AIA, AT THE INTERSECTION WITH JUNGLE TRAIL; AND FROM A-1 AND A-2 TO CON -1 FOR PROPERTY LOCATED NORTH OF CR 512 AND WEST OF THE ST. SEBASTIAN RIVER, AND DESCRIBED HEREIN, AND PROVIDING FOR EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission, sitting as the local planning agency on such matters, has held a public hearing and subsequently made a recommendation regarding this rezoning request; and WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, did publish its Notice of Intent to rezone the hereinafter described property; and WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners has determined that this rezoning is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan of Indian River County; and WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners has held two public hearings pursuant to this rezoning request, at which parties in interest and citizens were heard; JULY 27,1999 42 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED, by the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, that the zoning of the following described property situated in Indian River County, Florida, to -wit: IN SECTION 25, TOWNSHIP 31 SOUTH, RANGE 39 EAST: GOVERNMENT LOT 3 LESS THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED PARCELS: THE NORTH 400 FEET OF THE SOUTH 1,250 FEET LYING EAST OF STATE ROAD AIA, MEASURED ALONG THE EAST RIGHT-OF-WAY OF STATE ROAD AIA AND THE SOUTH 500 FEET (MEASURING ON THE EAST LINE OF STATE ROAD AIA) THAT LIES EAST OF STATE ROAD AIA AND LAND SOUTH OF THE ROAD KNOWN AS "ISLAND CLUB MANOR" IN SECTION 26, TOWNSHIP 31 SOUTH, RANGE 39 EAST: GOVERNMENT LOT 10 LESS THE SOUTH 504.2 FEET; AND LESS THE NORTH 165 FEET OF THE SOUTH 975.2 FEET O GOVERNMENT LOT 11 LESS THE SOUTH 430 FEET; AND LESS THE WEST 196 FEET OF THE NORTH 74.2 FEET OF THE SOUTH 504.2 FEET Be changed from RM -6, Multiple -Family Residential District (up to 6 units/acre) to Con -1, Publicly Owned or Controlled Conservation District (zero density) umb that the zoning of the following described property situated in Indian River County, Florida, to -wit: IN SECTION 3, TOWNSHIP 31 SOUTH, RANGE 39 EAST: THAT PART OF GOVERNMENT LOT 2, LYING WEST OF THE WEST RIGHT- OF-WAY OF SR AIA, LESS THE NORTH 167.82 FEET. G�7 THE NORTH HALF OF THE WEST 30 ACRES OF GOVERNMENT LOT 3, LYING WEST OF THE WEST RIGHT-OF-WAY OF SR AIA. IN SECTION 4, TOWNSHIP 31 SOUTH, RANGE 39 EAST: GOVERNMENT LOTS 2, 4, 5, AND PART OF GOVERNMENT LOT 3 AS DESCRIBED IN BOOK 106, PAGE 325 ME LOTS 7, 8, 9,12,13, AND 14, AS DESCRIBED IN ORIGINAL RECORD BOOK 339, PAGE 201, AND ORIGINAL RECORD BOOK 363, PAGE 472 AND GOVERNMENT LOT 6, LESS THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED PARCEL: JULY 27, 1999 BEGIN AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SAID GOVERNMENT LOT 6; THEN RUN ALONG THE EAST LINE A BEARING OF N 00 DEGREES 13 MINUTES 56 SECONDS EAST, A DISTANCE OF 777.13 43 BOOK i0J PAGE ' 6008 i0o FAGE01;-� FEET; THEN SOUTH 84 DEGREES 42 MINUTES 17 SECONDS WEST, A DISTANCE OF 357.76 FEET; THEN SOUTH 25 DEGREES 36 MINUTES 42 SECONDS WEST, A DISTANCE OF 816.26 FEET; THEN SOUTH 89 DEGREES 20 MINUTES 49 SECONDS EAST, ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF GOVERNMENT LOT 6, A DISTANCE OF 705.97 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. IN SECTION 9, TOWNSHIP 31 SOUTH, RANGE 39 EAST: GOVERNMENT LOT 1, LESS THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED PARCEL: BEGIN AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SAID GOVERNMENT LOT 1; THEN NORTH 89 DEGREES 20 MINUTES 49 SECONDS WEST, A DISTANCE OF 705.97 FEET TO THE EASTERN LINE OF THE TRUST FOR PUBLIC LANDS PHASE 2; THEN SOUTH 25 DEGREES 36 MINUTES 42 SECONDS WEST, A DISTANCE OF 10.88 FEET; THEN SOUTH 04 DEGREES 45 NIINUTES 16 SECONDS WEST, A DISTANCE OF 317.13 FEET; THEN SOUTH 16 DEGREES 38 NMgUTES 39 SECONDS WEST, A DISTANCE OF 239.97 FEET; THEN SOUTH 35 DEGREES 18 MINUTES 07 SECONDS WEST, A DISTANCE OF 356.49 FEET; THEN SOUTH 42 DEGREES 18 NMgUTES 32 SECONDS WEST, A DISTANCE OF 646.85 FEET TO THE SOUTH LINE OF GOVERNMENT LOT 1; THEN SOUTH 89 DEGREES 01 MINUTES 04 SECONDS EAST, ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF GOVERNMENT LOT 1 A DISTANCE OF 1,467.18 FEET TO THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF GOVERNMENT LOT 1; THEN NORTH 00 DEGREES 54 MINUTES 04 SECONDS WEST, ALONG THE EAST LINE OF GOVERNMENT LOT 1 A DISTANCE OF 1,338.5 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. AND GOVERNMENT LOT 2, LESS 15 ACRES IN THE SOUTHEAST CORNER TO PRYOR AND THE NORTHEAST 1/4 OF THE NORTHWEST 1/4 AND LOTS 4 THROUGH 8 FAZIk, LOT 9, AS PER RESURVEY OF ORIGINAL RECORDS BOOK 339, PAGE 201, REPLAT OF GOVERNMENT LOT 2, LESS THAT PORTION OF THE PARCEL DESCRIBED IN ORIGINAL RECORDS BOOK 523, PAGE 559 AND LOTS 10 THROUGH 14 AS DESCRIBED IN ORIGINAL RECORDS BOOK 339, PAGE 201 AND IN ORIGINAL RECORDS BOOK 363, PAGE 472. Be changed from RS -1, Single -Family Residential District (up to 1 unit/acre) and A-1, Agricultural District (up to 1 unit/5 acres) to Con -1, Publicly Owned or Controlled Conservation District (zero density) FKED that the zoning of the following described property situated in Indian River County, Florida, to -wit: IN FLEMING GRANT: ANY PART OF SECTIONS 14,16, 17,18, 22, 23, 24, 25, 27, AND 28 LOCATED WITHIN INDIAN RIVER COUNTY AND WEST OF THE ST. SEBASTIAN RIVER; nAmwo JULY 279 1999 44 0 40 SECTION 26, LESS THAT PORTION DESCRIBED IN ORIGINAL RECORDS BOOK 678, PAGE 339. AND IN SECTION 14 TOWNSHIP 31 SOUTH RANGE 38 EAST: THAT PORTION OF THE SOUTH 1,350 FEET OF THE NORTH 2,670 FEET THAT IS WEST OF THE ST. SEBASTIAN RIVER. AND IN SECTION 15 TOWNSHIP 31 SOUTH RANGE 38 EAST: LOTS 1 THROUGH 3; 0 THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER, AND THE EAST HALF OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER AND IN SECTION 21 TOWNSHIP 31 SOUTH RANGE 38 EAST: LOTS 2 AND 3; AND THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER; AND THE NORTH HALF OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER, AND THAT PART OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER, LYING WEST OF FLEMMG GRANT; LESS THAT PORTION OF LOT 2 DESCRIBED IN ORIGINAL RECORDS BOOK 678, PAGE 339. AND SECTION 22 TOWNSHIP 31 SOUTH RANGE 38 EAST LESS THE SOUTH 1,420 FEET AND LESS THE EAST 2,655.68 FEET OF THE NORTH 1,920 FEET H THE SOUTH 3,300 FEET. Be changed from A-1, Agricultural District (up to 1 unit/5 acres) and A-2, Agricultural District (up to 1 unit/10 acres) to Con -1, Publicly Owned or Controlled Conservation District (zero density) All with the meaning and intent and as set forth and described in said Land Development Regulations. This ordinance shall become effective upon filing with the Department of State. Approved and adopted by the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, on this 27`b day of July, 1999. This ordinance was advertised in the Press-Joumal on the 30'b day of June, 1999 for a public hearing to be held on the 13`h day of July, 1999. This ordinance was also advertised in the Press -Journal on the le day of July,1999 for a public hearing to be held on the 27"' day of July, 1999 at which time it was moved for adoption by Commissioner G i nn , seconded by Commissioner S t a n b r i d g e , and adopted by the following vote: JULY 279 1999 45 BOOKS PACS PF - 0 Chairman Kenneth R Macht Ay e Vice -Chairman Fran B. Adams Aye Commissioner Caroline D. Ginn A y p Commissioner Ruth M. Stanbridge A )j e Commissioner John W. Tippin AMP BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY BY: Kenneth R. Macht, Chairman ATTEST BY: Jeffrey,"arton, ClerkC�4 n This ordinaxice was filed with the Department of State on the following date: u\v\j\rz\cicon 1 \rzonord.ord GOOK iW PAGE JI 9.A.3. PUBLIC HEARING - ORDINANCE #99-019 - COUNTY INITIATED REQUEST TO REZONE ±11.4 ACRES FROM RM -6 TO RS -3 (OWNER: LOST TREE VILLAGE CORPORATION, - VICINITY OF 65TH STREET (SOUTH WINTER BEACH ROADI AND FECRR TRACKS PROOF OF PUBLICATION OF ADVERTISEMENT FOR REARING IS ON FILE IN TRE OFFICE OF TRE CLERK TO TRE BOARD The Board reviewed a Memorandum of July 13, 1999: TO: James E. Chandler County Administrator DEPARTMENT HEAD CONCURRENCE Robert M. Keating, AICP Community Development Director JULY 279 1999 46 THROUGH: Sasan Rohan, AICP S V/. Chief Long -Range Planning FROM: John Wachtel Senior Planner, Long -Range Planning DATE: July 13, 1999 RE: County Initiated Request to Rezone ±11.4 Acres From RM -6 to RS -3 (RZON 99-040238) It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at its regular meeting of July 27, 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. 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. On July 13, 1999, the Board of County Commissioners held a public hearing on the proposed rezoning. At that meeting, the Board voted 5 to 0 to hold a second public hearing on the proposed rezoning at its regular business meeting on July 27, 1999. 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. JULY 279 1999 47 BOOK iU J PAGE .t f r 600K i00 Ft1GE LD -5 The first rezoning public hearing was held at the July 13, 1999 Board of County Commissioners meeting. At that meeting, the Board voted 5 to 0 to hold the second rezoning public hearing at the July 27, 1999 Board of County Commissioners meeting. Because that meeting meets the requirements for the second hearing, the rezoning ordinance can be adopted following that public 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 IL, Light Industrial. South of 65h 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 unitslacre. 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, CommerciaVIndustrial, on the future land use map. The C/I designation permits various commercial and industrial zoning districts. 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'b 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' Street and Old Dixie Highway, approximately one mile from the site. The site is bounded on the south by 65d' Street. Classified as a rural major collector roadway on the future roadway thoroughfare plan map, this segment of 65'b Street is a two lane road with approximately 80 feet of public road right-of-way. No expansion of this segment of 65" 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; and • potential impact on environmental quality. JULY 279 1999 48 • 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: ±11.4 acres 2. Land Use Designation: L-1, Low -Density Residential -1 (up to 3 units/acre) 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. JULY 279 1999 49 600K b�` PAGE 95 1 , J BOOK 0._ PAGE j5"0 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 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 Policyl.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 associated with this request are anticipated. JULY 279 1999 50 0 0 • • 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. Based on the analysis, staff and the Planning and Zoning Commission recommend that the Board of County Commissioners approve this request to rezone the subject property from RM -6, Multiple - Family Residential District (up to 6 units/acre) to RS -3, Single -Family Residential District (up to 3 units/acre) by adopting the attached ordinace. ATTACFYWNTs 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 displayed a graphic showing the location of the subject property and described the changes that would occur if the proposed ordinance is adopted. He recommended the Board adopt the ordinance. 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 Ginn, the Board unanimously adopted Ordinance No. 99-019 amending the Zoning Ordinance and the accompanying Zoning Map from RM -6 to RS -3 for property located on the north side of 65' Street (South Wmter Beach Road), and ±1,400 feet west of the F.E.C. Railway. JULY 279 1999 51 BOOK 103 PAGEi2'53 660K ORDINANCE NO. 99- 19 AN ORDINANCE OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE AND THE ACCOMPANYING ZONING MAP FROM RM -6 TO RS -3 FOR PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF 65"' STREET (SOUTH WINTER BEACH ROAD), ±1,400 FEET WEST OF THE F.E.C. RAILWAY, AND DESCRIBED HEREIN, AND PROVIDING FOR EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission, sitting as the local planning agency on such matters, has held a public hearing and subsequently made a recommendation regarding this rezoning request; and WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, did publish its Notice of Intent to rezone the hereinafter described property; and WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners has determined that this rezoning is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan of Indian River County; and WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners has held two public hearings pursuant to this rezoning request, at which parties in interest and citizens were heard; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED, by the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, that the zoning of the following described property situated in Indian River County, Florida, to -wit: The south ±1,650 of the east ±300 feet of the west half of the northwest quarter of Section 10, Township 32 South, Range 39 East Be changed from RM -6 TO RS -3. All with the meaning and intent and as set forth and described in said Land Development Regulations. This ordinance shall become effective upon filing with the Department of State. Approved and adopted by the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, on this 27b day of July, 1999. This ordinance was advertised in the Press -Journal on the 3& day of June, 1999 for a public hearing to be held on the 13`b day of July, 1999. This ordinance was also advertised in the Press-Joumal on the le day of July, 1999 for a public hearing to be held on the 27`h day of July, 1999 at which time it was moved for adoption by Commissioner S t a n b r i d g e , seconded by Commissioner G i n n , and adopted by the following vote: Chairman Kenneth R Macht A y e Vice -Chairman Fran B. Adams Aye Commissioner Caroline D. Ginn Aye Commissioner Ruth M. Stanbridge Aye Commissioner John W. Tippin Aye JULY 27, 1999 52 • • BOARD OF COUNTY CONMSSIONERS OF INDIAN R CO BY: A Kenneth R acht, Chairman ATTEST BY: Jeffrey K. Barto er This ordinance was filed with the Department of State on the following date: k-4-gq u\v\j\rz\ciltvc 1 \tzonord.ord fS" O NM c. Aoproved Date egtfudt epl isk Mgr. 9.A.4. PUBLIC HEARING - ORDINANCE #99-020 - COUNTY INITIATED REQUEST TO REZONE ±67 ACRES FROM CG TO RM -6 (PROPERTY OWNED BY JOHN HATALA - HARBORTOWN MALL) - VICINITY OF 53RD STREET (NORTH SIDE) AND EAST OF US#1 PROOF OF PUBLICATION OF ADVERTISEMENT FOR HEARING IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO TBE BOARD The Board reviewed a Memorandum of July 13, 1999: TO: James E. Chandler County Administrator DEPARTMENT HEAD CONCURRENCE Robert M. Keating, AICP Community Development Director THROUGH: Sasan Rohani, AICP `j 4 f Chief, Long -Range Planning FROM: John Wachtel P, Senior Planner, Long -Range Planning DATE: July 13, 1999 RE: County Initiated Request to Rezone f67 Acres From CG to RM -6 (RZON 99-040220) JULY 279 1999 53 BOOK PAGE �'11` F - BOOP( JOJ PAGE J56 It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at its regular meeting of July 27, 1999. This is a county initiated request to rezone t67 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. 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. On July 13, 1999, the Board of County Commissioners held a public hearing on the proposed rezoning. At that meeting, the Board voted 5 to 0 to hold a second public hearing on the proposed rezoning at its regular business meeting on July 27, 1999. 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 first rezoning public hearing was held at the July 13, 1999 Board of County Commissioners meeting. At that meeting, the Board voted 5 to 0 to hold the second rezoning public hearing at the July 27, 1999 Board of County Commissioners meeting. Because that meeting meets the requirements for the second hearing, the rezoning ordinance can be adopted following that public hearing. JULY 279 1999 54 • 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 CA, 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. 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 County Wastewater Treatment Plant to the comer 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 53'd Street is a four lane road with approximately 100 feet of public road right-of-way. This segment of 53d 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; and • potential impact on environmental quality. This site is located within the county Urban Service Area, an area deemed suited for urban scale development. The comprehensive plan establishes standards for: Transportation, Potable Water, Wastewater, Solid Waste, Drainage, and Recreation. 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. JULY 27,1999 55 BOOK . PAGE 45 f r BOOK DO PAGES! 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: *67 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: *670,000 sq. & of Retail Commercial (Shopping Center in the 6" Edition ITE Manual). 6. Most Intense Use Under Proposed Zoning District: 402 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 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. JULY 279 1999 56 • - 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. 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 unitstacre, 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. 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. Based on the analysis, staff and the Planning and Zoning Commission recommend that the Board of County Commissioners approve this request to rezone the subject property from the CG, General Commercial, District to RM -6, Multiple -Family Residential District (up to 6 units/acre) by adopting the attached ordinance. ATTACHMENTS 1. Rezoning Application 2. Location Map 3. Approved Minutes of the May 27, 1999 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting 4. Rezoning Ordinance JULY 27, 1999 57 600K 109 PAGE'47' r- BOOK 103 FACE X31 Community Development Director Bob Keating displayed a graphic showing the location of the subject property and described the changes that would occur if the proposed ordinance is adopted. He recommended the Board adopt the ordinance. 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 Ginn, the Board. anirnously adopted Ordinance No. 99-020 amending the Zoning Ordinance and the accompanying Zoning Map from CG to RM -6 for property located on the north side of 53`d Street approximately 600 feet east of US# 1. ORDINANCE NO. 99- 2 0 AN ORDINANCE OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE AND THE ACCOMPANYING ZONING MAP FROM CG TO RM -6 FOR PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF 53RD STREET, APPROXIMATELY 600 FEET EAST OF US 1, AND DESCRIBED HEREIN, AND PROVIDING FOR EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission, sitting as the local planning agency on such matters, has held a public hearing and subsequently made a recommendation regarding this rezoning request; and WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, did publish its Notice of Intent to rezone the hereinafter described property; and WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners has determined that this rezoning is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan of Indian River County; and WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners has held two public hearings pursuant to this rezoning request, at which parties in interest and citizens were heard; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED, by the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, that the zoning of the following described property situated in Indian River County, Florida, to -wit: That part of the southwest one-quarter of Section 14, Township 32 South, Range 39 East, lying South of the North Relief Canal and East of U.S. Highway Number 1 (S.R.N. 5), said lands lying and being in Indian River County, Florida. LESS AND EXCEPT: land that is less than 600 feet from U.S. Highway Number 1 (S.R.N. 5). MI6 JULY 279 1999 58 C LESS AND EXCEPT THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED PARCEL: Commence at the northeast comer of the southwest one-quarter of Section 14, Township 32 South, Range 39 East, Indian River County, Florida; thence run south 00 degrees 49' 21" west, along the east line of said southwest one-quarter, a distance of 315.98 feet to a concrete monument on the south right-of-way line of the Indian River Farms Water Management District North Relief Canal for the Point of Beginning of the parcel to be described herein; thence continue south 00 degrees 49'21" west, 945.33 feet; thence leaving the said east line of the southwest one-quarter, run north 89 degrees 10' 39" west, 130.00 feet; then north 55 degrees 30'00" west, 621.00 feet; thence north 85 degrees 36'00" west, 300.00 feet; thence north 27 degrees 25'31" west, 70.39 feet to a point on the south line of the said North Relief Canal; thence following said line, run north 62 degrees 34'29" east 1010.70 feet; thence on a curve to the right, having a radius of 917.71 feet and a central angle of 06 degrees 09' 14", run an arc distance of 98.57 feet to the point of beginning. Be changed from CG, General Commercial District, to RM -6, Multiple -Family Residential District (up to 6 units/acre). All with the meaning and intent and as set forth and described in said Land Development Regulations. This ordinance shall become effective upon filing with the Department of State. Approved and adopted by the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, on this 27s' day of July, 1999. This ordinance was advertised in the Press -Journal on the 3& day of June, 1999 for a public hearing to be held on the 13' day of July, 1999. This ordinance was also advertised in the Press -Journal on the 14`h day of July, 1999 for a public hearing to be held on the 27`h day of July, 1999 at which time it was moved for adoption by Commissioner S t a n b r i d g e , seconded by Commissioner G i nn , and adopted by the following vote: Chairman Kenneth R. Macht A y e Vice -Chairman Fran B. Adams A y e Commissioner Caroline D. Ginn A y e Commissioner Ruth M. Stanbridge A y e Commissioner John W. Tippin A y e BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER ihZ�haiman BY:wl�v Kenneth R. ATTEST BY: K Barto Cle c This ordi ance was filed with the Department of State on the following date: $--9°+ u\v\j\rz\cihatala\rzonord.ord JULY 27,1999 59 • BOOK �U PAGE is 600K �t� PAGE dsl� 9.A.5. PUBLIC HEARING - SAMARITAN CENTER OFFICE ANNEX - SPECIAL EXCEPTION USE APPROVAL (BISHOP OF DIOCESE OF PALM BEACH) PROOF OF PUBLICATION OF ADVERTISEMENT FOR REARING IS ON FILE IN Tffi OFFICE OF Tffi CLERK TO TRE BOARD The Board reviewed a Memorandum of July 12, 1999: TO: James E. Chandler County Administrator MDON HEAD CONCURRENCE: l Robert M. Keating, 'MI 7 Community DevelopWVUL Director 913 FROM: Stan Boling,IA CP Planning Director DATE: July 12,1999 SUBJECT: John Dean's Request for Special Exception Use Approval for an Office Annex for the Samaritan Center Residential Center It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at its regular meeting of July 27, 1999. Architect John Dean, on behalf of the Bishop of the Diocese of Palm Beach, is requesting special exception use approval for a 1,180 sq. & building annex on the site of the existing Samaritan Center, located at 3650 4111 Streetimmediately north of the St. Helen's Head Start facility. The proposal is to locate an administrative office building annex 30' north of the existing residential center building. No increase in the approved residential capacity of the center (maximum of 22 residents) is proposed. However, because the residential center use is located in a residential zoning district and because the floor area of the use is being expanded by more than 10%, special exception use approval is required The Board of County Commissioners is now to approve, approve with conditions, or deny the special exception use request. Pursuant to Section 971.05 of the LDRs, the Board of County Commissioners is to consider the appropriateness of the requested use for the subject site and surrounding area. The county may attach any conditions and safeguards necessary to mitigate impacts and to ensure compatibility of the use with the surrounding area. The request was accompanied by an administrative approval site plan application which has been approved by staff subject to the granting of the special exception use expansion request. If the special exception request is approved, then the administrative approval will become effective and subject to any conditions attached to the special exception approval. JULY 27,1999 • • Planning and ning Commission Action At its regular meeting of July 8, 1999, the Planning and Zoning Commission voted unanimously (4-0) to recommend approval of the request kl�FA 616.11 1. 2. 3. 4. Size of Development Site: Overall Site: 8.35 acres Area of Development: 2.62 acres Note: The area of development encompasses all existing and proposed residential center improvements. The remainder of the overall site will remain vacant at this time. Zoning Classification: RM -10 (Residential Multi -Family up to 10 unitsiacre) Land Use Designation: M-2 (Residential Medium Density Residential 2 up to 10 units/acre) Building Floor Area: Maximum Number of Residents: Existing: 6,984 sq. & Proposed Annex: 1.180 sq, ft. Total: 8,164 sq. & Existing 22 Pmposed The proposed office annex is a modular building currently being used as a real estate office and located at the southeast corner of Beachland Boulevard and SR A -1-A. That building will be moved to the Samaritan Center site and used for administrative offices for the center. 5. Open Space: Required: 30% Provided: 80% 6. New Impervious Surface Area: 1,498 sq. & (annex and new sidewalks) 7. Off -Street Parldng: Required: 15 Provided: 16 (existing, paved) 8. Stormwater Management: The site's existing stormwater management system will be used to handle the small amount of additional run-off. Public Works has reviewed the plans and has no objection to site plan approval. 9. Utilities: The site is served by county water and sewer service. The provisions have been approved by the County Utility Services and Environmental Health Departments. 10. Landscape Plan: Existing trees and landscaping improvements on-site meet applicable Chapter 926 landscaping requirements for the proposed project 11. Traffic: All existing access, driveway, and parking improvements will remain unchanged. No additional improvements are required or proposed. Traffic Engineering has no objection to site plan approval. JULY 279 1999 61 800K ,.,r PAGE t`J1j J9 BOOK i0J PAGE c 3 12. Specific Land Use Criteria: The specific land use criteria for residential center (large group home) uses are satisfied as follows: a. The use shall satisfy all applicable regulations of the State of Florida and Indian River County as currently exist; Note: The facility is state approved. All county regulations are ging applied through the site plan and building process. b. The approving body shall determine that the proposed use is compatible with the surrounding neighborhood in terms of land use intensity. The maximum allowable land use intensity shall be computed as follows: a. Regarding single-family zoning districts: (number of allowable dwelling units) x (2.5 residents per dwelling unit) x 1.5 = maximum number of residents allowed b. Regarding multi -family and commercial zoning districts: (number of allowable dwelling units) x (2 residents per dwelling unit) x 1.5 = maximum number of residents allowed. In no case shall the maximum number of residents allowed on a project site exceed the average maximum number of residents allowed (as calculated by the above formula) on adjacent sites bordering the project site. Averaging for adjacent sites shall be based upon length of the common border between the project site and the adjacent site. Note. The 22 resident maximum occupancy already approved for the site meets these criteria. No change in the residential capacity (intensity) is proposed. 3. To avoid unsafe or unhealthy conditions that may be produced by the overcrowding of persons living in these facilities, a minimum floor area per person shall be required. Floor area requirements shall be measured from interior walls of all rooms including closet space. a. Total interior living space. A minimum of two hundred (200) square feet of interior living space shall be provided per facility resident. Interior living space shall include sleeping space and all other interior space accessible on a regular basis to all facility residents. b. Minimum sleeping areas A minimum of eighty (80) s uare feet shall be provided in each sleeping space for single occupanc r. A minimum of sixty (60) square feet of sleeping space shall be pro vided for each bed in a sleeping space for multiple occupancy. C. Bathroom facilities. A full bathroom with toilet, silk and tub or shower shall be provided for each five (5) residents. Note. The existing facility meets these criteria. JULY 279 1999 62 0 • 4. To avoid an undue concentration of group care facilities within residential neighborhoods, all such facilities within residential zoning districts shall be located at least one thousand two hundred (1,200) feet apart, measured from property line to property line, unless exempted as follows. The separation distance requirement and measurement shall not apply to group home or ACLF uses involving twenty-one (2 1) or more residents, where such uses are located on major arterial roadways. Note. The existing facility meets this criterion. 5. If located in a single-family area, the home shall have the appearance of a single-family home. Structural alterations or designs shall be of such a nature as to preserve the residential character of the building. Note. This criterion is not applicable due to the multi -family zoning and use of the area. 6. If located in the AIR -1 zoning district, the site shall have an L-1 land use designation. Note. This criterion is not applicable due to RM -10 zoning of the subject site. 7. The facility shall satisfy all applicable off-street parking requirements of Chapter 954. The facility shall meet or exceed all open space requirements for the respective zoning district. Note. The existing facility satisfies this criterion. 8. The maximum capacity of such facilities shall not exceed the applicable number permitted by the department of health and rehabilitative services. Note. The facility is state approved for the existing 22 resident maximum capacity, which will not change. 9. Group home permits are transferable. If the type of resident/client changes or the resident capacity increases to such an extent that it would raise the facility to a higher level group home as distinguished by the definition, the facility must be reevaluated for an administrative permit or special exception approval. Note. No change in the resident/client type is proposed. Thus, all residential center criteria are satisfied. 13. Concurrency: The proposed administrative office annex is considered accessory to the existing use. Therefore, no concurrency requirements apply. 14. Dedications and Improvements: All dedications and improvements were addressed with the original approval and development process. JULY 279 1999 63 GOOK iU J PAGE BOOK FACE J 15. Surrounding Land Use and Zoning: North: Vacant/RM-10 South: Head Start, 41' Street, Vacant Airport Property/RM-10, City of Veio Beach East. Vacant/RM-10 West. Multi -Family Residential/RM-10 BECOMN ENDATION: Based on the analysis performed, staff recommends that the Board of County Co issioners grant special exception use approval for the proposed Samaritan Center administrative Office annex. APPROVED AGENDA ITEM 1. Application 2. Location Map 3. Site Plan 4. Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes BY: Community Development Director Bob Keating reviewed the memo i nd displayed a site map on the ELMO. He also utilized pages 117 and 118 from the backu materials to enhance his presentation. He advised this special exception use had been recommended by the Planning and Zoning Commission as well as staff. The Chairman opened the public hearing and asked if anyone wished 0 be heard in this matter. John Dean, 2223 10'h Avenue, speaking on behalf of the Bishop of the Diocese of Palm Beach, thanked all who have helped this effort including those members of the Board of County Commissioners who had assisted by their support. It was determined that no one else wished to be heard and the Chairmin closed the public hearing. Chairman Macht complimented staff on their fine work and Mr. Dean ff or his efforts in this matter. ON MOTION by Commissioner Ginn, SECONDED BY Commissioner Adams, the Board unanimously granted special exception use approval for the proposed Samaritan Center administrative office annex, as recommended by staff. JULY 279 1999 64 9.A.6. PUBLIC HEARING - LARRY & PAMELA CANARY'S REQUEST FOR PD SPECIAL EXCEPTION USE FOR AN AGRICULTURAL PD - CANARY PLANNED DEVELOPMENT PROOF OF PUBLICATION OF ADVERTISEMENT FOR HEARING IS ON FEM IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD The Board reviewed a Memorandum of July 13, 1999: TO: James E. Chandler County Administrator DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE: Robert M. Keating, AICP Community Development �i�®r THROUGH: Stan Boling CP Planning Director FROM: John W. McCoy Senior Planner, Community Development DATE: July 13, 1999 SUBJECT: Larry & Pamela Canady's Request for Planned Development (PD) Special Exception Use for an Agricultural PD to be Known as Canady Planned Development It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at its regular meeting of July 27, 1999. Carter Associates, Inc. has submitted an application on behalf of Lary & Pamela Canady for PD (planned development) special exception use and preliminary PD plan/plat approval to create 3 lots within an agriculturally designated area. The subject site is a 15.18 acre parcel located on the north side of 491' Street between 66' Avenue and 74'h Avenue. The subject property is zoned A-1, Agricultural (up to 1 unit/5acres), is located outside the Urban Service Area, and is designated AG -1 (Agricultural up to 1 unit/5acres). The proposed 3 lot residential/agricultural subdivision is allowed in the AG -1 area, subject to the special exception use provisions of sections 911.06(4) and 911.14(2) of the county's land development regulations (see attachment #4) for residential subdivisions in agricultural areas. • Planning and Zoning Commission Action At its regular meeting of July 8, 1999, the Planning and Zoning Commission voted unanimously to recommend that the Board of County Commissioners approve with conditions the PD special JULY 27,1999 65 600K 10.0 PAGE d"o I GOOK M PAGE JB exception use for this proposed agricultural PD. The Commission also approved the preliminary PD plan subject to Board approval of the special exception use request. The approval conditions recommended by the Commission are reflected in the recommendation at the end of this report. 0 PDs in Agriculturally Designated Areas To address certain urban sprawl concerns raised by DCA during its review of the 1990 Comprehensive Plan, the county adopted special policies and regulations regarding development of single-family subdivisions in agriculturally designated areas. The resulting special regulations require use of the PD process and a layout of the lots that "clusters" homesites in a manner that provides large remaining areas of open space (used for agriculture or preservation of natural features). Therefore, the LDRs limit the maximum lot or homesite size to 1 acre, with remaining areas designated as agricultural or open space (see attachment #5). Lot or homesite clustering also preserves the ability for future redevelopment of the overall property at a higher density ii; in the future, the comprehensive plan is changed and the property is redesignated for residential development. Clustering can be accomplished in different ways. One approvable concept clusters the lots in a standard subdivision layout of 1 acre or smaller lots and creates 1 large tract which could be separately owned and limited to open space (agricultural or preservation) uses until such time as the land may be re -designated. Another approvable clustering concept creates larger tracts, each with a designated buildable lot area (homesite). Such tracts can be laid out so as to cluster the buildable lot areas in close proximity to one another, or in close proximity to a land feature, or in close proximity to a roadway (as determined by the Board of County Commissioners during its recent discussion of agricultural PD clustering). Under such clustering designs, each tract could be individually owned The tract/homesite concept has been used in the design of the proposed Canady planned development. • PD Project Process The process involved in review and approval of this proposal is as follows: 1. Conceptual Plan/Special Exception PZC & BCC 2. Preliminary PD PZC 3. Land Development Permit (LDP) or Waiver Staff 4. Final PD (plat) BCC The applicant is now requesting approval of the first two steps. If approved by the Board of County Commissioners, the applicant will need to obtain from public works an LDP or LDP waiver for required PD improvements. • Board of County Commissioners Consideration Pursuant to Section 971.05 of the LDRs, the Board 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. JULY 279 1999 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. Size of PD Area: Zoning Classification: Land Use Designation: Density: 15.18 acres A-1, Agricultural (up to 1 unit per 5 acres) AG -1, Agricultural (up to 1 unit per 5 acres) Allowed: Proposed: Maximum Lot/Homesite Area: Open Space: Allowed: Proposed: Required: Provided: 0.20 units per acre 0.20 units per acre 1 acre 1 acre (encompassed within f 5 acre tract) 60% 80% Surrounding Land Use and Zoning: North: Grove/A-1 South: Grove/A-1 East: Grove/A-1 West: Single -Family, Grove/A-1 8. Traffic Circulation: Due to the small number of units proposed, no special traffic study and no off-site traffic improvements are required. All of the lots will access 49m Street (unpaved) from 691h Court, a proposed internal local road to be constructed within the proposed development. The preliminary PD plan proposes 691' Court as a stabilized, unpaved roadway within a private 60' right-of-way. The LDRs allow such a road to be unpaved, because the subdivision is private, generates fewer than 100 daily trips and is located outside the Urban Service Area The Traffic Engineering Division has reviewed and approved the roadway layout. The proposed subdivision road (694 Court) runs along the east edge of the subject property and is actually centered along the east property line, forming a common road with the adjacent property. The result is that half of the road is to be located on a not -included parcel to the east, within an existing common access easement on the not -included parcel. For the half of road on the not -included parcel, an easement agreement document takes care of ownership, construction and maintenance responsibilities. A recorded copy of the easement agreement document will need to be provided prior to the issuance of a land development permit. Because the proposed road will also provide access to the not -included parcel, no double frontage buffer is required. For the half of the road to be located on the subject property, a reciprocal access easement will be provided via the final plat. The reciprocal access easement will provide access rights to the not -included owner for the platted portion of the road. 9. Stormwater Management: The Public Works Department has reviewed and approved a conceptual stormwater plan. A detailed engineering stormwater plan will be reviewed and approved as part of the land development permit or permit waiver process. The applicant will need to obtain a county Type "B" stormwater permit prior to the issuance of a land JULY 279 1999 Rt _T 600K OO FAGE tJ BOOK 103 PAGE OP, development permit. A county Type "C" permit will be required in conjunction with the single-family building permit application for each individual lot. 10. Utilities: Because the site is located outside of the Urban Service Area, no water or sewer service is required�and none is requested. Therefore, these lots will be serviced by on-site wells and septic tanks. These utility provisions have been approved by the Department of Environmental Health and the Indian River County Department of Utility Services. 11. Waivers: As allowed through the planned development special exception use process, the applicant is allowed to request waivers from the LDRs. The applicant is requesting that the 60' road right-of-way requirement be reduced to a 30' easement with the remaining 30' being provided via an off-site easement as described above. The staff has no objection to the waiver since the full 60' of width will be provided with the 30' wide off -plat easement, and with the ownership, construction, and maintenance responsibilities being addressed, in the easement agreement. 12. Dedication and Improvements: The county Thoroughfare Plan designates 491 Street as a collector road ultimately requiring 80' of road right-of-way. Presently, 30' of road right-of- way exists. The applicant will need to dedicate an additional 30' of right-of-way to complete the local road minimum of 60'. The proposed design accommodates this dedication as well as the 80' of right-of-way. 13. Concurrency: The applicant has obtained a conditional concurrency certificate which satisfies concurrency requirements related to the special exception use and preliminary PD plan/plat requests. Therefore, all concurrency requirements related to special exception use and preliminary PD plan/plat approval have been satisfied 14. Environmental Issues: Since the site is over 5 acres, the native upland set-aside requirements of section 929.05 could potentially apply. However, the site consists of a remnant grove and does not contain any native upland habitat or wetlands. Therefore, no LDR related environmental requirements, including the upland set-aside requirement, apply. 15. Buffers and Setbacks: Given that the surrounding area is designated agricultural, no special buffering is required under the planned development LDRs. Since the A-1 district minimum 30' setback exceeds the 25' perimeter PD setback, the 30' A-1 district setback will control. Because the development is low density and is outside the Urban Service Area, no special residential/agricultural buffers are required, and none are proposed 16. Caribbean Fruit Fly Host Plant: The county Comprehensive Plan requires that Caribbean fruit fly host plants be prohibited within PDs in agricultural areas. The applicant has indicated that he has no objection to creating a restriction that would prohibit host plants on the subject property. Such restriction must be included in the project's covenants and restrictions, which will be reviewed at the time of final plat application. Based on the above analysis, staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners grant PD special exception use approval with the following conditions: 1. That prior to the issuance of a land development permit, the applicant shall provide an easement agreement for the 30' wide off-site roadway easement. The easement shall be acceptable to the County Attorney's agreement. JULY 279 1999 68 • • 2. That prior to or via the final plat: a. A restrictive covenant shall be established on the project site prohibiting Caribbean fruit fly host plants. Furthermore, as a PD special exception use condition, Caribbean fruit fly host plants are prohibited with the project area, and b. The applicant shall dedicate 30' of additional right-of-way for 49* Street to complete the local road minimum of 60', and C. The applicant shall grant, an access easement to the owner of the not -included parcel for access over the 30' roadway easement that covers the subject site. 1. Application 2. Location Map 3. Preliminary PD Plan 4. LDR Excerpts 5. Land Use Policy 5.9 6. Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes (draft) Community Development Director Bob Keating reviewed the memorandum and enhanced his presentation by displaying pages 127 and 128 from the backup on the ELMO. He reminded the Commissioners that clustering will be the subject of a September 22, 1999 Special Meeting (workshop). One waiver has been requested for this, which is instead of having a 60 -foot right-of-way, there would be a 60 -foot easement, 30 feet on the Canady property and 30 feet on the out parcel. Staff supports common driveways and this will provide access to all the properties. It was recommended by both the Planning and Zoning Commission at the July 8, 1999 meeting, and by staff. Commissioner Stanbridge questioned whether the applicant was comfortable with clustering. David Howard, of Carter Associates, advised on behalf of their clients, Larry and Pamela Canady, that they were perfectly satisfied with the way this is clustered. Vice Chairman Adams thought that if the Board makes a change at the workshop, it can be offered as an option to the Canadys. Mr. Howard inquired if the Board was going to continue to allow those options to other agricultural PD applicants as he has a few more applications to be made. He was assured that these options would be available until the workshop is held, but clustering versus not clustering on this smaller parcel is not a problem. JULY 279 1999 • 0 600K 109 FAGS' 77' J BOOK 10-0 PAGE 972 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. MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Ginn, SECONDED BY CommissionerAdams, to approved staff srecommendation. Vice Chairman Adams offered an AMENDMENT: that if the Board changes the building envelope at the workshop, those changes would be retroactive to this parcel. Commissioner Ginn ACCEPTED THE AMENDMENT. MOTION WAS AMENDED. The Chairman CALLED THE QUESTION and the motion, as amended, carried l anitnously. 9.A.7. PUBLIC HEARING - RESOLUTION #99-073 - AUTHORIZATION TO SUBMIT FY 1998/99 GRANT APPLICATION FOR MASS TRANSIT CAPITAL AND OPERATING ASSISTANCE - COUNCIL ON AGING - COMMUNITY COACH PROOF OF PUBLICATION OF ADVERTISEIVIB U FOR REARING IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD The Board reviewed a Memorandum of July 21, 1999: TO: James Chandler County Administrator THROUGH: Robert M. Keating, AICP Age, Community Development Director FROM: Jacob Riger ? MPO Planner DATE: July 21, 1999 SUBJECT: REQUEST FOR AUTHORIZATION TO SUBMIT AN FY 1998/99 GRANT APPLICATION FOR 49 USC CH. 53, SECTION 5307 MASS TRANSIT CAPITAL AND OPERATING ASSISTANCE JULY 27, 1999 70 It is requested that the information presented herein be given formal consideration by the Indian River County Board of County Commissioners at its meeting of July 27, 1999. For the past several years, the Board of County Commissioners has applied for and received grant funds under 49 USC Ch. 53, Section 5307 (formerly and more widely known as Section 9 of the Federal Transit Act). Those funds have been passed through to the Indian River County Council on Aging, Inc. (COA) to provide capital and operating funding for the Community Coach fixed route bus system. Section 5307 program grants may be used for the planning, acquisition, construction, improvement, and operating costs of facilities, equipment, and associated capital maintenance items used in mass transportation service. Operating expenses require a 50% non-federal match, while capital expenses require a 20% non-federal match. In Indian River County, state toll revenue credits are utilized as a soft match to provide the required nonfederal share for the capital expenses portion of a Section 5307 grant. While a match is still required, the use of a soft -match eliminates the need for the County to provide a cash share for capital expenses. Toll revenue credits as soft match may be used only for the capital portion of a Section 5307 grant. The nonfederal share for operating expenses is met through equal amounts of local funding and a state public transit block grant. For FY 1998/99, the COA has requested that the County apply for federal Section 5307 funds on its behalf so that the COA can provide for the continuation and expansion of its Community Coach fixed route/dial-a-ride bus service. As proposed, the grant will allow the Council on Aging to leverage County and state fiords to continue and expand needed public transportation services within the County. The County's proposed FY 1998/99 Section 5307 grant application is provided in Attachment 1. As required by Federal Transit Administration (FTA) regulations, the attached grant application was prepared using its Transportation Electronic Award and Management (TEAM) software. FTA now requires grantees to utilize its TEAM software in the development, submittal, modification, and management of Section 5307 grants. The attached grant application contains all information required by FTA. As indicated in the grant application and the attached budget forms (Attachment 2), the total proposed grant amount is $1,040,660. This amount includes $225,188 in capital expenditures and $815,472 in operating expenditures. The nonfederal share of capital expenditures ($56,297) will be met through the use of toll revenue credits as soft match and is not included in the project total. The nonfederal share of operating expenditures (50%) will be provided in equal amounts of $203,868 by local fiords and a previously approved Florida Public Transit Block Grant (PTBG). At its December 8, 1998 meeting, the Board of County Commissioners approved execution of a Joint Participation Agreement with FDOT for the use of FY 1998/99 PTBG fiords as partial operating match for FY 1998/99 Section 5307 grant fiends. According to Section 5307 grant application requirements, a designated recipient must hold a public hearing to obtain the views of citizens on a proposed grant application. In keeping with that requirement, staff has published a notice of this meeting and has scheduled this item as a public hearing. JULY 279 1999 71 B00K iU' ` PAGE#21173 I o BOOK i0` PAGE 74 The MPO has included the proposed Section 5307 grant in its FY 1998/99 through 2002/03 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP), a necessary prerequisite for submittal of a Section 5307 application. It is also important to note that the proposed grant application is consistent with the MPO's recently adopted five year Transit Development Plan and 2020 Long Range Transportation Plan. To apply for Section 5307 funds, the Board of County Commissioners must adopt the attached resolution (Attachment 3) authorizing staff to submit the attached grant application. The resolution has been reviewed and approved by the County Attorney's Office. Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners adopt the attached resolution authorizing the filing of the attached FY 1998/99 Section 5307 grant application. ATTA HMENT 1. Indian River County FY 1998/99 Grant Application for 49 USC Ch. 53, Section 5307 Mass Transit Capital and Operating Assistance 2. Grant Budget Forms 3. Resolution Authorizing the Filing of a 49 USC Ch. 53, Section 5307 FY 1998/99 Grant Application Community Development Director Bob Keating reviewed the Memorandum and recommended the Board adopt the proposed resolution and stressed there are no cash matching funds from the County. 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 Ginn, SECONDED BY Commissioner Tippin, the Board unanimously adopted Resolution No. 99-073 authorizing the filing of an application with the Department of Transportation, United States of America, for a grant under 49 USC Chapter 53, Section 5307. RESOLUTION NO. g9 _ 71 A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMUSSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY AUTHORIZING THE FILING OF AN APPLICATION WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, FOR A GRANT UNDER 49 USC CHAPTER 53, SECTION 5307. WHEREAS, the Federal Transit Administration is authorized to award Section 5307 grant funds for the implementation of a mass transportation program of projects; JULY 27, 1999 72 WHEREAS, Indian River County and the Indian River County Council on Aging utilize FTA Section 5307 funds to provide needed public transportation services within the County and; WHEREAS, in applying for FTA Section 5307 funds, Indian River County and the Indian River County Council on Aging will comply with all applicable federal regulations and requirements associated with the Section 5307 program. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE INDIAN RIVER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY CONEVUSSIONERS: 1. That the Community Development Director is authorized to file applications on behalf of Indian River County with the U.S. Department of Transportation to aid in the financing of planning, capital, and/or operating assistance projects pursuant to 49 USC Chapter 53, Section 5307. 2. That the Chairman of the Indian River County Board of County Commissioners and/or the County Attorney is authorized to execute, and the Community Development Director is authorized to file, with such application an assurance or any other document required by the U.S. Department of Transportation effectuating the purpose of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. 3. That the Indian River County Community Development Director is authorized to famish such additional information as the U.S. Department of Transportation may require in connection with the 49 USC Chapter 53, Section 5307 grant application. 4. That the Chairman of the Indian River County Board of County Commissioners is authorized to set forth and execute affirmative minority business policies in connection with the program of projects and budget procurement needs. 5. That the Chairman of the Indian River County Board of County Commissioners is authorized to execute grant agreements with the U.S. Department of Transportation for aid in the financing of the planning, capital, and/or operating assistance program of projects and budget. THIS RESOLUTION was moved for adoption by r i n n , and the motion was seconded by T i p n i n , and, upon being put to a vote, the vote was as follows: Chairman Kenneth R Macht Aye Vice -Chairman Fran B. Adams Ay e Commissioner Caroline D. Ginn A v e Commissioner Ruth Stanbridge Aye Commissioner John W. Tippin Ay e The Chairperson thereupon declared the resolution duly passed and adopted this 2tday of Jul y ,1999. ATTEST: �Jeiirey K Ba n, C •k ' t?=i'JTy CLERK JULY 279 1999 73 BOARD OF COUNTY CONEMSIONERS INDIAN RIVER_90UNTY, RIDA By. %nneth R. Macht, Chairman Board of County Commissioners GOOK State of Florida County of Indian River I HEREBY CERTIFY that on this day, before me, an officer duly authorized in this State and County to take acknowledgments, personally appeared KENNETH R. MACHT, as Chairman of the Board of County Commissioners, and GE6Y , as Deputy Clerk, to me known to be the persons described in and who exejute4 the foregoing instrument and they acknowledged before me that they executed the same. WITNESS my hand and official seal in the County and State last aforesaid this -17 day of , A.D., 1999. Notary Public v ZMWAMM vp wm ; 9 . "p*k She ofFbd& �wao MY -C 39 a�aaace. 11.C.1. COUNTYDEED FORFIVE ACRES TO HUMANE SOCIETY OF VERO BEACH, INC. General Services Director Tom Frame reviewed a Memorandum of July 20, 1999: Date: July 20, 1999 To: The Honorable Board of County Commissioners Thru: James E. Chandler, County Administrator From: Thomas W. Frame, General Services DirectorTerry O'Brien O'Brien Assistant County Attorney Subject: Proposed Deeding of Property to Humane Society of Vero Beach, Inc. BACKGROUND: Currently, the Humane Society of Vero Beach, Inc. operates from a five (5) acre site they acquired from Indian River County located at 47014 1 " Street. In addition to the tract that is owned by the Humane Society, it also leases a fifty (50) foot strip lying west of their owned site. That strip of land is used for existing off street parking. The Humane Society has plans for a major expansion and desires to acquire additional property. The site to the east of their current site is owned by the County and would be available to the Society. To that end, the Humane Society started the process towards acquisition. On September 1, 1998, the County Parks and Recreation Committee recommended the lease of the County property lying west and adjacent to the Society's current site for the purpose of construction of a dog park and other ancillary uses. It was contingent upon the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) approval of such use since the underlying land was previously an active landfill. Subsequently, the Board of County Commissioners approved the recommendation as forward to them for action on September 15, 1998. JULY 279 1999 74 • In coordinating this matter with Wayne McDonough, the attorney for the Humane Society, the idea of a County deed rather than a ninety-nine year lease was discussed. Section 125.38, F.S., authorizes the County to make such transfer at a nominal price. ANALYSIS: Such a transfer would relive the County and any record keeping responsibility and possible liability. Accordingly, staff feels that a transfer of the property by deed rather than a long term lease is preferable. The proposed transfer would include the existing parking lease and an extension of the parking area and the five (5) acre tract west of the Humane Society. A legal description of the property and sketches of the parcels to be transferred is attached If the Board finds it desirable to issue a County Deed, it should contain a reversion clause and assumption of risk clause, which would read as follows: This conveyance is made on the condition that if grantee or grantee's heirs or assigns fails to use the above-described land for Humane Society activities, then all rights conveyed herein will revert to the grantor and grantor's heirs and assigns, and grantee, grantee's heirs or assigns shall forfeit all rights thereto. This deed is made and accepted on the condition and understanding that the land hereby conveyed was a former landfill and grantor assumes no responsibility or obligation for the condition of the property now or is in the future or for any liability that may attach or be associated with the former landfill. All risk shall vest with grantee or grantee's heirs or assigns. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Chairman be authorized to execute, on behalf of the Board of County Commissioners, a County deed with appropriate reversion and assumption of risk clauses transferring the property described in the attachment to the Humane Society. After Director Frame's presentation, County Attorney Vitunac explained that the restrictions recommended in the memorandum do not mean the County will not be liable for damages in the future; the County is still a potentially responsible party. It means that the County will not be subject to actions by the Humane Society. MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Ginn, SECONDED BY Commissioner Tippin, to approve staff's recommendation. Vice Chairman Adams believed there were people in the audience who wished to speak and Chairman Macht invited those who wished to speak to do so. Joan Carlson, Executive Director of the Humane Society of Vero Beach and Indian River County, wanted the Board to understand what they planned to do with the additional five -acre tract. She explained they are ready to begin the site plan and permitting process to build an educational adoption center on their existing site and initially put in a service road through the new tract for the purpose of animal control and for service vehicles. Additional JULY 27t 1999 75 600K 10 0 PAGE K? BOOK iOJ PAGE278 retention areas as appropriate will be added. They could not commit to long-range planning for dog parks or anything else at this time, but they would make looking at those issues a part of their long-range plans. Responding to Commissioner Ginn's concern about location of the retention ponds over the old landfill, Ms. Carlson advised that their engineers had contacted federal and state agencies and there seemed to be no problem with what is done above ground, as long as the water table is not affected. Shelly Ferger, 25 5' Avenue, Vero Beach, a leader of the Indian River County 4-H Dog Masters Club, asked where the club stands now in their efforts to establish a dog park. Public Works Director James Davis advised that he had communicated with both Ms. Carlson and Ms. Ferger during the past year and it was his understanding that the Humane Society was willing to accommodate the club; it was not in their short -tern program, but part of their long -tern plan. He believed that Ms. Ferger's desire was that the dog park be moved up to the short-term program. He understood that Ms. Carlson did not have a problem with a dog park there and that Ms. Ferger's group had raised some funding for such a park. He hoped that the two groups could work together to achieve the dog park. Vice Chairman Adams advised that other sites had been considered for a dog park which would be a fenced -in area where dogs could run without a leash to try to promote socialization of dogs and people. Numerous locations have been given consideration, but none have turned out to be satisfactory. So far, a compromise has not been reached. She suggested the dog park concept go back to the Parks and Recreation Committee for a fresh look. Commissioner Stanbridge thought the Humane Society might take the dog park concept into their long-range planning and it might evolve into a safe dog park. Commissioner Ginn pointed out that the Humane Society is under contract to the County to do certain animal control work. She was not ready to spend County dollars on recreation for dogs, she felt it was the owners' responsibility. Vice Chairman Adams clarified that the Club had not asked for the County to fund anything, they were specifically looking for a spot to lease and use. Ms. Ferger's understanding that the matter would go back to the Parks and Recreation Committee was correct. Olske Forbes, 1864 Robalo Drive, as a new dog owner, wanted to point out to Commissioner Ginn that dogs were more than merely pets. A new puppy had helped her JULY 279 1999 W husband through a therapy situation. They live in a multi -family area and cannot run their dog there, on the beach, at the riverside, or at any of the parks. Numerous people are interested in taking responsibility for the dog park and in taking a leadership role. She has polled a couple of members of the Board of Directors of the Humane Society and respects the information that there is no desire to work on a dog park in the near future. As a "dog lover", Commissioner Ginnreiterated her position against spending County dollars, but she had no problem with leasing land if there is a suitable parcel somewhere. The Chairman CALLED THE QUESTION and the motion carried unanimously. (Chairman authorized to execute a County deed with appropriate reversion and assumption of risk clauses transferring the property described in the attachment to the Humane Society.) COPY OF COUNTY DEED IS ON FILE IN TAE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD 11.C.2. FUELDISPENSERS. INDIANRIVER COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE - SOUTHERN PETROLEUM SYSTEMS The Board reviewed a Memorandum of July 19, 1999: Date: July 19, 1999 To: Thru: From: Subject: The Honorable Board of County Commissioners James E. Chandler, County Administrator Thomas W. Frame, General Services Directorcruw�rr��� - Fuel Dispensers, Indian River County Sheriffs Office BACKGROUND: Attached is information indicating that one of the fuel dispensers at the Sheriffs Office is no longer working. Also worthy of noting is the inability to find any replacement parts for these particular dispensers. An attempt had been made to cannibalize the fuel dispensers which had been replaced at Road and Bridge. Unfortunately, they had already been disposed. The two tanks at the Sheriffs Office are not manifold -connected such that they can be pumped from either dispenser. This means that without the replacement, ten thousand gallons of fuel is unavailable. The end result is that the dispenser must be replaced, and there is no advantage to keeping the old working dispenser because of the lack of parts. Both dispensers should be replaced at the same time. JULY 279 1999 77 1i00K id O PAGE BOOK ib J FACEa,20 ANALYSIS: An estimate was obtained from Southern Petroleum Systems, which was the firm that replaced the lines and tanks at both the Sheriffs Office and Road and Bridge. The price to remove and replace both dispensers is $8,535. Currently, we have a credit due us from Southern Petroleum Systems in the amount of $2,044.07. If Southern Petroleum Systems was used , the net cost would be $6,490.93. Since we have used Southern Petroleum Systems for all the work up to this point, it makes logical sense to issue a final change order and have the fuel dispensers replaced utilizing the savings that could be obtained from the credit due back to the County. RECOMMENDATION: Authorize Change Order Number Three to be issued for the replacement of two fuel dispensers at the Sheriffs Office for $8,535.00. With the credit ($2,044.07) due the County, the net total amount of the replacement will not exceed $6,490.93. General Services Director Tom Frame reviewed the memorandum and staffs recommendation. Chairman Macht recalled that the Council of Public Officials had originally recommended that the combined fueling facility with the School Board also include the Sheriff's Department. He asked if combining the Sheriff's Office with the County/School Board's facility had been discussed as he felt it would result in many savings. Public Works DirectorJames Davis advisedthatthe consultanthad done apreliminary study. The plan is that the County's, the School Board's, and the Sheriff s Department's fuel needs will be served in that to -be -built facility. Undersheriff Jim Davis has been a part of the planning and everyone is on the same page. The recently received environmental study on the land shows that the 25 -acre site is clean. He expected the Option Agreement to be exercised prior to the August 4'h deadline. There was a brief discussion of why southern Petroleum Systems was chosen and why the credit existed in this instance. County Attorney Vitunac explained the applicable law. ON MOTION by Commissioner Stanbridge, SECONDED BY CommissionerAdams, the Board unanimously approved Change Order Number 3 to the contract with Southern Petroleum Systems in the net amount of $6,490.93, as recommended by staff. JULY 27, 1999 78 _I 11.F. LIFE INSURANCE INCREASE FOR COUNTY EMPLOYEES RETIRING ON OR AFTER OCTOBER 1, 1999 The Board reviewed a Memorandum of July 21, 1999: TO: James E. Chandler County Administrator FROM: Ronfaker Director of Personnel DATE: July 21, 1999 SUBJECT: Retirees' Life Insurance Staff requests consideration of the following information at the July 27, 1999, regular meeting of the Board of County Commissioners. Background Employees who retire from Indian River County are eligible to continue the life insurance. Under the current policy provision the retiree is eligible to continue $10,000 of life insurance and at age 70 the amount would reduce by 50%. This amount of life insurance has been in effect for at least 13 years and due to inflation its value has diminished. Staff requested Lon Bryan, our life insurance agent, to research and determine the effect of an increase in the amount of life insurance by $10,000. According to Lon Bryan, as a result of our claims experience this increase would not affect our current rates. Recommendation Based on the aforementioned, staff is requesting the Board execute the attached Insurance Amendment to increase the retiree life insurance from $10,000 to $20,000 effective October 1, 1999. The increase would apply to all employees retiring on or after 10/01/99. ON MOTION by Commissioner Adams, SECONDED BY Commissioner Grin, the Board unanimously authorized the Chairman to execute the proposed Insurance Amendment to increase the retiree life insurance from $10,000 to $20,000 effective October 11, 1999, which would apply to all employees retiring on or after October 1, 1999, as recommended in the Memorandum. JULY 27,1999 COPY OF REQUEST FOR GROUP INSURANCE AMENDMENT IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD 79 900K A9 FAGE 2 "3 Public Works BOOK 10J PAGE 3 James Davis reviewed a Memorandum of July 21, 1999: TO: James E. Chandler, County Administrator FROM: James F. Davis, P. Public Works Director r SUBJECT: Developer's Agreement for Offsite Improv menta - Pointe West Development DATE: July 21, 1999 DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS I Roadway and Drainage Pointe West of Vero Beach, Limited Part nership(general Partner Is Pointe West of Vero Beach, Inc.) is constructing Pointe West development located between SR60 and 8th Street west of 66e' Avenue. Several County unpaved roadways are impacted, and a developer's agreement is needed to establish funding and timing of the improvements. To clarify the provisions of the agreement, the following table lists each road, the cost of improvement, and the County/Developer share of the funding. Roadway Paving Estimated Estimated Estimated Cost County Cost Developer Cost 1) 74th Ave between SR60 $ 400,000 $ 300,000 $ 100,000 and 12th Street 2 ) 16th St between 74th Avenue and 82nd Avenue $ 700,000 $ 400,000 $ 300,000 (Including piping sublateral canal) 3 ) 16th Street between 74th Avenue and 66th Avenue $ 600,000 $ 350,000 $ 250,000 Including box culvert in Rangeline Canal) 4) 12th Street between 74Ch Avenue and 82nd Avenue $ 400,000 $ 250.000 $ 150.000 $2,100,000 $ 1,300,000 $ 800,000 Right of way acquisition (approximately 16.8 acres) is not included above at an additional cost of approximately $252,000. The developer's share of right of way costs is $85,000. The above costs are using the County's special assessment paving program formula for collector roadways which is 501% County/50% JULY 279 1999 80 property owner funding along the project frontage between main intersections and 100% county funding along sections where the developer has no frontage. On July 7, 1999, staff and the developer met with the West Lake Estates property owners to present 6-7 options for paving 16th Street west of 74th Avenue. Staff recommended an alternative which provided for 16th Street being constructed in the existing 30' canal right of way and 30' road right of way with no additional right of way being required from West Lake Estates lots, culverting of the canal and constructing a 6' masonry wall. Four of the six property owners fronting the road accepted this design. Two property owners objected and wanted the road placed completely south of the existing canal. Staff has included the existing right-of-way alternative that the majority of property owners have accepted in the developer's agreement. As an alternative, the developer may pay 100% of the cost of paving 16th Street between 74th Avenue and 82nd Avenue and seek Traffic Impact Fee credits, since this road does not exist and it is on the County 20 Year Road Improvement Program. ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS Since several impacted roads do not front the developer's property, the cost to the County is significant. The alternatives provided are as follows: Alternative No. 1 Approve the developer's agreement. Alternative No. 2 Deny approval and request staff to renegotiate. RECOMMMATIONS AND FUNDING Staff recommends Alternative No. 1. County funding to be from Local Option Sales Tax (Right -of -Way acquisition and 12th Street Improvements), Traffic Impact Fees (16th Street), and Local Option Gas Tax ( 74th Avenue and 16th Street east of 74th Avenue. ATTACMCMgT Developer's Agreement JULY 279 1999 81 BOOK 1 0, 1 OFAGE F'I` BOOK l PAGE tv"` In response to Vice Chairman Adams' inquiry, Director Davis advised that the cost of the piping for one of the options was estimated by staff to be between $200,000 and $300,000. He then displayed a drawing of the plan (Option 2) with which the majority (4 of 6) of the West Lake Estates property owners directly affected by the frontage seemed to be in agreement. Director Davis responded in detail to several questions of the Commissioners concerning this plan. In addition, he advised that this plan also provides some traffic calming features. Then, in response to Commissioner Ginn's inquiry, Director Davis advised that the developer had major concerns if the road were to go south of the canal. Director Davis pointed out that a G masonry wall along the north of the road to provide additional buffers to the West Lake Estates lots is included in the recommendation. In response to Commissioner Stanbridge's inquiry, Director Davis explained staff's continued strong objection to eliminating this stretch of 16'hStreet as it has been an integral part of the thoroughfare plan from the early 1980's and has been part of the modeling of the County's transportation system. Also, if sections of these east -west roads are abandoned, it would cause an impact on other roadways and create other concerns withrespectto ingress and egress for homeowners and subdivisions that front on SR -60 and 161` Street. Inresponse to Commissioner Gin's inquiry about culverting the canal, but taking 30' from the south side to make the roadway, Director Davis advised that was considered as option #5. He explained that it would disrupt the water retention area and the golf course and the applicant objected because it would dramatically affect his plans. It also would mean the range -line canal would have to be bridged south of the sub -lateral which would impact the alignment to the east. Chuck Mechling, representing the Pointe West project, explained this option would further complicate everything that had been previously designed. If they went to this plan, they would be losing 30 feet on both sides (lVh and 16t` Streets) of their property. Staff has convinced him of the importance of continuing 16' Street and he was unwilling to abandon that section of 16' Street. He stated the developers were willing to put the road within the existing right-of-way in the Comprehensive Plan, take no property from the homeowners, and cause no great additional expense for redesign/engineering work. Chairman Macht understood that the majority of the parties were in agreement with the recommendation and acknowledged that not everyone is completely satisfied with any JULY 279 1999 82 compromise. Although this was not a public hearing, he asked if anyone else wished to speak. Larry Echelberger, 7435 16' Manor, West Lake Estates, was concerned that there would be a right turn lane with a traffic signal at a certain intersection. Director Davis stated that if sufficient traffic warranted the need for a traffic signal in the future, it would be considered. At present, neither the proposal nor the cost estimate include a traffic signal. It was proposed to have a left -turn lane, not a right -tum lane, at that location. There will be southbound thru, southbound left, and northbound thru lanes. Mr. Echelberger contended that it would be difficult to egress West Lake Estates if traffic backed up there, and Director Davis responded that there is over 300 feet of separation there which is adequate and assured him there was plenty of room to stack the traffic. Mr. Echelberger offered several reasons for abandoning the section of 16t` Street. He saw no reason why it should not be abandoned. He claimed this possibility was not discussed at a meeting and the people were told it was "beyond discussion." He asserted that the street does not go through now, and he saw no need for it in the future except to supply traffic to a commercial center on the other side of West Lake Estates. Chairman Macht understood 16' Street eventually would go through to Ud and 901` Streets, and Director Davis responded that was correct. The need for the (east -west) roadway is predicated on numerous issues, one of which was use as a secondary route to the numerous developments for emergency vehicles in case of accident or congestion on SR60. Mr. Echelberger continued to plead his cause citing various reasons. Vice Chairman Adams understood his concerns, but felt the Commissioners would be trading one set ofproblems for others if there were to eliminate that section of 16* Street. She stated the road needed to be kept open not just as an access to Pointe West but also to other points further west. She felt that what has been added to the recommendation has improved the severity of impact on the West Lake Estates homeowners, maybe not for Mr. Echelberger and his neighbor, because their houses happen to be closest to the road. She was unhappy, however, with the proposed wall on the north side and preferred a berm and more intense vegetation which would also provide a sound buffer. She understood there were five other options and wished to see them. Director Davis had those other options available, and Commissioner Ginn wanted to see them also. In discussion, Director Davis pointed out that stormwater treatment consumed JULY 27,1999 83 BOOK 109 PAGE 3.35 Q 51, R BOOK 100 PAGE � V � a lot of right-of-way. He then presented Option # 1, which was the historical and traditional manner, but least desirable to the property owners. Commissioner Ginn, as a member of the Regional Planning Council, commented that they want Indian River County to keep our grid because problems have occurred in South Florida due to elimination of grids. Director Davis added that many letters have been received from developments on the north side of SR60 thanking the County for putting in 26 h Street as an option for them to use when heading east or west instead of using SR60. Commissioner Stanbridge noted that Option #7 called for the elimination of a portion of SR60, so that would not be desirable. Director Davis then presented Option #2 again, which is the one recommended by staff. He then presented Option #3, a hybrid, which would impact the three easternmost lots and would require right-of-way from them at a cost of about $700,000. He presented Option #4 which would involve the Drainage District approving relocation of the sub -lateral canal; the District was not keen on it and cost was estimated at $600,000. Option #5 would require right-of-way from the south, and would cost about $600,000 and would impact the new development. The estimate did not include right-of-way acquisition. Finally, Option #6 was not acceptable to the homeowners in West Lake Estates as it would require more of their right-of-way. Mary Holmen, a resident of West Lake Estates, questioned the need for continuation of 16' Street because she saw no destination at the end of it. She felt it was strictly for the developers of Pointe West. Frank Coffey, 88 Cache Cay, recommended the Commission follow their competent staff's recommendation and questioned the micro -management of this matter. Commissioner Ginn explained that when the Board had first met on this, they requested the road go south of the canal. She felt that was the reason the Commissioners were giving this matter such a thorough evaluation. Vice Chairman Adams was still not convinced that this could not be improved upon and wanted to hear the cost for the developer to redesign and give up the 30 -foot right-of- way ight of - way by putting the road on the south of the canal. She had only heard it described as "substantial". JULY 27, 1999 84 Chuck Mechling explained that any attempt to realign the road and canal east of 70 Avenue would require a complete redesign of the golf course and cause a tremendous loss in the number of residential lots. He further explained how Option #2 had the least impact on all parties and had been agreed to by the residents at the corner of 161 Street and 70 Avenue. He believed that Pointe West has tried to be a good neighbor but it is impossible to get 100% agreement in situations such as this. He hoped the Commissioners appreciated the efforts made and asked them to approve Option #2. MOTION WAS MADE by CommissionerAdams, SECONDED BY Commissioner Stanbridge, to approve the developer's agreement. Under discussion, Commissioner Stanbridge was still intrigued with Option #4 which has the Drainage District involved (which would move the canal to the north). She did not know what the residents thought of it. Mr. Mechling advised that Option 2 was the one the residents felt best about. The residents had asked for the wall and did not want the landscaping buffer he had proposed. He felt the landscaping would be softer and do the job, but went along with what the residents wanted. With respect to Option #4, he stated that the people who would have the canal behind them preferred to have the wall and not the canal. Commissioner Grin believed that staff had done the best they could under the circumstances and Commissioner Tippin had to agree because it was a difficult situation and there was no perfect solution. Commissioner Tippin continued that they have talked for ten years about the need for more east -west arteries and have been advised of the need by the State as well. He believed the arteries were vitally important to the future. Commissioner Stanbridge thought that when everyone has their say, we come out, hopefully, with better projects. The Chairman CALLED THE QUESTION and the motion carried unanimously. JULY 27,1999 DEVELOPER'S AGREEMENT IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD 85 BOOK i` l JPnF "j BOOK 10J PAGE O' ;) Chairman Macht called a five minute recess at approximately 11:25 a.m. Themeeting was reconvened a short time later with all members present. H.H. WELTON CONVENIENCE STORE - LONE CABBAGE TRADING COMPANY - DEVELOPER'S AGREEMENT - FINAL PAY REQUEST The Board reviewed a Memorandum of July 13, 1999: DATE: JULY 13,1999 TO: JAMES E. CHANDLER COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR FROM: DONALD R. HUBBS, P.E. ' DIRECTOR OF UTILITY S PREPARED MICHAEL C. HOTCHKISS, P.E. AND STAFFED ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEER BY: DEPARTMENT OF UTILITY SERVICES SUBJECT: WELTON CONVENIENCE STORE DEVELOPER'S AGREEMENT FINAL PAY REQUEST INDIAN RIVER COUNTY PROJECT NO. CDS 684 BACKGROUND On June 22, 1999, the Board of County Commissioners approved a Developer's Agreement with Lone Cabbage Trading Company to construct an 12" diameter water main along 53rd Street, west of U.S. Highway 1 (see attached minutes of meeting). Construction of the waxer main is now complete and the Department of Utility Services has accepted the associated facilities. The developer is now requesting reimbursement for dedicated utilities in accordance with the agreement (see attached invoice). ANALYSIS The total compensation per the original developer's agreement is $27,750.00 (see attached developer's agreement). We are now prepared to release total payment to the developer. RECOXIMENDATION The staff of the Department of Utility Services recommends that the Board of County Commissioners authorize payment to Lone Cabbage Trading Company in the amount of $27,750.00, as presented. Account No. 472-000-169-370.00 JULY 279 1999 • Account Name Amount Utility Impact Fee Fund $27,750.00 86 0 ON MOTION by Commissioner Stanbridge, SECONDED BY Commissioner Tippin, the Board unanimously authorized payment to Lone Cabbage Trading Company in the amount of $27,750 as requested, as recommended in the Memorandum. REQUEST FOR PAYMENT AND AGREENMU ARE ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD 13.A.1. CHAIRMAN MRCHT - SALE OF PROPERTY BY BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE INTERNAL IMPROVEMENT TRUST FUND OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA TO LOST TREE VILLAGE CORPORATION The Board reviewed the backup in the file which consisted of a Quitclaim Deed, a memorandum of October 1, 1997, and copy of Resolution 97-146. Chairman Macht asked Assistant County Attorney O'Brien to present this matter. Assistant County Attorney Terrence P. O'Brien reviewed the history of the Lost Tree Village Corporation's (LTVC) acquisition of certain properties from the Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund of the State of Florida ( the Governor and Cabinet). The history dated back to May 1997 when LTVC came to the Board of County Commissioners to try to have some land they owned on Wabasso Island developed into two separate lots. In so doing, they donated approximately $18,000 to the Environmental Learning Center for removal of exotics and clean up of the area, deeded 1.54 acres of wetlands which became part of the ELC's leased property, and deeded a 60' right-of-way to the County. In return, the County moved some property lines and cleared up some question as to whether there was a reverter clause. In September of 1997, LTVC applied to the Trustees to acquire a crescent-shaped piece of land (see backup page 1831) and that land was deeded to them in 1998. Under Chapter 253 of the Florida Statutes, the Trustees have the obligation to manage (and can legally sell) these lands. In response to numerous questions of the Commissioners, Environmental Planning & Code Enforcement Chief Roland M. DeBlois explained that the land they received from the Trustees is accreted land landward of the mean -high water line and qualified (with the State) as "surplus". He explained that County staff had been contacted by the State according to the State's procedure. The procedure is to get a letter from the local government saying that the proposed surplus would not contravene and would be consistent with the Comprehensive JULY 279 1999 87 BOOK FAGUE l I BOOK JG PAGE 090 Plan. Staff reviewed it in September 1997 and wrote a letter that it was consistent with our regulations. This was landward of the mean -high waterline, was not submerged, and approximately one-third to one-half of it is upland area. One of the reasons staff supported it was it allowed for the actual building pad to be focused on the existing uplands. If it had not been deeded over, then potentially the owner could still have the right to build on the property and would ultimately possibly have to do more wetland filling. This also cleared up the ownership of the right-of-way for Live Oak Drive, which he understood was not built in the initial right-of-way alignment. All these factors were considered as part of the approved mitigation. Responding to Commissioner Stanbridge's inquiry, Attorney O'Brien advised that the State would have the option of not selling the property. There was no compulsion to sell it, but if they were going to, under the Statute, the first choice would be to sell it to the upland riparian owner. Normally the County would have the first option, but an adjacent riparian owner would get the first option in this case. Several things about this bothered Chairman Macht. The process of accretion on the littoral was one thing, but on the riparian was another. He suspected that the accretion may have been through unnatural causes. What really bothered him, however, was that he did not recall any of this having come before the Commission. Attorney O'Brien explained that the initial May 1997 trade came before the Commission, but the transfer of land from the Trustees did not. Chairman Macht wanted this type of thing never to happen again without the Board being given notice. Mr. DeBlois pointed out that it is common for the State to require such reviews and letters from the County. An example concerns the Coastal Construction Control Line: any development on oceanfront property within the State's permitting jurisdiction requires a review for consistency with the Comprehensive Plan and a letter from the County. Vice Chairman Adams believed the red flag in this instance was the sale of public land without an auction. She could understand the road right-of-way designation reversal, but pointed out that this is one of the reasons the County has fought for shared title in environmental land acquisitions. Attorney O'Brien advised that this is governed by Statute under Section 253.111(5). Commissioner Stanbridge wondered if this was a very old law, since times have changed and now the State helps the County put together lands such as these for protection. JULY 279 1999 88 • Is Mr. DeBlois added that the property in question is about three -tenths of an acre, of which about .2 acre is jurisdictional wetland. Another point he wished to make is that the County's regulatory buffer along the Indian River Lagoon protects the property from development, other than the disturbed upland area. All things considered there is still substantial protection for the property. He viewed it as "shoreline fringe,, which would not be useful for future mitigation. There was CONSENSUS with Chairman Macht's direction to Attorney O'Brien to meet with staff and come up with a procedure that would flag anything beyond mere routine matters, so that they would come before the Commission either under the Consent Agenda or, in the case of something with more significance, under Departmental Matters. Attorney O'Brien understood and will draft a policy to bring back before the Board. 13.A.2 CHAIRMAN MACHT - WELCOME TO KIM MASS UNG NEW ADMINISTRATIVE AIDE TO THE BOARD Chairman Mack felt it appropriate to greet Kim Massung, Alice White's replacement, who has filled the Administrative Aide to the Board position with great enthusiasm, vigor and intelligence. She will be a real asset to the community, to the Commission and to the staff. 13.B. VICE CHAIRMAN ADAMS - CLARIFICATION OF FALSE ALARM ORDINANCE (ORDINANCES 99-010 AND 99-015) PUBLIC HEARING SCHEDULED FOR AUGUST 24 1999 Vice Chairman Adams stated that after passage of the alarm ordinance, the Commissioners were inundated with concerns from the public. The effective date of the ordinance was extended to October 1, 1999, with the intention that the Board would hold another public hearing. She understood the Sheriff's Department was conducting educational sessions with the alarm users. The intention of the Commission, however, was that another public hearing would be held because the alarm users were not cognizant of the new regulations until they began getting notices from the Sheriff's Department. She felt the JULY 27,1999 89 BOOK i0J PAGE, -Q,' -?"T -I BOOK ` PAGE LP9 '17D users should have the opportunity to express their concerns if they still have any. County Attorney Vitunac wanted to advertise the public hearing as a possible amendment to the ordinance. If there are changes that come about as a result of the hearing, the Board can go forward with an effective date of October 1. He will make sure Ms. Sandy Shields of the Sheriff's Department would be present. Vice Chairman Adams suggested notices be sent to all alarm users (as per the list Sheriff's Department has) that a public hearing will be held on August 24, 1999. THERE WAS CONSENSUS to hold the public hearing on a possible amendment to the Alarm Ordinance on August 24, 1999. B.D. COMMISSIONER STANBRIDGE - ST. JOHNS RIVER WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT -NOTICE OF INTENT TO DENY PERMIT APPLICATION OF LOST TREE VILLAGE CORPORATION Commissioner Stanbridge referred to the letter of July 16, 1999 below: CERTIFIED # Z 364 324 684 •APDIT10JMAL ITEM. -TO BE ADDED13-D PELICAN ISLAND AUDUBON SOCIETY, INC. JENS TRIPSON, PRESIDENT POST OFFICE BOX 1833 VERO BEACH, FL 32961-1833 O so 44- Y RE: WRITTEN NOTICE OF INTENDED DISTRICT DECISION ON PERMIT APPLICATION 4-061-017SA-ERP Dear SIR/MADAM: The staff of the St. Johns River Water Management District has completed its review of the application described below. The District has permitting jurisdiction under Chapters 4OC-1, 4OC-42, or 40C-4, F.A.C., Chapters 120 and 373, F.S., and delegated portions of Chapter 403, F.S. for WRM permt applications. The District gives notice of its intent to deny the request for a permit by the following applicant on August 10, 1999: JULY 279 1999 11 "o -ow Chw EWWAO" Memo 10M a wows AAs -wow &"KAM . =logo.. POST OFFICE BOX 1429 PALATKA, FLORIDA 32179-1429 TfteNlow owne-d" Too 006434.& b su+cra2 M&SID.aw Too FAX iingr0.gl ]7P�t2S GgOg0719-MS rwmao w =6-0IS IA0►W' @&QftNirwgu 3:P&S1, Saw= SISe So/�wgr rMar me—M Y Cv#TM pefterTMo OPMO M cmNe . ftm 7M01 01w 100 306 9" am" 2133 M NAO,irg SOM 107 .q00 J,do,trrg no 3212% Y,a,nr. rwift 32Mt Uffib"tIL 1d1r xhu"I i TODg -W-4MO 106130,Q20 407.M-2100 TOD 0014i►Tr00 TOo 107•T" 1M TOO 07 -M -3t= PELICAN ISLAND AUDUBON SOCIETY, INC. JENS TRIPSON, PRESIDENT POST OFFICE BOX 1833 VERO BEACH, FL 32961-1833 O so 44- Y RE: WRITTEN NOTICE OF INTENDED DISTRICT DECISION ON PERMIT APPLICATION 4-061-017SA-ERP Dear SIR/MADAM: The staff of the St. Johns River Water Management District has completed its review of the application described below. The District has permitting jurisdiction under Chapters 4OC-1, 4OC-42, or 40C-4, F.A.C., Chapters 120 and 373, F.S., and delegated portions of Chapter 403, F.S. for WRM permt applications. The District gives notice of its intent to deny the request for a permit by the following applicant on August 10, 1999: JULY 279 1999 11 LOST TREE VILLAGE CORPORATION, ATTN: CHARLES M. BAYER, JR.r 3300 PGA BLVD., PALM BEACH GARDENS, FL 33410, application 44 -061 -0175A -ERP. The project is located in Indian River County, Sections 19 4 30, Township 32 South, Range 40 East. The ERP application is for CONSTRUCTION OF A SURFACE WATER MANAGEKENT. SYSTEM TO SERVE A RESIDENTIAL SINGLE-FAMILY DEVELOPMENT AND CONSTRUCTION OF THREE BRIDGES FOR ACCESS TO AND BETWEEN THE ISLANDS OVER PRIVATELY OWNED LANDS KNOWN AS RIVER ISLANDS. The receiving waterbody is the INDIAN RIVER LAGOON. PETITIONS FOR ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDINGS Any person whose substantial interests are or may be affected by this written Notice of District Decision, may petition for an administrative hearing in accordance with Sections 120.569 and 120.57, F.S. Petitions for an administrative hearing on the above application must be "filed" (See Notice of Rights) by you within twenty-six (26) days of the District depositing this written Notice of Intended District Decision in the mail. Failure to file'a petition within this time period shall constitute a waiver of any rights you may have to request an administrative determination (hearing) under Sections 120.569 and 120.57, F.S., concerning the subject permit application. Petitions which are not filed in accordance with the Notice of Rights are subject to dismissal. Attached is a Notice of Rights. MAKING COMMENTS OR OBJECTIONS FOR PERSONS WHO DO NOT WISH TO FILE PETITIONS FOR ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDINGS If you have comments or objections to this Notice of Intended District Decision, but you do not wish to file a Petition for Formal Administrative Proceed:rgs, comments or objections should be made in writinq to: Director, Permit Data Services, P. 0. Box 1429, Palatka, Florida 32178-1429. In order for comments cr objections to be considered the Governing Board prior to taking action on tre ap] q1*9�=�'"�„"Mey must DWP 9be"Nt4east se61 eP9^15,,, • before the ,r IpM^i _ at which the application will be considered. You are entitled to appear at ...e public meeting to address the Governing Board concerning the application. ':he staff recommendation, any presentation by you or others, and any objections wil: be considered by the Board before a final permit decision is made. OTHER INFORMATION If you wish to receive a copy of the Technical Staff Report (TSR) which provides the staff's analysis of the application and any recommended conditions en the proposed permit, please submit your request to receive the TSR to :he director c_ Permit Data Services at the address listed above. The file(s) containing the application is available for inspection Monday thrcu;h Friday except for legal holidays, 8:00 a.m. to S:00 p.m. at the St. Johns River Water Management District Headquarters, 4049 Raid St., Palatka, Florida. You =ay also view files at one of the District's Service Centers, but you should call Service Center staff in advance to make sure that the files are at a specific Service Center. The Governing Board will consider this permit application during the meeting which begins at 1:00 p.m. on August 10, 1999, or as soon thereafter as it may come to be heard at: St. Johns River Water Management District Headquarters, 4049 Reid St., Palatka, FL 32178. Agenda items scheduled for action on Tuesday, August 10, 1999, may be postponed for consideration at the Governing Board meeting which begins at 9:00 a.m on August 11, 1999. Questions concerning this project should be addressed to FARIBORZ ZINGANEH, ENGINEER, in the Melbourne office (407-984-4940). Sincerely, i Gloria Lewis, Director Division of Permit Data Services Enclosures: Notice of Rights JULY 27, 1999 91 cc: District File Lori Dowdy, Data Management Supervisor BOOK FnUE U- Y EO0K 10 0 PAGE 94"]" Commissioner Stanbridge called on Environmental Planner Brian Poole who stated that this matter had been explained to him as follows: The developer, Lost Tree Village Corporation, went to SJRWMD with a conceptual plan for the island development, which did not include the bridges. LTVC actually has submitted a permit application for the bridges to the Coast Guard. There was a lawsuit, a hearing, and they are waiting for the administrative law judge to make a ruling as to whether or not the bridges will go over State- owned lands. In the meantime, SJRWMD is issuing an intent to deny the permit application because they are assuming that it is State-owned land because the Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund of the State of Florida have said that they will assert title. If the administrative law judge rules against the Trustees and says they are not State-owned lands, the likelihood is that denial will be reversed and SJRWMD will propose approval. Commissioner Stanbridge stressed that this issue is totally separate from the Coast Guard application on which the Board had sent a resolution. The Coast Guard application has been extended and she believed the environmental assessment will be considered by MANWAC. To further complicate matters, along with the SJRWMD permit, there is also a Corps of Engineers permit. In this case, the applicant, LTVC, chose to go with a nationwide permit application and publication of notice in an obscure journal. She warned that this is a case of "divide and conquer" which typically occurs in permitting. When the developer has all their permits in hand, he goes to the local government and says, we have all these other permits and no one has a problem with our plan. She believed local government needs to deal with this problem. Environmental Planning & Code Enforcement Chief Roland M. DeBlois added a comment that MANWAC is scheduled to review the Coast Guard permit at their August 16'h meeting; and on that same date is the Extended Time Line Deadline for comments to the Coast Guard. He requested authorization to submit comments directly to the Coast Guard on behalf of MANWAC and County and will report back to the Commission. Commissioners had no objections. Upon Commissioner Ginn's question about the application to the Corps of Engineers, Mr. Poole advised that he had placed a call to Irene Sadowsky of the Corps of Engineers to find out specifically whether the County can still make comments on the LTVC permit application. Mr. Poole will advise the Commissioners as to the outcome of his call as soon as possible. JULY 279 1999 5q C` 11 14.A. EMERGENCY SERVICES DISTRICT The Chairman announced that immediately upon adjournment of the meeting, the Board would reconvene sitting as the Board of Commissioners for the Emergency Services District. Those Minutes are being prepared separately. 14.B. SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL DISTRICT The Chairman announced that immediately upon adjournment of the Emergency Services District meeting, the Board would reconvene sitting as the Board of Commissioners for the Solid Waste Disposal District. Those Minutes are being prepared separately. H.C. ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL BOARD The Chairman announced that immediately upon adjournment of the Solid Waste Disposal District meeting, the Board would reconvene sitting as the Board of Commissioners for the Environmental Control Board. Those Minutes are being prepared separately. DOCUMENTS MADE PART OF THE RECORD - LOST TREE VILLAGE CORPORATION SPECIAL WARRANTY DEED RECORDED SPECIAL WARRANTYDEED OF LOST TREE VILLAGE CORPORATION TO BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY DATED 10/28/97HAS BEEN PLACED IN THE OFFICIAL DOCUMENTS FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD JULY 279 1999 :1 93 BOOK i00 PAGEk,- 6 0 0 K 103 PAGESP�� G' There being no further business, upon motion duly made and seconded, the Chairman adjourned the meeting at 11:11 a.m. ATTEST: Jeffrey K. Barton, Clerk JULY 279 1999 MI