HomeMy WebLinkAbout4/4/2000•
MINUTES ATTACHED
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
AGENDA
TUESDAY, APRIL 4, 2000 - 9:00 A.M.
County Commission Chamber
County Administration Building
184025 1h Street, Vero Beach, Florida 32960
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Fran B. Adams, Chairman (District 1)
Caroline D. Ginn, Vice Chairman (District 5)
Kenneth R. Macht (District 3)
Ruth M. Stanbridge (District 2)
John W. Tippin (District 4)
L_J
James E. Chandler, County Administrator
Terrence P. O'Brien, Acting County Attorney
Kimberly Massung, Executive Aide to BCC
Jeffrey K. Barton, Clerk to the Board
9:00 a.m. 1. CALL TO ORDER BACKUP
PAGES
2. INVOCATION Chaplain Ray Scent, I.R. Mem. Hosp.
3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Terrence P. O'Brien
4. ADDITIONS/DELETIONS to the AGENDAIEMERGENCY ITEMS
1. Move Item5.A., Proclamation Designating the Week of April 9-15, 2000 as Crime Victims' Rights
Week in Indian River County, to Item 7.L.
2. Add Item 5.D., Proclamation Designating the Week of April 10-15, 2000 as First Strike - A
Campaign Against Violence Week.
3. Add Item 13.A., Discuss Ordinance 1999-021 Establishing Regulations Governing Alarms
responded to by Law Enforcement Agencies.
4. Add Item 13.D., Update regarding the Division of State Lands Case (Lost Tree Islands).
5. PROCLAMATION and PRESENTATIONS
A. Presentation of Proclamation Designating the Week of April 9-
15, 2000 as Crime Victims' Rights Week in Indian River County
B. Presentation of Proclamation Designating the Month of April, 2000
as Census Month in Indian River County, Florida 2
C. Presentation of Proclamation in Observing April 8-15, 2000 as
National Blue Ribbon Week in Indian River County 3
r
Sol,
L N —.1_ ' :.a ;r�i;L
600K L (L
6. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
None BACKUP
PAGES
7. CONSENT AGENDA
A. Received & Placed on File in Office of Clerk to the Board:
St. Johns Water Management District Annual Financial
Audit for 1998-99
B.
Approval of Warrants
(memorandum dated March 16, 2000)
412
C.
Approval of Warrants
(memorandum dated March 24, 2000)
13-24
D.
Caf6 Patio Alteration
(memorandum dated March 27, 2000)
25-26
E.
Sea Oaks Investments Ltd. Request for Release of a
Portion of an Easement at 1235 East Winding Oaks
Circle
(memorandum dated March 24, 2000)
27-33
F.
Vernon G. Foster's Request for Final PD Plan/Plat Approval
for Pelican Pointe Phase II Planned Development (PD)
(memorandum dated March 28, 2000)
34-50
G.
Approval of Florida Communities Trust Closing Documents
for County Cost -Share Purchase of the Casey Parcels (Round
Island South), and the Salama and Emerson Parcels (Oslo
Riverfront South)
(memorandum dated March 28, 2000)
51-73
H.
1999 PEP Reef Sea Turtle Nesting Season Report
(memorandum dated March 28, 2000)
7490
I.
Shooting Range — Project No. 9629
(memorandum dated March 14, 2000)
91-92
J.
Recently Acquired Property — Tax Cancellation
(memorandum dated March 14, 2000)
93-99
K.
Payments to Vendors of Court Related Costs
(memorandum dated March 23, 2000)
100-101
BACKUP
8. CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS and PAGES
GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES
Gary C. Wheeler: Notice of Request for Public Hearing, 1999
Local Law Enforcement Block Grant (LLEBG)
(letter dated March 27, 2000) 102-103
9. PUBLIC ITEMS
A. PUBLIC HEARINGS
1. Wayne Klekamp's Request for PD (Planned Develop-
ment) Special Exception Use and Preliminary PD
Plan Approval for an Agricultural PD to be Known
as White Gate
(memorandum dated March 28, 2000) 104119
2. AN ORDINANCE OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY,
FLORIDA, AMENDING THE FUTURE LAND USE
ELEMENT OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN BY
CHANGING THE LAND USE DESIGNATION FOR
± 8.21 ACRES LOCATED APPROXIMATELY A
QUARTER MILE SOUTH OF 37'*H STREET AND ± 492
FEET NORTH OF 33RD STREET, FROM L-1, LOW-
DENSITY RESIDENTIAL -1 (UP TO 3 UNITS/ACRE)
TO C/I, COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL; AND BY
CHANGING THE LAND USE DESIGNATION FOR
± 8.21 ACRES LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF
BAPTIST RETIREMENT CENTER, ± 470 FEET SOUTH
OF 37TH STREET, FROM C/I, COMMERCIAL/INDUS-
TRIAL TO L-1, LOW-DENSITY RESIDENTIAL -1 (UP
TO 3 UNITS/ACRE); AND PROVIDING SEVERABILITY
AND EFFECTIVE DATE (Legislative)
I.R. Mem. Hospital and Kennedy Groves, Inc., Request
to Amend the Comprehensive Plan to Redesignate ±8.21
Acres from L-1 to C/I, and to Rezone those ±8.21 Acres
from RS -3 to MED; and to Amend the Comprehensive
Plan to Redesignate ±8.21 Acres from C/I to L-1, and
to Rezone those ±8.21 Acres from MED to RM -3
(memorandum dated March 17, 2000) 120-157
B. PUBLIC DISCUSSION ITEMS
1. Bibble Irvin Request to Speak Re: the Beach Set Line
Plus More Important Information (no backup)
2. Alonzo Sharpe Request to Speak to the Board Regard-
ing Code Enforcement Action Against his Property at
10385 130`x' Avenue
(memorandum dated March 28, 2000) 158-181
BOOK
9. PUBLIC ITEMS (cout'd.):
3. Appeal by 21" Century Satellite Communications, Inc.
of a Planning and Zoning Commission Denial of an
After -the -fact Request for a 110' "Camouflaged" Tower
in Lakewood Village Mobile Home Park
(memorandum dated March 29, 2000)
lb
BACKUP
PAGES
182-223
C. PUBLIC NOTICE ITEMS
Scheduled for Public Hearing on April 11, 2000:
1. Sun -Up of Indian River and others' request to rezone
±40 acres located on the south side of 5" Street, S.W.,
±655 feet east of 27`h Avenue from RS -6, Single -
Family Residential District (up to 6 units/acre), to
RM -6, Multiple -Family Residential District (up to
6 units/acre) (Quasi -Judicial)
2. County initiated request to rezone:0.37 acres located
at the northeast corner of 27h Avenue and 14t` Street,
S.W. from CG, General Commercial District, to RS -6,
Single -Family Residential District (up to 6 units/acre)
(Quasi -Judicial)
(memorandum dated March 24, 2000)
10. COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S MATTERS
None
11. DEPARTMENTAL MATTERS
A. Community Development
1. Discussion of Agricultural Planned Developments
(memorandum dated March 27, 2000)
224
225-264
2. Consideration of Recommendations from the Wabasso
Corridor Plan On-going Review Task Force and the
"CR 510 East Corridor Committee"
(memorandum dated March 28, 2000) 265-304
B. Emergency Services
None
C. General Services
None
D. Leisure Services
None
BACKUP
11. DEPARTMENTAL MATTERS (cont'd.): PAGES
E. Office of Management and Budget
Settlement; General Liability Claim -
(memorandum dated March 21, 2000) 305
F. Personnel
Consultant Agreement with Cody & Associates, Inc.
(memorandum dated March 16, 2000) 306-309
G. Public Works
1. Wabasso Causeway Park Improvements
Amendment No. 2
(memorandum dated March 23, 2000) 310-313
2. Request from City of Sebastian for Allocation of
District 3 Traffic Impact Fees for Barber Street
Improvements
(memorandum dated March 14, 2000) 314-322
3. Right -of -Way Acquisition
5' Street SW between 27" and 43'' Avenues
Sidewalk Improvements
3700 5`}' Street SW, Vero Beach, Florida 32968
Ruby B. Thornton
(memorandum dated March 24, 2000) 323-329
H. Utilities
1. Anita Park Subdivision — 37`x' & 38s' Streets (between
56s' & 58`" Avenues) — Petition Water Service
(memorandum dated March 24, 2000) 330-349
2. Sebastian Water Expansion Phases II -D & II -E
Resolutions I and II
(memorandum dated March 24, 2000) 350-369
I. Human Services
Children's Services Advisory Committee Plan Update 2000-
2001
(letter dated March 28, 2000) 370
12. COUNTY ATTORNEY
Reconsideration of Tom Collins Rezoning
(memorandum dated March 28, 2000) 371-372
13. COMMISSIONERS ITEMS
A. Chairman Fran B. Adams
BOO!� J,1
13. COMMISSIONERS ITEMS (cont'd.):
B. Vice Chairman Caroline D. Ginn
C. Commissioner Kenneth R. Macht
D. Commissioner Ruth Stanbridee
E. Commissioner John W. Tiepin
14. SPECIAL DISTRICTS/BOARDS
A. Emergency Services District
None
B. Solid Waste Disposal District .
1. Approval of Minutes — meeting of 3/3/2000
2. Approval of Minutes — meeting of 3/14/2000
BOOK
BACKUP
PAGES
3. Bid Award: IRC 2035 Truck Chassis with Roll Off
Hoist & Tarp System
(memorandum dated March 27, 2000) 373-384
C. Environmental Control Board
None
15. ADJOURNMENT
Anyone who may wish to appeal any decision which may be made at this meeting will need to
ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made which includes the testimony and evidence
upon which the appeal will be based.
Anyone who needs a special accommodation for this meeting may contact the County's
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Coordinator at 567-8000 x1223 at least 48 hours in advance of
meeting.
Indian River County WebSite: bccl.co.indian-river.fl.us
Meeting may be broadcast live on AT & T Cable Channel 13
Rebroadcast continuously Thursday 1:00 p.m. until Friday morning and Saturday 12:00 noon until
5:00 p.m.
0
0
INDEX TO MR9UTES OF REGULAR MEETING
OF BOARD OF COUNTY C0NMUSSIONERS
APRIL 4. 2000
1. CALL TO ORDER ............................................... 1-
2. INVOCATION .................................................. 1-
3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ....................................... 2-
4. ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA ................................... 2-
5. PROCLAMATIONS AND PRESENTATIONS ......................... 2-
5.A. Proclamation Designating Week of April 9 through 15, 2000 as Crime
Victims' Week in Indian River County .......................... 2-
5.B. Proclamation Designating Month of April, 2000 as Census Month in Indian
River County ............................................ .3-
5.C. Proclamation Observing April 8 through 15, 2000 as National Blue Ribbon
Week in Indian River County ................................ .5-
5.D. Proclamation Designating the Week of April 10-15, 2000 as First Strike - A
Campaign Against Violence Week ............................. 7-
6. APPROVAL OF MINUTES ....................................... .9 -
APRIL 4, 2000
Bur
7. CONSENT AGENDA ........................................... .9-
7.A. Reports .................................................. 9-
7.B. List of Warrants ............................................ 9-
7.C. List of Warrants .......................................... .16-
7.D. Caf6 Patio Alteration - County Administration Building ........... .25-
7.E. Resolution 2000-037 Abandoning a Portion of an Easement on Tract B, Sea
Oaks Lakeview Estates PRD (Sea Oaks Investments, Ltd. - 1235 East
Winding Oaks Circle) ..................................... .27-
7.F. Vernon G. Foster - Request for Final PD Plan/Plat Approval for Pelican
Pointe Phase II Planned Development ......................... .30-
7.G. Florida Communities Trust Closing Documents for County Cost -Share
Purchase of the Casey Parcels (Round Island South) and the Salama and
Emerson Parcels (Oslo Riverfront South) - LAAC Properties ....... .32-
7.H. 1999 PEP Reef Sea Turtle Nesting Season Report - Christine Perretta, D. B.
Ecological Services ....................................... .36-
7.I. Shooting Range - Project #9629 - C. Vargas & Associates .......... .37-
7.J. Resolution 2000-038 Cancelling Certain Delinquent Taxes Upon Publicly
Owned Lands, Pursuant to Section 196.28, Florida Statutes (Bhaskar Barot
- 41' Street and Old Dixie Right -of -Way) and Resolution 2000-039
Cancelling Certain Delinquent Taxes Upon Publicly Owned Lands,
Pursuant to Section 196.28, Florida Statutes (DeSalvo - 98'h Avenue Right -
of -Way) ............................................... .38-
7.K. Payments to Vendors of Court -Related Costs ................... .41-
7.L. Proclamation Designating the Week of April 9-15, 2000 as Crime Victims'
Rights Week in Indian River County .......................... .43 -
APRIL 4, 2000
•
•
8. CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS AND GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES -
SHERIFF GARY C. WHEELER - NOTICE OF REQUEST FOR PUBLIC
HEARING - 1999 LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT BLOCK GRANT (LLEBG)
............................................................ .44-
9.A.1. PUBLIC HEARING - WAYNE KLEKAMP - REQUEST FOR PLANNED
DEVELOPMENT SPECIAL EXCEPTION USE AND PRELIMINARY
PLANNED DEVELOPMENT PLAN APPROVAL FOR AN AGRICULTURAL
PD TO BE KNOWN AS "WHITE GATE" ........................... 47-
9.A.2. PUBLIC HEARING - (1) ORDINANCE 2000-010 AMENDING THE FUTURE
LAND USE ELEMENT OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN BY CHANGING
THE LAND USE DESIGNATION FOR ±8.21 ACRES LOCATED
APPROXIMATELY 1/4 MILE SOUTH OF 371H STREET AND ±492 FEET
NORTH OF 33PDSTREET FROM L-1 TO CA AND BY CHANGING THE
LAND USE DESIGNATION FOR ±8.21 ACRES LOCATED ON THE NORTH
SIDE OF BAPTIST RETIREMENT CENTER ±470 FEET SOUTH OF 37m
STREET FROM C/I TO L-1 AND (2) ORDINANCE 2000-011 AMENDING
THE ZONING ORDINANCE AND ACCOMPANYING ZONING MAP FROM
RS -3 TO MED FOR ±8.21 ACRES LOCATED APPROXIMATELY 1/4 MILE
SOUTH OF 37m STREET AND ±492 FEET NORTH OF 33RDSTREET AND
FROM MED TO RM -3 FOR ±8.21 ACRES LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE
APRIL 4, 2000
SICK >' l
-3-
EOOK
OF BAPTIST RETIREMENT CENTER ±470 FEET SOUTH OF 37m STREET
(INDIAN RIVER MEMORIAL HOSPITAL AND KENNEDY GROVES, INC.)
............................................................ .54-
9.13.1. PUBLIC DISCUSSION ITEM - BIBBLE IRVIN - REQUEST TO SPEAK
REGARDING THE BEACH SET LINE PLUS MORE RAPORTANT
INFORMATION .............................................. .82-
9.B.2. PUBLIC DISCUSSION ITEM - ALONZO SHARPE REQUEST TO SPEAK TO
THE BOARD REGARDING CODE ENFORCEMENT ACTION AGAINST HIS
PROPERTY AT 10385 130TH AVENUE ............................ .83-
9.B.3. PUBLIC DISCUSSION ITEM - 21sT CENTURY SATELLITE
COMMUNICATIONS, INC. - APPEAL OF PLANNING AND ZONING
COMMISSION DENIAL OF AN AFTER -THE -FACT REQUEST FOR A 110
FOOT "CAMOUFLAGED" TOWER IN LAKEWOOD VILLAGE MOBILE
HOME PARK ................................................ .86-
9.C. PUBLIC NOTICE ITEMS SCHEDULED FOR PUBLIC BEARING ON APRIL
11,2000 ..................................................... .96-
9.C.1. Sun -Up of Indian River - Request to Rezone ±40 Acres Located on the
South Side of 5'h Street SW, ±655 Feet East of 27'h Avenue from RS -6 to
RM -6 (Quasi -Judicial) ..................................... .96 -
APRIL 4, 2000
9.C.2. County Initiated Request to Rezone ±0.37 Acres Located at the Northeast
Comer of 27'h Avenue and 14'h Street SW from CG to RS -6 (Quasi-Judicial)
...................................................... .96-
1 l.A.1. AGRICULTURAL PLANNED DEVELOPMENTS (CLUSTERING) -
DISCUSSION ........................................... .98-
11.A.2. WABASSO CORRIDOR PLAN ONGOING REVIEW TASK FORCE
AND "CR -510 EAST CORRIDOR COMMITTEE'- CONSIDERATION
OF RECOMMENDATIONS ............................... .101-
1 l.E. SETTLEMENT OF GENERAL LIABILITY CLAIM - MARY CLARK,
FOR TAURUS CLARK, A MINOR ......................... .106-
1 l.F. PAY PLAN STUDY - CODY & ASSOCIATES, INC. ........... .107-
1 l.G.1. WABASSO CAUSEWAY PARK HAPROVEMENTS - AMENDMENT
NO.2 - BRAD SMITH ASSOCIATES (WILLIAM GLOVER, INC.)
.................................................... .108-
11.G.2. ALLOCATION OF DISTRICT 3 TRAFFIC IMPACT FEES FOR
BARBER STREET IMPROVEMENTS - INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT
WITH CITY OF SEBASTIAN ............................ .110 -
APRIL 4, 2000
i 1.G.3. 5TH STREET SW RIGHT-OF-WAY ACQUISITION (BETWEEN 27TH
AND 43m AVENUES) - SIDEWALK IMPROVEMENTS - 3700 5TH
STREET SW - RUBY B. THORNTON ....................... .112-
11.H.1. ANITA PARK SUBDIVISION - 37TH AND 381H STREET (BETWEEN
56TH AND 58TH AVENUES) - PETITION WATER SERVICE - PROJECT
UW -00 -08 -DS ......................................... .114-
11.H.2. RESOLUTION 2000-040 (PROVIDING TOTAL ESTIMATED COST,
METHOD OF PAYMENT OF ASSESSMENTS, NUMBER OF ANNUAL
INSTALLMENTS, AND LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF THE AREA
SPECIFICALLY SERVED) AND RESOLUTION 2000-041 (SETTING A
TIME AND PLACE AT WHICH THE OWNERS OF PROPERTIES AND
OTHER INTERESTED PERSONS MAY APPEAR BEFORE THE
BOARD AND BE HEARD AS TO THE PROPRIETY AND
ADVISABILITY OF CONSTRUCTING THE WATER MAIN
EXTENSION, AS TO THE COST THEREOF, AS TO THE MANNER OF
PAYMENT THEREFOR, AND AS TO THE AMOUNT THEREOF TO
BE SPECIALLY ASSESSED AGAINST EACH PROPERTY
BENEFITTED THEREBY) - SEBASTIAN WATER EXPANSION
PHASES II -D AND II -E - PROJECTS UW -97 -13 -DS AND UW -97 -14 -DS
..................................................... .116-
11.I. CHILDREN'S SERVICES ADVISORY CONB41TTEE - PLAN UPDATE
FOR 2000 -2001 .... .....................................124 -
APRIL 412000
•
LJ
12. RECONSIDERATION OF THOMAS AND GRETCHEN COLLINS REZONING
(EA ING POINT DRIVE AND JUNGLE TRAIL) (ORIGINALLY BEFORE
THE BOARD ON MARCH 21, 2000) ............................ .126-
13.A. CHAIRMAN FRAN B. ADAMS - DISCUSSION OF ORDINANCE 1999-021
ESTABLISHING REGULATIONS GOVERNING ALARMS RESPONDED TO
BY LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES .......................... .128-
13.D. COMMISSIONER RUTH STANBRIDGE - UPDATE REGARDING THE
DIVISION OF STATE LANDS CASE (LOST TREE ISLANDS) ........ .128-
14.A. EMERGENCY SERVICES DISTRICT ............................ .129-
14.B. SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL DISTRICT ........................... .129-
14.C. ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL BOARD ......................... .130 -
APRIL 4, 2000
0
April 4, 2000
REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS
The Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, met in Regular
Session at the County Commission Chambers, 1840 25" Street, Vero Beach, Florida, on
Tuesday, April 4, 2000, at 9:00 a.m. Present were Fran B. Adams, Chairman; Caroline D.
Ginn, Vice Chairman; Kenneth R. Macht; John W. Tippin; and Ruth Stanbridge. Also
present were James E. Chandler, County Administrator; Terrence P. O'Brien, Acting County
Attorney; and Patricia' PJ" Jones, Deputy Clerk.
1. CALL TO ORDER
Chairman Adams called the meeting to order.
2. INVOCATION
Chaplain Ray Scent, Indian River Memorial Hospital, delivered the Invocation.
APRIL 49 2000
,
1 11 '') :�73
3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Acting County Attorney Terrence P. O'Brien led the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag.
4. ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA
Chairman Adams requested the following:
1. Move Item 5.A., Proclamation Designating the Week of April 9-15, 2000 as
Crime Victims' Rights Week in Indian River County, to Item 7.L.
2. Add Item 5.D., Proclamation Designating the Week of April 10-15, 2000 as
First Strike - A Campaign Against Violence Week.
3. Add Item 13.A., Discuss Ordinance 1999-021 Establishing Regulations
Governing Alarms responded to by Law Enforcement Agencies.
Commissioner Stanbridge requested the addition of Item 13.D., Update regarding the
Division of State Lands Case (Lost Tree Islands).
ON MOTION by Commissioner Macht,
SECONDED by Commissioner Tippin, the Board
unanimously made the above changes to the Agenda.
5. PROCLAMATIONS AND PRESENTATIONS
S.A. PROCL 4mATIONDESIGNATING WEEK OFAPRIL 9 THROUGH 1 S, 2000
AS CRIME VICTIMS' WEEK RV INDIAN. RIVER COUNTY
Moved to Item 7.L.
APRIL 4, 2000
S.B. PROCLAMATIONDESIGNATING MONTH OFAPRIL, 2000 AS CENSUS
MONTHININDIANRwER COUNTY
The Chairman presented the following Proclamation to Vincent Simpson of the
Census Bureau:
PROCLAMATION
WHEREAS, the Census Bureau is mandated by the United Stated Constitution to take
a count of the population every ten years; and
WHEREAS, there is a need for a full and fair count in 2000 because the federal
government uses census numbers to allocate more than $180 billion in funds annually for
community development initiatives, among them education and housing programs, health care
services for the elderly and job training; and
WHEREAS, Census 2000 is about civic renewal and bringing members of our
community together in a renewal of civic commitment, and should serve as a rallying point of
our people; and
WHEREAS, Census 2000 is about respect and recognition and will target those groups
that are more often undercounted than others, and who stand to lose most because of their
omission.
■I
APRIL 49 2000
-3-
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT PROCLAIMED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA that April, 2000 be
designated as
CENSUS MONTH
in Indian River County, Florida, and the Board urges every person in Indian River County to
be counted by answering the Census in April, 2000.
Adopted this 4th day of April, 2000.
BOARD OF COUNTYCOMMISSIONERS
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
1�39a,.418 6e��
Fran B. Adams, Chairman
Vincent Simpson, Census Bureau, thanked the Board and Commissioner Ginn in
particular for an outstanding job in helping the County to get a 100% count.
Chairman Adams agreed that Commissioner Ginn has been doing a wonderful job.
Commissioner Ginn encouraged people living in the Gifford area to complete their
forms and return them. She noted that area has had less than a 20% response. She stated
that if people have lost or never received their forms, they can be obtained at several
locations in the County. It is vitally important that everyone be counted.
APRIL 4, 2000
c:
S.C. PROCLAMATION OBSERVING APRIL 8 THROUGH 152000 AS NATIONAL
BLUE RIBBON WEEK IN INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
The Chairman presented the following Proclamation to Judy Martin:
PROCLAMATION
WHEREAS, April is Child Abuse Prevention Month, and child
abuse and neglect is a serious and growing problem affecting more
than two million of our nation's children annually and of children
locally; and
WHEREAS, for ten years the Hibiscus Children's Center in
Jensen Beach has cared for abused children, with more than 30% of
the children served coming from Indian River County; and
WHEREAS, a donation of 4.3 acres on 12th Street in Vero Beach
will allow Hibiscus Children's Center to build a village of homes
to provide long-term children with a more home -like environment,
and the Hibiscus Children's Center will work in conjunction with
other agencies for abused children to lead a more natural
lifestyle; and
WHEREAS, the Hibiscus Children's Center is distributing Blue
Ribbon pins to the general public as a symbol to remind us all that
child abuse is a tragedy which affects each and everyone of us.
APRIL 49 2000
•
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT pROCLAIMED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA that the week of
April 8th -15th be observed as
NATIONAL BLUE RIBBON WEER
in Indian River County, and the Board urges all citizens to use
this time to better understand, recognize and respond to this
grievous problem.
The Board further congratulates the above-mentioned agency for
its continued success in helping families break free from the cycle
of child abuse.
Adopted this 4th day of April, 2000.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
�ca^A -
Fran B. Adams, Chairman
Judy Martin of Hibiscus Children's Center thanked the Board and invited everyone
to a Candlelight Vigil at Memorial Island at 6:30 p.m. on April 10, 2000.
APRIL 4, 2000
S.D. PROCLAMATIONDESIGNATING THE WEEKOFAPRIL 10-1 S. 2000AS
FIRST STRIKE - A CAMPAIGN AGAINST VIOLENCE WEEK
The Chairman presented the following Proclamation to Joan Carlson of the Humane
Society:
PROCLAMATION
WHEREAS, violence has become an increasing part of our communities and
even if it hasn't touched our lives directly, we see its images and effects in our daily
news; and
WHEREAS, sometimes less recognized, animal cruelty is one form of violence
that is also present in every community. It is often an indicator or symptom of other
forms of violent behavior; and
WHEREAS, there is a well-documented connection between violence against
animals and violence against people. Cruelty to animals is a potential indicator of
disturbed family relationships and future antisocial and aggressive behavior toward
humans; and
WHEREAS, there is a widespread and growing attempt nationwide to recognize
and deal with the perpetrators of violence against humans, and at the same time
there is a growing effort to prevent abuse and neglect of animals; and
WHEREAS, the Humane Society of Vero Beach and Indian River County will
sponsor a "First Strike" seminar on Domestic Violence and Animal Abuse on April
141' and I r, 2000 at the Harbor Branch Oceanographic Institute:
APRIL 4, 2000 1
60"1f{
-7-
FF,- -I
BOCK
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT PROCLAIMED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA that the week of April
10 —15, 2000 be designated as
"FIRST STRIKE — A CAMPAIGN AGAINST VIOLENCE" WEEK
in Indian River County.
Adopted this 4�' day of April, 2000.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
Fran B. Adams, Chairman
Joan Carlson of the Humane Society thanked the Board for recognizing this
important campaign and invited everyone io the Heritage Center on April 15`' at 7:00 p.m.
for a presentation to the general public.
APRIL 4, 2000
•
6. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
None.
7. CONSENT AGENDA
Commissioner Ginn requested that Items 7.G. and TH. be separated for discussion.
7.A. REPORTS
The following report was received and is on file in the office of the Clerk to the
Board.
1. St. Johns Water Management District Annual Financial Audit for 1998-99
7.A LIST OF WARRANTS
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of March 161 2000:
To: HONORABLE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
DATE: MARCH 16, 2000
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 March 13, 2000 to March 16, 2000.
APRIL 49 2000
BOCK i i '? ;'AGE t'.':j G
ON MOTION by Commissioner Stanbridge,
SECONDED by Commissioner Ginn, the Board
unanimously approved the list of Warrants as issued
by the Clerk to the Board for March 13, 2000
through March 16, 2000, as recommended by staff.
CHECK
NAME
CHECK
CHECK
NUMBER
DATE
AMOUNT
0020446
HIGHKARK LIFE INSURANCE
2000-03-13
3,957.36
0020447
IRC EMPLOYEE HEALTH INSURANCE-
2000-03-13
6,550.00
0020448
BLUE CROSS/BLUE SHIELD OF
2000-03-13
3,261.18
0020449
O'NEIL, LEE & WEST
2000-03-13
1,835.34
0020450
UNIPSYCH BENEFITS OF FL,INC
2000-03-13
421.20
0020451
IRC EMPLOYEE HEALTH INSURANCE-
2000-03-13
6,585.78
0020452
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
2000-03-13
50.00
0020453
HIGHKARK LIFE INSURANCE
2000-03-15
126.50
0020454
KRUCZKIEWICZ, LORIANE
2000-03-15
138.50
0020455
CAREY,PA PARTICK A.
2000-03-15
285.24
0020456
BUREAU FOR CHILD SUPPORT ENFOR
2000-03-15
92.31
0020457
VELASQUEZ, MERIDA
2000-03-15
200.00
0020458
INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE
2000-03-15
295.00
0020459
IRS - ACS
2000-03-15
50.00
0020460
CHAPTER 13 TRUSTEE
2000-03-15
521.88
0020461
VERO BEACH FIREFIGHTERS ASSOC.
2000-03-15
2,415.00
0020462
INDIAN RIVER FEDERAL CREDIT
2000-03-15
82,995.83
0020463
COLONIAL LIFE & ACCIDENT
2000-03-15
231.03
0020464
NACO/SOUTHEAST
2000-03-15
6,958.25
0020465
SALEM TRUST COMPANY
2000-03-15
541.38
0020466
WISCONSIN SUPPORT COLLECTIONS
2000-03-15
23.08
0020467
FL SDU
2000-03-15
4,841.49
0279141
A B C QUICK PRINTERS
2000-03-16
54.15
0279142
ACTION TRANSMISSION AND
2000-03-16
1,659.03
0279143
A G L L
2000-03-16
106.40
0279144
AIRBORNE EXPRESS
2000-03-16
25.24
0279145
ALCALDE, RENATO MD
2000-03-16
50.00
0279146
ALPHA ACE HARDWARE
2000-03-16
45.36
0279147
ATLANTIC REPORTING
2000-03-16
371.85
0279148
ACTION DIESEL INJECTION
2000-03-16
77.05
0279149
ALTIERI, DR JOSEPH J
2000-03-16
2,023.00
0279150
ALL FLORIDA COFFEE & BOTTLED
2000-03-16
89.85
0279151
A A ELECTRIC SE, INC
2000-03-16
_ 267.50
0279152
ALL RITE WATER CONDITIONING
2000-03-16
137.75
0279153
ADDISON OIL CO
2000-03-16
493.91
0279154
ABARE, EDWARD J III
2000-03-16
172.78
0279155
ADAMS, COOGLER, WATSON &
2000-03-16
64.32
0279156
A T & T WIRELESS SERVICES
2000-03-16
60.50
0279157
A T & T
2000-03-16
97.96
0279158
AMERIGAS-FT PIERCE
2000-03-16
199.12
0279159
AUTO PARTS OF VERO, INC
2000-03-16
3,456.76
APRIL 4, 2000
-10-
0 0
CHECK
NAME
CHECK
CHECK
NUMBER
DATE
AMOUNT
0279160
ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES
2000-03-16
6,000.30
0279161
AVIS
2000-03-16
47.37
0279162
ARCH PAGING
2000-03-16
19.80
0279163
AMERITREND HOMES
2000-03-16
500.00
0279164
ALBERTSON'S
2000-03-16
141.01
0279165
ATLANTIC ORTHOPAEDIC GROUP
2000-03-16
115.36
0279166
ATLANTIC REPORTING
2000-03-16
19.00
0279167
AAAI/ISMA
2000-03-16
113.00
0279168
AHEAD HEADGEAR INC
2000-03-16
1,141.33
0279169
BAKER DISTRIBUTING CO
2000-03-16
16.71
0279170
BARTON, JEFFREY K -CLERK
2000-03-16
4,274.25
0279171
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
2000-03-16
5,907.17
0279172
BARTON, JEFFREY K- CLERK
2000-03-16
41,836.83
0279173
BARNETT BAIL BONDS
2000-03-16
1,000.00
0279174
BERTOLETTE, RANDALL DEB, MD
2000-03-16
25.00
0279175
BRAD SMITH ASSOCIATES, INC
2000-03-16
308.75
0279176
BAKER & TAYLOR INC
2000-03-16
871.61
0279177
BRODART CO
2000-03-16
447.19
0279178
BURGERT, ANNETTE K
2000-03-16
40.00
0279179
BREVARD ORTHOPAEDIC CLINIC
2000-03-16
168.15
0279180
BFI WASTE SYSTEMS
2000-03-16
71.41
0279181
BOOKS ON TAPE INC
2000-03-16
5.00
0279182
BELLSOUTH MOBILITY
2000-03-16
66.78
0279183
SELLSOUTH
2000-03-16
20,815.42
0279184
BOLLE AMERICA, INC
2000-03-16
60.00
0279185
BETTER COPY CENTER, A
2000-03-16
799.04
0279186
BLUE CROSS/BLUE SHIELD OF
2000-03-16
30,312.25
0279187
BARTON, JEFFREY K
2000-03-16
1,032.78
0279188
BEAM, BETTY
2000-03-16
36.05
0279189
BUZA, PAUL W DO
2000-03-16
150.00
0279190
BISSET MD, ROBERT
2000-03-16
200.00
0279191
BELLSOUTH
2000-03-16
114.85
0279192
CARTER ASSOCIATES, INC
2000-03-16
205.74
0279193
COLD AIR DISTRIBUTORS
2000-03-16
686.41
0279194
COLKITT SHEET METAL & AIR, INC
2000-03-16
328.00
0279195
COMMUNICATIONS INT'L INC
2000-03-16
559.95
0279196
CHEMSEARCH
2000-03-16
141.12
0279197
CHAMBER OF COMMERCE
2000-03-16
4,862.97
0279198
COX GIFFORD FUNERAL HOME
2000-03-16
300.00
0279199
CLEARFIELD COMPANY, INC
2000-03-16
381.35
0279200
CONGRESSIONAL QUARTERLY INC
2000-03-16
119.43
0279201
COPELAND, LINDA
2000-03-16
80.50
0279202
CLIFF BERRY ENVIRONMENTAL
2000-03-16
195.00
0279203
C EANNET USA
2000-03-16
20,537.72
0279204
CUES, INC
2000-03-16
288.98
0279205
CHAMPION MANUFACTURING INC
2000-03-16
398.25
0279206
CENTRAL PUMP & SUPPLY INC
2000-03-16
15.49
0279207
CRAWFORD, SANDY
2000-03-16
25.00
0279208
CENTER FOR EMOTIONAL AND
2000-03-16
381.50
0279209
COPYCO, INC
2000-03-16
181.10
0279210
CRIMES COMPENSATION TRUST
2000-03-16
440.00
0279211
CULTURAL COUNCIL OF INDIAN
2000-03-16
6,305.78
0279212
CONRADO, STEFANIE
2000-03-16
88.84
0279213
CARQUEST AUTO PARTS
2000-03-16
1,418.39
0279214
CARQUEST AUTO PARTS
2000-03-16
60.88
0279215
CARGILL INC -SALT DIVISION
2000-03-16
1,088.22
0279216
COLUMBIA PROPANE
2000-03-16
10.50
0279217
COOLEY, SCOTT
2000-03-16
500.00
0279218
CENTRAL AIR CONDITIONING &
2000-03-16
138.69
0279219
DAILY COURIER SERVICE
2000-03-16
671.50
APRIL 49 2000
CHECK
NAME
CHECK
CHECK
NUMBER
DATE
AMOUNT
0279220
DELTA SUPPLY CO
2000-03-16
88.50
0279221
DEPENDABLE DODGE, INC
2000-03-16
6.53
0279222
DOCTOR'S CLINIC
2000-03-16
1,283.86
0279223
DON SMITH'S PAINT STORE, INC
2000-03-16
331.81
0279224
DAVIDSON TITLES, INC
2000-03-16
4,971.58
0279225
DEAF SERVICE CENTER OF THE
2000-03-16
625.00
0279226
DATABASE TECHNOLOGIES INC
2000-03-16
61.25
0279227
DOWNTOWN VERO BEACH ASSOC.
2000-03-16
12,109.05
0279228
DOCTOR'S CLINIC
2000-03-16
900.00
0279229
D U -J'S INC
2000-03-16
500.00
0279230
DOUBLETREE HOTEL ORLANDO
2000-03-16
95.00
0279231
EVANS, FLOYD
2000-03-16
25.00
0279232
EGP, INC
2000-03-16
354.00
0279233
EDLUND & DRITENBAS
2000-03-16
4,082.46
0279234
EHMI
2000-03-16
2,618.00
0279235
EMSAR EQUIPMENT
2000-03-16
600.00
0279236
FGFOA/FACC MEETING
2000-03-16
230.00
0279237
FEDEX
2000-03-16
57.41
0279238
FISHER SCIENTIFIC
2000-03-16
154.15
0279239
FLORIDA COCA-COLA BOTTLING CO
2000-03-16
226.90
0279240
FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY
2000-03-16
8,895.11
0279241
FLORIDA PUBLIC PERSONNEL
2000-03-16
90.00
0279242
FRASER ENGINEERING & TESTING
2000-03-16
100.00
0279243
FOOT -JOY DRAWER
2000-03-16
2,581.38
0279244
FLOWERS BAKING COMPANY OF
2000-03-16
94.08
0279245
FLORIDA TIRE RECYCLING, INC
2000-03-16
750.00
0279246
FATHER & SON ELECTRONICS
2000-03-16
43.00
0279247
FAIRWINDS TRAVEL & TOURS
2000-03-16
297.00
0279248
FALZONE, KATHY
2000-03-16
60.09
0279249
FENIMORE, CHARLES
2000-03-16
45.00
0279250
FATHER & SON CARPET, INC
2000-03-16
100.00
0279251
FORE COMMUNICATIONS, INC
2000-03-16
149.00
0279252
FLORIDA ANIMAL LEAGUE
2000-03-16
75.00
0279253
FACTICON, INC
2000-03-16
175.00
0279254
FLORIDA CLINICAL PRACTICE
2000-03-16
59.00
0279255
FREIGHTLINER TRUCKS OF SOUTH
2000-03-16
455.55
0279256
FIRESTONE TIRE & SERVICE
2000-03-16
1,356.20
0279257
FINAL TOUCH INC, THE
2000-03-16
500.00
0279258
GALE GROUP, THE
2000-03-16
143.68
379.24
0279259
GENEALOGICAL PUBLISHING
2000-03-16
0279260
GENERAL GMC, TRUCK
2000-03-16
166.00
0279261
GLIDDEN COMPANY, THE
2000-03-16
12.95
0279262
GRAYBAR ELECTRIC CO INC
2000-03-16
702.61
0279263
GALL'S INC
2000-03-16
622.71
0279264
GROVE, KEITH T DDS, MS VMD
2000-03-16
15.00
0279265
GRENELEFE RESORT
2000-03-16
595.00
0279266
GOLLNICK, PEGGY
2000-03-16
346.50
0279267
GREAT OUTDOORS PUBLISHING CO
2000-03-16
108.20
0279268
GALE INSULATION
2000-03-16
30.00
0279269
GREEN, PHILLIP
2000-03-16
108.15
0279270
GLACE & P.ADCLIFFE, INC
2000-03-16
32,864.27
0279271
GATOR CITY TAXI
2000-03-16
230.00
0279272
K
GEMS SENSORS, INC
2000-03-16
171.00
0279273
HAMMOND & SMITH, P A
2000-03-16
2,302.39
0279274
HARRIS SANITATION, INC
2000-03-16
32.00
0279275
HICKMAN'S BRAKE & ALIGNMENT
2000-03-16
192.00
0279276
HUMANE SOCIETY OF VERO BEACH
2000-03-16
13,685.00
0279277
HUNTER AUTO SUPPLIES
2000-03-16
587.56
0279278
HELD, PATRICIA BARGO
2000-03-16
126.00
0279279
HIBISCUS CHILDREN'S CENTER
2000-03-16
2,083.33
APRIL 49 2000
-12-
• •
CHECK
NAME
CHECK
CHECK
NUMBER
DATE
AMOUNT
0279280
HIGHLANDS ANIMAL HOSPITAL
2000-03-16
107.35
0279281
HATFIELD, ERIC
2000=03-16
240.00
0279282
HARBOR FEDERAL
2000-03-16
191.39
0279283
HAZELL, MARILYN
2000-03-16
1,608.66
0279284
HUNTER, TAMIKA
2000-03-16
82.40
0279285
HEAVYQUIP
2000-03-16
10,921.97
0279286
HUGHEY, JASON L
2000-03-16
8.00
0279287
HAMPTON INN TALLAHASSEE
2000-03-16
158.00
0279288
INDIAN.RIVER COUNTY SOLID
2000-03-16
258.30
0279289
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
2000-03-16
200.00
0279290
INDIAN RIVER BATTERY, INC
2000-03-16
824.93
0279291
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
2000-03-16
49.00
0279292
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY UTILITY
2000-03-16
34.38
0279293
INDIAN RIVER FARMS WATER
2000-03-16
2,076.00
0279294
INDIAN RIVER OXYGEN, INC
2000-03-16
1,483.14
0279295
INGRAM LIBRARY SERVICES
2000-03-16
23.73
0279296
INDIAN RIVER ANIMAL HOSPITAL
2000-03-16
30.00
0279297
INDIAN RIVER MEMORIAL HOSPITAL
2000-03-16
253.32
0279298
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
2000-03-16
53.19
0279299
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
2000-03-16
49,682.50
0279300
INSURANCE SERVICING &
2000-03-16
1,050.00
0279301
IBM CORPORATION
2000-03-16
47.00
0279302
INDIAN RIVER ALL -FAB, INC
2000-03-16
333.29
0279303
IRC EMPLOYEE HEALTH INSURANCE-
2000-03-16
227,693.50
0279304
INTERIM PERSONNEL
2000-03-16
631.04
0279305
INTERISK CORPORATION
2000-03-16
3,242.30
0279306
JACOBS ELECTRIC MOTOR REPAIR
2000-03-16
373.50
0279307
JANIE DEAN CHEVROLET, INC
2000-03-16
1,719.33
0279308
JOHN LLOYD BUILDERS, INC
2000-03-16
500.00
0279309
JANITORIAL DEPOT OF AMERICA
2000-03-16
652.90
0279310
JACOBS, JEREMY
2000-03-16
82.40
0279311
JOHNSON, COURTNEY
2000-03-16
150.00
0279312
JONES CHEMICALS, INC
2000-03-16
638.00
0279313
KNIGHT & MATHIS, INC
2000-03-16
467.50
0279314
KELLY TRACTOR CO
2000-03-16
90.72
0279315
KEY, PATRICIA W
2000-03-16
346.50
0279316
KT MOWER & EQUIPMENT
2000-03-16
410.87
0279317
K & M ELECTRIC SUPPLY INC
2000-03-16
226.43
0279318
KIPP, BILLY C
2000-03-16
169.95
0279319
KNOWLES, CYRIL
2000-03-16
519.52
0279320
KELLY, CHAD
2000-03-16
500.00
0279321
LOWE'S COMPANIES, INC.
2000-03-16
5,461.97
0279322
LIVE OAK ANIMAL HOSPITAL
2000-03-16
11.75
0279323
LIGHT SOURCE BUSINESS SYSTEMS
2000-03-16
276.00
0279324
LIBRARIES UNLIMITED, INC
2000-03-16
27.49
0279325
LESCO, INC
2000-03-16
208.39
0279326
LARGE PRINT LIBRARY DISCOUNTER
2000-03-16
44.06
0279327
LUNA, JORGE
2000-03-16
103.00
0279328
LANGUAGE SERVICES, LTD
2000-03-16
279.10
0279329
LEWIS, BARBARA
2000-03-16
36.05
0279330
LUNA, JUVENAL
2000-03-16
64.38
0279331
LEXIS PUBLISHING
2000-03-16
108.00
0279332
LAUREL HOMES, INC
2000-03-16
644.25
0279333
LABCORP
2000-03-16
12.00
0279334
MAXWELL PLUMBING, INC
2000-03-16
159.37
0279335
MIKES GARAGE
2000-03-16
140.00
0279336
MOSBY & ASSOC, INC
2000-03-16
306.58
0279337
MORGAN AND EKLUND, INC
2000-03-16
6,438.15
0279338
MORNINGSTAR, INC
2000-03-16
5,225.40
0279339
MULTILINE BUILDING
2000-03-16
475.00
0279340
MULLER, MINTZ, KORNREICH,
2000-03-16
1,441.04
APRIL 49 2000
DOCK J1 m, A L i <a
CHECK
NAME
CHECK
CHECK
NUMBER
DATE
AMOUNT
0279341
M & R SPORTSWEAR
2000-03-16
70.94
0279342
MIDWEST TAPE EXCHANGE
2000-03-16
139.98
0279343
MR BOB PORTABLE TOILET
2000-03-16
148.44
0279344
MARC INDUSTRIES
2000-03-16
1,587.04
0279345
MELCHIORI, NICK
2000-03-16
60.00
0279346
MOSS, ROGER
2000-03-16
61.80
0279347
MCGUIRE, GEORGE SEAN
2000-03-16
69.02
0279348
MOSS, MARY
2000-03-16
23.18
0279349
MAXWELL, KIMBERLY
2000-03-16
43.78
0279350
MCCLOUD, CHARLES
2000-03-16
500.00
0279351
MEDTRONICS PHYSIO -CONTROL
2000-03-16
6,036.00
0279352
MAIL PHARMACY SERVICE
2000-03-16
90.00
0279353
NORTH SOUTH SUPPLY INC
2000-03-16
24.73
0279354
NEW HORIZONS OF THE TREASURE
2000-03-16
33,369.25
0279355
NVLSP
2000-03-16
160.00
0279356
NU CO 2, INC
2000-03-16
70.50
0279357
NOCUTS, INC
2000-03-16
75.00
0279358
NATIONAL FIRE AND SAFETY
2000-03-16
570.00
0279359
NORTRAX EQUIPMENT COMPANY
2000-03-16
640.37
0279360
OFFICE PRODUCTS & SERVICE
2000-03-16
965.44
0279361
OSCEOLA MEDICAL SUPPLY
2000-03-16
90.00
0279362
OFFICE DEPOT, INC
2000-03-16
1,945.03
0279363
OSCEOLA PHARMACY
2000-03-16
88.65
0279364
O'NEIL, LEE & WEST
2000-03-16
17,059.25
0279365
ORLANDO, KAREN M
2000-03-16
353.50
0279366
PEACE RIVER ELECTRIC
2000-03-16
54.82
0279367
PEPSI -COLA COMPANY
2000-03-16
47.50
0279368
PERKINS INDIAN RIVER PHARMACY
2000-03-16
269.96
0279369
PETTY CASH
2000-03-16
57.46
0279370
PHILLIPS, LINDA R
2000-03-16
427.00
0279371
POWERLINE ELECTRIC
2000-03-16
88.00
0279372
PORT PETROLEUM, INC
2000-03-16
1,176.30
0279373
PARLIAMENTARY REPORTING OF
2000-03-16
303.25
0279374
POSTMASTER
2000-03-16
132.00
0279375
PINEAPPLE PRESS, INC
2000-03-16
77.85
0279376
PIERONE, GERALD JR, MD
2000-03-16
30.00
0279377
PEEK TRAFFIC SYSTEMS, INC
2000-03-16
536.00
0279378
PANGBURN, TERRI
2000-03-16
24.00
0279379
PRAXAIR DISTRIBUTION
2000-03-16
118.95
0279380
PRESS JOURNAL
2000-03-16
125.19
0279381
PARKER, DEBBIE
2000-03-16
72.10
0279382
PAYNE, JAMES
2000-03-16
110.00
0279383
PROFORMA
2000-03-16
89.45
0279384
PALM BAY ANESTHESIA ASSOCIATES
2000-03-16
205.05
0279385
QUALITY BOOKS, INC
2000-03-16
42.16
0279386
RADIOSHACK
2000-03-16
439.05
0279387
RINGHAVER
2000-03-16
629.02
0279388
ROY, DORI
2000-03-16
13.00
0279389
ROHANI, SASAN
2000-03-16
6.00
0279390
RICHMOND HYDRAULICS INC
2000-03-16
102.00
0279391
RECORDED BOOKS INC
2000-03-16
264.22
0279392
R & G SOD FARMS
2000-03-16
2,040.00
0279393
RENTAL 1 y
2000-03-16
566.31
0279394
RIGER, JACOB M
2000-03-16
80.68
0279395
REXEL CONSOLIDATED ELECTRIC
2000-03-16
1,355.00
0279396
REGIONS INTERSTATE BILLING
2000-03-16
1,040.72
0279397
ROMANO, CHRISTINA
2000-03-16
16.74
0279398
RIVERSIDE LEASING CO
2000-03-16
614.00
0279399
RIVER ONE DEVELOPME*T
2000-03-16
500.00
0279400
SCOTTY'S, INC
2000-03-16
70.49
APRIL 4, 2000
CHECK
NAME
NUMBER
AMOUNT
0279401
SEBASTIAN BUSINESS SUPPLY, INC
0279402
SEWELL HARDWARE CO, INC
0279403
SOUTHERN ELECTRIC SUPPLY
0279404
ST LUCIE BATTERY & TIRE, INC
0279405
SUNRISE FORD TRACTOR &
0279406
SHELTRA & SON CONSTRUCTION
0279407
SAFESPACE INC
0279408
SELIG CHEMICAL IND
0279409
STEVENS BROTHERS FUNERAL HOME
0279410
SALEM PRESS, INC
0279411
SUPERIOR PRINTING
0279412
SEBASTIAN POLICE DEPARTMENT
0279413
SCHILL, LARRY
0279414
ST LUCIE COUNTY
0279415
SARAH BRYSON INDUSTRIES
0279416
STM/SAVE THE MOMENT
0279417
SULLIVAN, RACHEL
0279418
SALTONSTALL, MYRNA
0279419
SILEO, STEVEN ANDREW
0279420
SEMINOLE OF OKEECHOBEE INC
0279421
SEBASTIAN POWER CENTER RENTAL
0279422
SCHLITT, LARRY
0279423
STEWART, SARAH LYNN
0279424
THOMAS, DEBBY L
0279425
TITLEIST DRAWER
0279426
TREASURE COAST REFUSE
0279427
TREASURE COAST ANIMAL CLINIC
0279428
TINDALE OLIVER & ASSOC., INC
0279429
TIPPIN, JOHN W
0279430
HIGHMARK LIFE INSURANCE
0279431
TRUGREEN CHEMLAWN
0279432
TARGET STORE T-1050
0279433
TANDY BRANDS ACCESSORIES
0279434
T C BILLING CORPORATION
0279435
TREASURE COAST REFUSE
0279436
TREASURE COAST NEWSPAPERS
0279437
TREASURE COAST SPORTS
0279438
TACO BELL #3971
0279439
TOMMY HILFIGER GOLF
0279440
UPSTART
0279441 ULVERSCROFT LARGE PRINT
0279442 UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA
0279443 US FILTER DISTRIBUTION GROUP
0279444 UNIPSYCH BENEFITS OF FL,INC
0279445 VELDE FORD, INC
0279446 VERO BEACH, CITY OF
0279447 VERO CHEMICAL DISTRIBUTORS,INC
0279448 VERO LAWNMOWER CENTER, INC
0279449 VERO BEACH, CITY OF
0279450 VERO BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT
0279451 VERO BEARING & BOLT
0279452 VOLUNTEER ACTION CENTER
0279453 VERO HERITAGE, INC
0279454 VANTAGE EQUIPMENT CO
0279455 WAL-MART STORES, INC
0279456 WALGREENS PHARMACY #3607
0279457 WALGREENS PHARMACY #03608
0279458 WELTER, PETER DC
0279459 W W GRAINGER, INC
0279460 WIGINTON FIRE SPRINKLERS,INC
APRIL 49 2000
-15-
CHECK
CHECK
DATE
AMOUNT
2000-03-16
153.28
200003-16
159.87
2000-03-16
861.63
2000-03-16
162.45
2000-03-16
40.12
2000-03-16
91,654.64
2000-03-16
1,250.00
2000-03-16
105.55
2000-03-16
900.00
2000-03-16
272.50
2000-03-16
235.05
2000-03-16
60.00
2000-03-16
32.00
2000-03-16
3,205.00
2000-03-16
80.65
2000-03-16
41.00
2000-03-16
169.95
2000-03-16
97.85
2000-03-16
132.50
2000-03-16
45.00
2000-03-16
285.00
2000-03-16
500.00
2000-03-16
38.63
2000-03-16
367.50
2000-03-16
44.96
2000-03-16
39,774.01
2000-03-16
30.00
2000-03-16
4,520.23
2000-03-16
26.39
2000-03-16
6,334.33
2000-03-16
765.00
2000-03-16
180.00
2000-03-16
492.34
2000-03-16
8,352.31
2000-03-16
74.25
2000-03-16
184.50
2000-03-16
2,500.00
2000-03-16
440.00
2000-03-16
188.20
2000-03-16
12.30
2000-03-16
712.11
2000-03-16
1,300.00
2000-03-16
4,985.20
2000-03-16
3,915.00
2000-03-16
780.41
2000-03-16
"9,992.52
2000-03-16
168.59
2000-03-16
138.56
2000-03-16
215.99
2000-03-16
50.00
2000-03-16
255.62
2000-03-16
50.00
2000-03-16
1,305.11
2000-03-16
41.31
2000-03-16
422.43
2000-03-16
557.04
2000-03-16
964.45
2000-03-16
101.15
2000-03-16
127.66
2000-03-16
664.00
A L vi
0
I
CHECK
NAME
CHECK
CHECK
NUMBER
DATE
AMOUNT
2000-03-16
1,430.69
0279461
WINN DIXIE
2000-03-16
130.00
0279462
WILLHOFF, PATSY
2000-03-16
138.00
0279463
WILLIAMS, BETTY R, RN
2000-03-16
194.60
0279464
WHEELER PUBLISHING, INC
2000-03-16
150.00
0279465
WORKERS COMPENSATION SEMINARS
20.00
0279466
WALKER, KEITH
2000-03-16
2000-03-16
8.69
0279467
WALGREENS PHARMACY #4642
2000-03-16
33.48
0279468
WOLFE, ERIN
2000-03-16
200.85
0279469
WILSON, SUSAN BARNES
2000-03-16
88.90
0279470
WINN DIXIE PHARMACY #2366
2000-03-16
552.77
0279471
XEROX CORPORATION
2000-03-16
54.08
0279472
ZAMARRIPA, JAIME
2000-03-16
411.46
0279473
THOMAS, JAMES SR
2000-03-16
486.14
0279474
MERCURI, DEBRA
2000-03-16
494.00
0279475
JOHNSON, LETISHA D
2000-03-16
62.73
0 279476
SCANDVIK
991,077.79
7. C. LIST OF WARRANTS
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of March 24, 2000:
TO: HONORABLE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
DATE: MARCH 24, 2000
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 March 24, 2000 to March 24, 2000.
APRIL 4, 2000
-16-
0 0
ON MOTION by Commissioner Stanbridge,
SECONDED by Commissioner Grin, the Board
unanimously approved the list of Warrants as issued
by the Clerk to the Board for March 24, 2000, as
recommended by staff.
CHECK
NAME
CHECK
CHECK
NUMBER
DATE
AMOUNT
0020468
TEAMSTERS LOCAL UNION NO 769
2000-03-21
4,008.66
0279477
A A FIRE EQUIPMENT, INC
2000-03-23
386.15
0279478
ADVANCED GARAGE DOORS, INC
2000-03-23
2,135.00
0279479
AERO PRODUCTS CORPORATION
2000-03-23
372.59
0279480
AIRBORNE EXPRESS
2000-03-23
10.56
0279481
ALEXANDER BATTERY COMPANY
2000-03-23
823.68
0279482
ACTION ANSWERING SERVICE
2000-03-23
308.50
0279483
A M BEST COMPANY
2000-03-23
88.95
0279484
ATLANTIC REPORTING
2000-03-23
362.40
0279485
ABS PUMPS, INC
2000-03-23
122.04
0279486
ACTION DIESEL INJECTION
2000-03-23
3x.48
0279487
AQUAGENIX LAND -WATER
2000-03-23
191.00
0279488
A A ELECTRIC SE, INC
2000-03-23
65.05
0279489
AMERITREND CORPORATION
2000-03-23
500.00
0279490
A T & T
2000-03-23
149.50
0279491
ASHWORTH INC
2000-03-23
196.33
0279492
ASHBROOK CORPORATION
2000-03-23
2,989.03
0279493
ATLANTIC COASTAL TITLE CORP
2000-03-23
77.00
0279494
ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES
2000-03-23
28.11
0279495
APPERSON CHEMICALS,INC
2000-03-23
2,895.42
0279496
ATLANTIC COASTAL TITLE CORP
2000-03-23
385.00
0279497
ALK-ABELLO INC
2000-03-23
120.50
0279498
APPLIED TECHNOLOGY AND
2000-03-23
68,924.59
0279499
AMERICAN ENGINEERING SERVICES
2000-03-23
3,267.62
0279500
ASSOCIATES, THE
2000-03-23
7,310.16
0279501
ALTER, ARLEEN
2000-03-23
236.00
0279502
AMERICAN PUBLIC WORKS ASSOC
2000-03-23
200.00
0279503
ADVERTISING & SUPPLY
2000-03-23
174.90
0279504
AMERICANA BOOKS
2000-03-23
35.00
0279505
ALMA ROSTERS BOOKS
2000-03-23
18.00
0279506
ABERNATHY, MARVIN W
2000-03-23
7,491.60
0279507
ACTION -WELDING SUPPLY INC
2000-03-23
22.00
0279508
B & B INDUSTRIAL SUPPLY
2000-03-23
439.36
0279509
BAKER DISTRIBUTING CO
2000-03-23
720.69
0279510
BARTH CONSTRUCTION
2000-03-23
500.00
0279511
BARTON, JEFFREY K -CLERK
2000-03-23
2,294.50
0279512
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
2000-03-23
9,489.89
0279513
BERNAN ASSOCIATES
2000-03-23
159.00
0279514
BETTER BUSINESS FORMS, INC
2000-03-23
145.24
0279515
BLACKHAWK QUARRY COMPANY
2000-03-23
335.67
APRIL 49 2000
-17- so K
an, ,ii� 1) �3
APRIL 4, 2000
CHECK
CHECK
CHECK
NAME
DATE
AMOUNT
NUMBER
2000-03-23
62.65
0279516
BROOKS, RONALD R
2000-03-23
200.00
0279517
BRUGNOLI, ROBERT J PHD
2000-03-23
2,139.25
0279518
BARTON, JEFFREY K -CLERK
2000-03-23
2,972.34
0279519
BAKER & TAYLOR INC
2000-03-23
1,108.28
0279520
BRODART CO
2000-03-23
18.00
0279521
BOYNTON PUMP & IRRIGATION
0279522
BIRELEY, RICHARD
2000-03-23
500.002000-03-23 284.14
0279523
BFI WASTE SYSTEMS
2000-03-23
226.40
0279524
BOOKS ON TAPE INC
2000-03-23
228.81
0279525
BAKER & TAYLOR ENTERTAINMENT
1 9.50
0279526
BELLSOUTH MOBILITY
2000-03-23
2000-03-23
10,587.47
0279527
BELLSOUTH
2000- 23
5.7503-
0279528
BOLLE AMERICA, INC
2000-03-23
500.00
0279529
BEAZER HOMES, INC
2000-03-23
155.10
0279530
BETTER COPY CENTER, A
2000-03-23
669.12
16,574.85
0279531
BLUE CROSS/BLUE SHIELD OF
0279532
BELLSOUTH
2000-03-23
2000-03-23
35.86
0279533
BELLSOUTH PUBLIC COMMUNICATION
3,271.92
0279534
BOYES & FARINA P A
2000-03-23
35.00
0279535
BOOKCORNER
2000-03-23
2000-03-23
750.00
0279536
BITTAR, EDWARD F MD
2000-03-23
500.00
0279537
BAKER, RICHARD H
2000-03-23
338.46
0279538
0279539
BINFORD, MARSHALL
BEST WESTERN PINK SHELL BEACH
2000-03-23
237.00
0279540
B & F TECHNICAL CODE SERVICES
2000-03-23
245.00
1,885.76
0279541
BELLSOUTH
2000-03-23
2000-03-23
306.09
0279542
CAMERON & BARKLEY COMPANY
2000-03-23
33,465.94
0279543
CAMP, DRESSER & MCKEE, INC
2000-03-23
12,528.45
0279544
CARTER ASSOCIATES, INC
81.00
0279545
CENTRAL WINDOW OF
2000-03-23
21.00
0279546
CLEMENTS PEST CONTROL
2000-03-23
1,423.00
0279547
CLIMATIC HEATING & A/C
2000-03-23
0279548
COMMUNICATIONS INT'L INC
2000-03-23
13,138.39
0279549
CHAMBER OF COMMERCE
2000-03-23
9,938.65
0279550
CUTTING EDGE SIGN CO., THE
2000-03-23
300.00
0279551
COASTAL REFINING & MARKETING
2000-03-23
9,314.03
0279552
CENTER FOR THE ARTS, INC
2000-03-23
4,466.71
0279553
CINDY'S PET CENTER, INC
2000-03-23
41.63
444.44
0279554
CALL ONE, INC
2000-03-23
39.00
0279555
CRITTENDEN GOLF INC
2000-03-23
100.00
0279556
CLIFFORD, MIKE
2000-03-23
1,583.70
0279557
CHAMPION MANUFACTURING INC
2000-03-23
0279558
CORPORATION OF THE PRESIDENT
2000-03-23
61.75
0279559
CARD CENTERS OF FL INC
2000-03-23
675.00
0279560
CENTRAL PUMP & SUPPLY INC
2000-03-23
140.47
0279561
CHELSEA HOUSE PUBLISHERS
2000-03-23
16.11
0279562
CENTER FOR EMOTIONAL AND
2000-03-23
281.50
0279563
COPYCO, INC
2000-03-23
815.68
0279564
CONSOLIDATED RESOURCE RECOVERY
2000-03-23
108,493.52
0279565
CIGARS UNLIMITED
2000-03-23
132.28
0279566
CIBA SPECIALTY CHEMICALS
2000-03-23
7,779.24
0279567
COLUMBIA PROPANE
2000-03-23
50.07
0279568
CONSOLIDATED ELECTRICAL DIST
2000-03-23
3,278.00
0279569
CLORTEC -
2000-03-23
6,000.00
0279570
CALHOUN'S BOOKS
2000-03-23
50.00
0279571
HAROLD CORDNER, MD
2000-03-23
200.00
0279572
CITY OF JACKSONVILLE FLORIDA
2000-03-23
30.00
0279573
C S U S FOUNDATION
2000-03-23
264.00
0279574
CENTRAL AIR CONDITIONING &
2000-03-23
172.76
0279575
DELTA SUPPLY CO
2000-03-23
71.75
0279576
DEMCO INC
2000-03-23
21.08
APRIL 4, 2000
APRIL 49 2000
-19-
CHECK
CHECK
CHECK
NAME
DATE
AMOUNT
NUMBER
2000-03-23
1,630.29
0279577
DICRERSON-FLORIDA, INC
2000-03-23
283.85
0279578
DIRECT.SAFETY COMPANY
2000-03-23
112.50
0279579
DION, RITA
2000-03-23
1,681.05
0279580
DATA SUPPLIES, INC
2000-03-23
338.46
0279581
DANIELS, MARK
2000-03-23
1,165.01
0279582
DAVIDSON TITLES, INC
2000-03-23
65.00
0279583
DAYTON, JAMES
DELRAY STAKES & SHAVINGS INC
000-03-23
20
712.80
0279584
0-03-23
1,000.33
0279585
DADE PAPER COMPANY
2000-03-23
26.49
0279586
DENNY'S
2000-03-23
177.21
0279587
DOWNTOWN PRODUCE INC
2000-03-23
300.00
0279588
DILLON, EDWARD D
2000-03-23
2,240.87
0279589
DOLPHIN DATA PRODUCTS INC
2000-03-23
2,052.77
0279590
D CARR INVESTMENTS, INC
2000-03-23
338.46
0279591
DUBOIS, PETER
2000-03-23
196.00
0279592
DAYS INN
ELLIOTT BUSINESS MACHINES, INC
000-03-23
161.25
0279593
2000-03-23
354.00
0279594
E D DESIGNER HATS
2000-03-23
18,093.10
0279595
ECOLOGICAL ASSOCIATES INC
280
0279596
FGFOA/FACC MEETING
2000-03-23
.00
49.17
2000-03-23
0279597
FEDEB
2000-03-23
186.83
0279598
FISHER SCIENTIFIC
2000-03-23
59.92
0279599
FLORIDA BAR, THE
COCA-COLA BOTTLING CO
2000-03-23
847.75
0279600
0279601
FLORIDA
FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY
2000-03-23
43,485.26
0279602
FLORIDA SLUDGE, INC
2000-03-23
4,977.00
195.30
0279603
FLORIDA WATER RESOURCES
2000-03-23
92.63
0279604
FOOT -JOY DRAWER
2000-03-23
219.72
0279605
FLOWERS BAKING COMPANY OF
2000-03-23
985.20
0279606
FLORIDA TIRE RECYCLING, INC
2000-03-23
158.00
0279607
FAIRFIELD HOTEL
2000-03-23
5,000.00
0279608
FLORIDA DEPT OF COMMUNITY
2000-03-23
0279609
FATHER & SON CARPET, INC
2000-03-23
150.00
0279610
FLORIDA NOTARY SERVICE AND
2000-03-23
147.80
0279611
FLORIDA LEAGUE OF CITIES, INC
2000-03-23
725.00
0279612
F & W PUBLICATIONS INC
2000-03-23
94.07
0279613
FREIGHTLINER TRUCKS OF SOUTH
2000-03-23
1,538.29
0279614
FIRESTONE TIRE & SERVICE
2000-03-23
1,474.00
0279615
FELIX EQUITIES, INC
2000-03-23
55,188.66
0279616
GALE GROUP, THE
2000-03-23
721.40
0279617
GAYLORD BROTHERS, INC
2000-03-23
190.58
0279618
GLIDDEN COMPANY, THE
2000-03-23
29.59
0279619
GOODKNIGHT LAWN EQUIPMENT, INC
2000-03-23
25.17
0279620
GRAYBAR ELECTRIC CO INC
2000-03-23
391.56
0279621
GALL'S INC
2000-03-23
399.80
0279622
GROCHOLL, KEITH
2000-03-23
39.00
0279623
GRILL REFILL, INC
2000-03-23
120.00
0279624
GROLIER EDUCATIONAL
2000-03-23
795.00
0279625
GIFFORD YOUTH ACTIVITIES CENTS
2000-03-23
7,579.95
0279626
GOLDEN LAKES SOFTWARE
2000-03-23
760.00
0279627
GRAPH% PRINTING
2000-03-23
1,367.00
0279628
GOMEZ, JESUS
2000-03-23
338.46
0279629
GRASS, BARBARA
2000-03-23
338.46
0279630
HARRIS SANITATION, INC
2000-03-23
82.06
0279631
HUNTER AUTO SUPPLIES
2000-03-23
168.81
0279632
HUSAINY, TABER M D
2000-03-23
200.00
0279633
MACH COMPANY
2000-03-23
1,569.12
0279634
HICKMAN, GUY MD, FAAOS
2000-03-23
200.00
0279635
H C WARNER, INC
2000-03-23
77.59
0279636
HILL MANUFACTURING
2000-03-23
104.24
0279637
HATFIELD, ERIC
2000-03-23
120.00
0279638
HOLIDAY BUILDERS
2000-03-23
11000.00
APRIL 49 2000
-19-
APRIL 4, 2000
-20-
BOOK v ; A� E
CHECK
NAME
CHECK
CHECK
NUMBER
DATE
AMOUNT
0279639
HINTON'S CARPET CLEANING
2000-03-23
396.00
2,066.75
0279640
HARTMAN & ASSOCIATES INC
2000-03-23
106,956.70
0279641
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
2000-03-23
20,341.69
0279642
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY SOLID
2000-03-23
1,063.75
0279643
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY SCHOOL
2000-03-23
160.00
0279644
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
2000-03-23
380.00
0279645
INSTRUMENTATION SERVICES, INC
2000-03-23
84.50
0279646
INDIAN RIVER BATTERY, INC
2000-03-23
502.10
0279647
INDIAN RIVER BLUEPRINT CO INC
2000-03-23
0279648
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY UTILITY
2000-03-23
510.80
0279649
INDIAN RIVER MEMORIAL HOSPITAL
2000-03-23
15,304.50
0279650
INGRAM LIBRARY SERVICES
2000-03-23
46.37
0279651
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY BOARD OF
2000-03-23
1,523.00
0279652
IBM CORPORATION
2000-03-23
1,880.31
0279653
INDIAN RIVER ALL -FAB, INC
2000-03-23
811.05
0279654
INTERNATIONAL GOLF MAINTENANCE2000-03-23
73,621.15
0279655
IRC EMPLOYEE HEALTH INSURANCE-
2000-03-23
124,169.37
0279656
INTERIM PERSONNEL
2000-03-23
326.40
0279657
IDENTIFAX INVESTIGATIVE
2000-03-23
320.84
0279658
INDIAN RIVER INDUSTRIAL
2000-03-23
171,026.70
0279659
IRRIGATION CONSULTANTS UNLIMIT
2000-03-23
29.26
0279660
JACOBS ELECTRIC MOTOR REPAIR
2000-03-23
250.00
0279661
JANIE DEAN CHEVROLET, INC
2000-03-23
242.37
117.80
0279662
JETSON TV AUDIO, STERO &
2000-03-23
2,000.72
0279663
JANITORIAL DEPOT OF AMERICA
2000-03-23
492.44
0279664
JOHNSON CONTROLS INC
2000-03-23
878.00
0279665
JONES CHEMICALS, INC
2000-03-23
23.42
0279666
KNIGHT & MATHIS, INC
2000-03-23
423.78
0279667
KELLY TRACTOR CO
2000-03-23
1,483.29
0279668
KEEP INDIAN RIVER BEAUTIFUL
2000-03-23
11069.98
0279669
K & M ELECTRIC SUPPLY INC
2000-03-23
301.91
0279670
0279671
KAI
LUCAS WATERPROOFING CO, INC
2000-03-23
2000-03-23
5,133.00
0279672
LEARY INCORPORATED
2000-03-23
2,284.00
2,732.47
0279673
LAUREL HOMES, INC
2000-03-23
24.91
0279674
LEISURE ARTS, INC
2000-03-23
1,635.40
0279675
LOWE'S COMPANIES, INC.
2000-03-23
1,571.00
0279676
LIGHT SOURCE BUSINESS SYSTEMS
2000-03-23
0279677
LFI VERO BEACH, INC
2000-03-23
4,778.80
134.95
0279678
LESCO, INC
2000-03-23
2000-03-23
2,900.00
0279679
LETTIERE, DOMINIC J CPA
70.00
0279680
LAPSCO INC
2000-03-23
338.46
0279681
LARSON, TOM
2000-03-23
121.29
0279682
LUCENT TECHNOLOGIES
2000-03-23
0279683
LIGHTHOUSE BOOKS ABA&
2000-03-23
235.00
0279684
LANDSCAPE STOP
2000-03-23
415.00
0279685
MACMILLAN OIL COMPANY
2000-03-23
149.10
0279686
MARSHALL CAVENDISH CORP
2000-03-23
423.95
0279687
MAXWELL PLUMBING, INC
2000-03-23
31.08
0279688
MCCOLLUM, NATHAN
2000-03-23
564.00
0279689
MILNER DOCUMENT PRODUCTS
2000-03-23
738.73
0279690
MRCHT, KENNETH
2000-03-23
1,050.95
0279691
MICRO WAREHOUSE
20Q0-03-23
575.25
0279692
MCMASTER-CARR SUPPLY COMPANY
2000-03-23
364.47
0279693
MAURER, ERMA B, RN
2000-03-23
113.00
0279694
MIDWEST TAPE EXCHANGE
2000-03-23
9.99
0279695
MICKLE, VALERIE
2000-03-23
28.05
0279696
MGB CONSTRUCTION -INC
2000-03-23
500.00
0279697
MAXWELL, KIMBERLY
2000-03-23
11.59
0279698
METTLER-TOLEDO FLORIDA, INC
2000-03-23
230.00
0279699
MET -PRO CORPORATION/DUALL DIV
2000-03-23
3,034.00
0279700
MARCKEL, CHARLES
2000-03-23
49.27
APRIL 4, 2000
-20-
•
CHECK NAME
NUMBER
CHECK CHECK
DATE AMOUNT
0279701
NORTRAX EQUIPMENT COMPANY
2000-03-23
2,023.26
0279702
OFFICE PRODUCTS & SERVICE
2000-03-23
604.89
0279703
ON IT'S WAY
2000-03-23
212.22 _
0279704
OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS
2000-03-23
73.77
0279705
OFFICE DEPOT, INC
2000-03-23
4,349.99
0279706
OFFICE MAX
2000-03-23
108.24
0279707
O'NEIL, LEE & WEST _
2000-03-23
9,387.41
0279708
PEPSI -COLA COMPANY
2000-03-23
47.50
0279709
PERKINS INDIAN RIVER PHARMACY
2000-03-23
21.53
0279710
PUBLIC DEFENDER
2000-03-23
7,532.24
0279711
PROCTOR CONSTRUCTION
2000-03-23
'1,000.00
0279712
PHYSIO CONTROL
2000-03-23
384.60
0279713
PORT PETROLEUM, INC
2000-03-23
1,232.14
0279714
PLEZALL WIPERS, INC
2000-03-23
110.12
0279715
PRAXAIR DISTRIBUTION
2000-03-23
607.49
0279716
PRESS JOURNAL
2000-03-23
117.00
0279717
PANKIEWICZ-FUCHS, PATRICIA A
2000-03-23
23.40
0279718
PHOTIRON
2000-03-23
380.98
0279719
PURDY, JOLLY & GIUFFREDA, P A
2000-03-23
428.10
0279720
PATTI, DAVID
2000-03-23
230.24
0279721
PINNACLE TOWERS INC
2000-03-23
2,700.00
0279722
QUALITY BOOKS, INC
2000-03-23
65.32
0279723
QUINLAN PUBLISHING CO
2000-03-23
96.81
0279724
RADIOSBACK
2000-03-23
119.07
0279725
ROBINSON EQUIPMENT COMPANY,INC
2000-03-23
423.88
0279726
RICHTER, CORY S
2000-03-23
338.46
0279727
ROBERTS & REYNOLDS PA
2000-03-23
20,120.55
0279728
RECORDED BOOKS INC
2000-03-23
242.40
0279729
R & G SOD FARMS
2000-03-23
170.00
0279730
RELIABLE TRANSMISSION SERVICE
2000-03-23
3,145.00
0279731
RUBBER STAMP EXPRESS & MORE
2000-03-23
43.61
0279732
RANGELINE TAPPING SERVICE INC
2000-03-23
325.00
0279733
RENTAL 1
2000-03-23
292.78
0279734
ROYAL CUP COFFEE
2000-03-23
64.00
0279735
REXEL CONSOLIDATED ELECTRIC
2000-03-23
341.05
0279736
RYAN REPORTING
2000-03-23
522.05
0279737
RUBY TUESDAYS
2000-03-23
3,900.00
0279738
SAFETY EQUIPMENT COMPANY
2000-03-23
375.00
0279739
SCOTTY'S, INC
2000-03-23
146.60
0279740
SEWELL HARDWARE CO, INC
2000-03-23
484.32
0279741
SOUTHERN CULVERT, DIV OF
2000-03-23
4,860.98
0279742
SOUTHERN EAGLE DISTRIBUTING,
2000-03-23
736.40
0279743
SOUTHERN ELECTRIC SUPPLY
2000-03-23
300.17
0279744
ST LUCIE BATTERY & TIRE, INC
2000-03-23
173.79
0279745
STATE ATTORNEY 19TH CIRCUIT
2000-03-23
15,203.71
0279746
STURGIS LUMBER & PLYWOOD CO
2000-03-23
156.82
0279747
SUNRISE FORD TRACTOR &
2000-03-23
87.42
0279748
STEIL, HOLLY
2000-03-23
174.56
0279749
SUBSTANCE ABUSE COUNCIL
2000-03-23
1,857.11
0279750
SUN BELT MEDICAL SUPPLY, INC
2000-03-23
470.60
0279751
SELIG CHEMICAL IND
2000-03-23
68.19
0279752
SALEM PRESS, INC
2000-03-23
121.25
0279753
SUPERIOR PRINTING
2000-03-23
64.15
0279754
SPEEGLE CONSTRUCTION, INC
2000-03-23
172,834.29
0279755
SAFECO, INC
2000-03-23
285.60
0279756
SYSCO FOOD SERVICES OF
2000-03-23
1,699.77
0279757
STEWART MINING INDUSTRIES INC
2000-03-23
21,034.99
0279758
SEBASTIAN POLICE DEPARTMENT
2000-03-23
25.00
0279759
SEBASTIAN RIVER HIGH SCHOOL
2000-03-23
40.00
0279760
STRICKLAND, RICK
2000-03-23
338.46
APRIL 49 2000
BOOK
CHECK
NAME
CHECK
CHECK
NUMBER
DATE
AMOUNT
0279761
SAM'S CLUB #6520
2000-03-23
45.00
0279762
STM/SAVE THE MOMENT
2000-03-23
48.00
0279763
SOUTHERN SECURITY SYSTEMS OF
2000-03-23
112.50
0279764
STALLINGS, JASON
2000-03-23
338.46
0279765
STAGE & SCREEN
2000-03-23
13.80
0279766
SILEO, STEVEN ANDREW
2000-03-23
28.00
0279767
SEVERN -TRENT -AVATAR UTILITY
2000-03-23
12,744.03
0279768
SMITH'S ANTIQUES AND BOOKS
2000-03-23
222.50
0279769
SHOEMAKER, MIKE
2000-03-23
75.00
0279770
SEIFER, RONALD PHD
2000-03-23
141.00
0279771
SEBASTIAN POWER CENTER RENTAL
2000-03-23
968.82
0279772
SAMARITAN CENTER
2000-03-23
4,166.67
0279773
STEWART, SARAH LYNN
2000-03-23
19.32
0279774
TARMAC AMERICA INC
2000-03-23
2,128.00
0279775
TEN -8 FIRE EQUIPMENT, INC
2000-03-23
859.50
0279776
TITLEIST DRAWER
2000-03-23
115.28
0279777
TEXACO CREDIT CARD CENTER
2000-03-23
3,005.66
0279778
TLC DIVERSIFIED, INC
2000-03-23
109,234.22
0279779
TIPPIN, JOHN W
2000-03-23
23.49
0279780
TAMPA MARRIOTT WATERSIDE
2000-03-23
297.00
0279781
T A P SOD
2000-03-23
16,123.75
0279782
TRUELINE GOLF INC
2000-03-23
241.00
0279783
TREASURE COAST REFUSE
2000-03-23
243.26
0279784
TREASURE COAST NEWSPAPERS
2000-03-23
547.50
0279785
TREASURE COAST NEWSPAPERS
2000-03-23
2,211.02
0279786
THYSSEN MIAMI ELEVATOR
2000-03-23
1,958.00
0279787
TURNER PEST CONTROL INC
2000-03-23
1,500.00
0279788
TREASURE COAST INFECTIOUS
2000-03-23
500.00
0279789
TED ANDERSEN MASONRY
2000-03-23
360.00
0279790
URSULEAN, FLORIN
2000-03-23
338.46
0279791
US FILTER DISTRIBUTION GROUP
2000-03-23
9,451.71
0279792
UNIPSYCH BENEFITS OF FL,INC
2000-03-23
2,154.60
0279793
U.S. FILTER
2000-03-23
416.76
0279794
VELDE FORD, INC
2000-03-23
3,111.44
0279795
VERO BEACH, CITY OF
2000-03-23
51,871.72
0279796
VERO BEACH, CITY OF
2000-03-23
340,000.00
0279797
VERO LAWNMOWER CENTER, INC
2000-03-23
360.55
0279798
VERO BEACH, CITY OF
2000-03-23
176.69
0279799
VILLARS, RICHARD
2000-03-23
338.46
0279800
VERO BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT
2000-03-23
85.00
0279801
VERO BEARING & BOLT
2000-03-23
118.52
0279802
VOLUNTEER ACTION CENTER
2000-03-23
50.00
0279803
VANEREM, ROGER
2000-03-23
500.00
0279804
WAL-MART STORES, INC
2000-03-23
644.90
0279805
WALSH, LYNN
2000-03-23
75.19
0279806
WHEELER, GARY C
2000-03-23
9,768.45
0279807
WORLD BOOK INC
2000-03-23
65.00
0279808
W W GRAINGER, INC
2000-03-23
1,122.81
0279809
WILLHOFF, PATSY
2000-03-23
130.00
0279810
WILLIAM THIES & SONS, INC
2000-03-23
148.50
0279811
WALLS, JOE
2000-03-23
338.46
0279812
WATERWORKS CAR WASH
2000-03-23
168.00
0279813
WORLDCOM COMMUNICATIONS, INC
2000-03-23
60.45
0279814
WOLFE, ERIN
2000-03-23
16.74
0279815
WHEELED COACH INDUSTRIES INC
2000-03-23
442.87
0279816
WOLF'S HEAD BOORS, INC, ABAA
2000-03-23
65.00
0279817
WOOD, BRIAN
2000-03-23
783.00
0279818
W W GRAINGER INC
2000-03-23
74.17
0279819
XEROX CORPORATION
2000-03-23
188.29
0279820
YANKEE BOOK & ART GALLERY
2000-03-23
40.00
0279821
YOUNG, JODI
2000-03-23
338.46
0279822
ZEE MEDICAL SERVICE
2000-03-23
236.77
APRIL 4, 2000
•
CHECK
NAME
CHECK
CHECK
NUMBER
DATE
AMOUNT
0279823
ZIEGLER, MICHAEL R
2000-03-23
403.34
0279824
SCHILL, LARRY
2000-0323
484.34
0279825
WILLIAMS JR, IVEY
2000-03-23
53.34
0279826
LUCAS, PAUL
2000-03-23
35.47
0279827
EASTERWOOD SR, L G
2000-03-23
23.29
0279828
GREEN, FREDDIE
2000-03-23
36.11
0279829
TUROFF, LILLIAN F
2000-03-23
48.42
0279830
WHEELER, BEVERLYN
$000-03-23
11.11
0279831
R ZORC & SONS BUILDERS INC
2000-03-23
124.86
0279832
ROBERTSON, JAMES
2000-03-23
112.10
0279833
BARRETT, MARY
2000-03-23
28.82
0279834
CHURCH, BRYANT
2000-03-23
81.84
0279835
LEWIS, CHRISTA F
2000-03-23
25.51
0279836
MARCLEY, JOAN N
2000-03-23
26.75
0279837
PROCTOR CONSTRUCTION CO, INC
2000-03-23
454.58
0279838
BEARD, RAYMOND
2000-03-23
22.17
0279839
BOSER, RONALD
2000-03-23
33.40
0279840
MC DONALD, TIMOTHY J
2000-03-23
2.68
0279841
WHITE, SHIRLEY
2000-03-23
16.70
0279842
ROMILUS, PAUL
2000-03-23
45.73
0279843
STEVENS, RICHARD
2000-03-23
59.36
0279844
RIGH TON, HARRY
2000-03-23
106.28
0279845
JOHN LLOYD BUILDERS INC
2000-03-23
22.02
0279846
FRANCHVILLE, PETER J
2000-03-23
31.12
0279847
SARBOUKH, WILLIAM
2000-03-23
19.81
0279848
SHEFIELD JR, JAMES E
2000-03-23
21.76
0279849
COLON JR, JOSE G
2000-03-23
12.67
0279850
LAROSE, DOROTHY A
2000-03-23
109.98
0279851
KRYGERIS, EDWARD J
2000-03-23
22.54
0279852
BRADLEY, CLARA
2000-03-23
25.36
0279853
MANTHEY, CLIFFORD E
2000-03-23
39.01
0279854
LECKETT, MARGITTA
2000-03-23
29.59
0279855
FERRERI JR, SALVATORE
2000-03-23
54.68
0279856
FAZZARI JR, SUE JARSULIC
2000-03-23
53.22
0279857
PASSAGE ISLAND HOMES
2000-03-23
70.35
0279858
YARISH, COLLIER R
2000-03-23
82.10
0279859
FORSYTH, ROBERT L
2000-03-23
1.37
0279860
FIRST NATIONAL BANK & TRUST
2000-03-23
31.98
0279861
MUELLER, MARK
2000-03-23
54.25
0279862
43RD STREET DEVELOPMENT
2000-03-23
81.48
0279863
CONWAY, HOPE
2000-03-23
7.36
0279864
EDDINGER, MARY
2000-03-23
50.14
0279865
TREASURE COAST BUILDERS INC
2000-03-23
39.14
0279866
NI%, ROSE MARY
2000-03-23
52.62
0279867
AMDITIS, GREGORY
2000-03-23
29.59
0279868
BIEDIGER, SHELLEY
2000-03-23
57.98
0279869
BATUSIC II, MICHAEL
2000-03-23
33.55
0279870
HILL, JOHN MICHAEL
2000-03-23
84.02
0279871
MC CAW, ANTOINETTE L
2000-03-23
35.32
0279872
BAKKE, ADAM
2000-03-23
17.01
0279873
PHAN, ELIZABETH M
2000-03-23
45.39
0279874
PEREZ, PATRICIA
2000-03-23
38.16
0279875
CUMBERLAND FARMS -HYDRANT MTR
2000-03-23
135.36
0279876
LIBBENGA, STEVE
2000-03-23
90.95
0279877
KERWIN, KATHRYN
2000-03-23
93.33
0279878
ANDERSON, FRED
2000-03-24
194.00
0279879
BRORTON, LYDIA
2000-03-24
223.00
0279880
BEUTTELL, PETER M
2000-03-24
284.00
0279881
SILKEN GROUP
2000-03-24
1,166.00
0279882
BEANS, ROBERT
2000-03-24
137.00
0279883
BROOKS, DONNA AND CITY OF VERO
2000-03-24
46.00
APRIL 49 2000
-23-
BOOK
•
CHECK
NAME
CHECK
CHECK
NUMBER
DATE
AMOUNT
0279884
BELL PROPERTY MANAGEMENT
2000-03-24
281.00
0279885
BOUYSSOU, STEPHANE H
2000-03-24
308.00
0279886
BROOKHAVEN, TOWN OF
2000-03-24
287.22
0279887
BREVARD COUNTY HOUSING AUTHRTY
2000-03-24
1,278.44
0279888
CORR, RHODA L
2000-03-24
251.00
0279889
COLLINS, THOMAS H
2000-03-24
581.00
0279890
CENTURY 21 SEATRER REALTY, INC
2000-03-24
286.00
0279891
CARLTON, ALLAN R DECEASED
2000-03-24
308.00
0279892
C P E ASSOCIATES
2000-03-24
1,272.00
0279893
CAPAK, GERALD T
2000-03-24
421.00
0279894
CLUNN, JEFFREY
2000-03-24
341.00
0279895
CARONE, PAUL
2000-03-24
268.00
0279896
COASTAL ESCROW SERVICES, INC
2000-03-24
537.00
0279897
CARLUCCI, LEONARD A
2000-03-24
366.00
0279898
DOOLITTLE JAMES A & ASSOCIATES
2000-03-24
2,890.00
0279899
DOVE, E WILSON
2000-03-24
253.00
0279900
DOYLE, CHERYL
2000-03-24
301.00
0279901
EDGEWOOD PLACE (305-113)
2000-03-24
560.00
0279902
EDWARD, FRANKLIN
2000-03-24
327.00
0279903
FOGERTY, GEORGE A
2000-03-24
353.00
0279904
FRESH, DANIEL J
2000-03-24
274.00
0279905
FT PIERCE, CITY OF
2000-03-24
5,120.98
0279906
FOGARTY ENTERPRISES, INC
2000-03-24
419.00
0279907
FORD, ROBERT J
2000-03-24
287.00
0279908
FLEMMING, PEACOLA & CITY OF
2000-03-24
36.00
0279909
GASKILL, ROBERT
2000-03-24
249.00
0279910
GIFFORD GROVES, LTD
2000-03-24
10,337.00
0279911
GRACE'S LANDING LTD
2000-03-24
3,454.00
0279912
HOLM, LEO
2000-03-24
469.00
0279913
HAMM, BEVERLY AND CITY OF VERO
2000-03-24
89.00
0279914
HUNLEY, J MICHAEL
2000-03-24
369.00
0279915
HANFORD, PAMELA AND CITY OF
2000-03-24
53.00
0279916
IMBRIANI, VINCENT
2000-03-24
232.00
0279917
JAMES A DOOLITTLE & ASSOCIATES
2000-03-24
5,537.00
0279918
JAHOLKOWSKI, PAUL J REVOCABLE
2000-03-24
322.00
0279919
JAHOLKOWSKI, MIKE
2000-03-24
245.00
0279920
JULIN, PAUL
2000-03-24
185.00
0279921
JOHNSTON, PATTIE
2000-03-24
391.00
0279922
JACKOWSKI, MICHAEL
2000-03-24
309.00
0279923
JONES, ALpHONSO
2000-03-24
255.00
0279924
KOLB, GREGORY L - DECEASED
2000-03-24
438.00
0279925
KNOWLES, MARK OR ANNA
2000-03-24
241.00
0279926
KISSIMMEE, CITY OF
2000-03-24
442.22
0279927
LAWRENCE, TERRY A
2000-03-24
185.00
0279928
LANGLEY, PHILIP G
2000-03-24
239.00
0279929
L & S MANAGEMENT
2000-03-24
179.00
0279930
LINDSEY GARDEN'S APARTMENTS
2000-03-24
7,159.00
0279931
MI%ELI,, LLONALD AND/OR
2000-03-24
380.00
0279932
M 0 D INVESTMENTS
2000-03-24
887.00
0279933
MONTGOMERY, WILLIAM
2000-03-24
203.00
0279934
MALGERIA, PRISCILLA
2000-03-24
423.00
0279935
MORRILL, TINA AND CITY OF
2000-03-24
31.00
0279936
MULLINS, B FRANK
2000-03-24
587.00
0279937
MC CLAY, ROBIN
2000-03-24
166.00
0279938
MCGRIFF, SHARON AND CITY OF
2000-03-24
26.00
0279939
MCNEAL, JAMES
2000-03-24
177.00
0279940
MIAMI BEACH, CITY OF
2000-03-24
392.22
0279941
MEAD, THOMAS H OR HELEN S
2000-03-24
244.00
0279942
NORMAN, DOUGLAS OR -BARBARA
2000-03-24
337.00
0279943
O'NEAL, LESLIE & CITY OF VERO
2000-03-24
43.00
0279944
ORLANDO HOUSING AUTHORITY
2000-03-24
732.22
APRIL 4, 2000
-24-
• 0
•
CHECK CHECK
CHECK NAME DATE AMOUNT
NUMBER
0279945
PALMER TRAILER PARR
2000.03-24
273.00
0279946
PITTMAN, CATHERINE & FLORIDA
2000-03-24
34.00
0279947
POLLY, EMMA
2000-03-24
763.00
0279948
PIERSON, JOHN H DBA
2000-03-24
322.00
0279949
PALUMBO, LOUIS
2000-03-24
267.00
0279950
PUERTO RICO DEPARTMENT OF
2000-03-24
486.22
0279951
PRYOR, VALERIE AND CITY OF
2000-03-24
72.00
0279952
REAGAN, WILLIE C
2000-03-24
611.00
0279953
RAUDENBUSH, ERNEST
2000-03-24
245.00
0279954
RODRIGUEZ, BLANCA
2000-03-24
274.00
0279955
RICOTTI, RICARDO
2000-03-24
268.00
0279956
RIVER PARK PLACE
2000-03-24
3,003.00
0279957
ST FRANCIS MANOR
2000-03-24
2,537.00
0279958
SCROGGS, BETTY DAVIS
2000-03-24
322.00
0279959
SACCO, JACQUELINE AND/OR
2000-03-24
245.00
0279960
SABONJOHN, FLORENCE
2000-03-24
256.00
0279961
STUART HOUSING AUTHORITY
2000-03-24
487.22
0279962
SANDY PINES
2000-03-24
3,735.00
0279963
SHELTON, ROBERT L
2000-03-24
423.00
0279964
STARCK, MICHAEL R
2000-03-24
267.00
0279965
STRIBLING, WILLIAM JR
2000-03-24
267.00
0279966
SUNDMAN, IVAN
2000-03-24
333.00
0279967
STIMELING, PAUL B OR MARGARET
2000-03-24
217.00
0279968
SARTAIN, CHARLES S & TELECIA
2000-03-24
265.00
0279969
TOWN & COUNTRY LEASING
2000-03-24
403.00
0279970
TORRES, HARRY
2000-03-24
565.00
0279971
TUMLIN, TRACY N
2000-03-24
252.00
0279972
VERO MOBILE HOME PARK
2000-03-24
337.00
0279973
VERO FIRST CORPORATION
2000-03-24
2,174.00
0279974
BLAKE, SALLIE (WYNN)
2000-03-24
280.00
0279975
WILLIAMS, TOBIAS M
2000-03-24
397.00
0279976
WILLIAMS, DEBRA WASHINGTON
2000-03-24
160.00
0279977
WILLIAMS, EDITH
2000-03-24
329.00
0279978
YORK, LILLY B
2000-03-24
193.00
0279979
YORK, DAVID
2000-03-24
367.00
0279980
ZANCA, LEONARD
2000-03-24
643.00
2,046,580.74
7.D. CAFtPATIOALTERATION- C6UNTYADMIlVISTRAnoNBuffDI1VG
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of March 27, 2000:
APRIL 4, 2000
Pi
-25- 60^,� ._ ° y.
Date: March 27, 2000
To: Honorable Board of County Commissioners
Through: James E Chandler, County Administrator
From: Thomas W. Frame, Director, Department of General Services '%•kcf`_
Subject: Cafe Patio Alteration
BACKGROUND:
The Board had requested that staff prepare an estimate of costs to provide an external opening
from the County Cafe (Super Dip) to the outside to allow for a patio and an additional smoking
area for the public and employees. The proposed construction is as follows (see attached
Building & Grounds memo dated March 3):
1. 20' X 25' patio
2. A landing platform at door with ramp down to patio
3. Handrails
4. Minimal Landscaping
5. Three concrete tables with benches
The estimated costs shall not exceed $7,500 and would be funded from the General Fund
Contingency.
RECOMMENDATION:
If the Board is desirous of seeing the project done, then the Board needs to authorize the
proposed project to be funded from the General Fund Contingency and authorize the staff to
proceed with the project as outlined not to exceed $7,500.00.
APRIL 4, 2000
ON MOTION by Commissioner Stanbridge,
SECONDED by Commissioner Ginn, the Board
unanimously authorized the proposed project to be
funded from the General Fund Contingency m an
amount not -to -exceed $7500 and authorized staff to
proceed with the project as outlined, as
recommended by staff.
-26-
0
7.E. RESOLUTION 2000-03 7ABANDONING A PORTION OF AN EASEMENT ON
TRACT B, SEA OAKS LANEVIEW ESTATES PRD (SEA OAKS
INVESTMENTS, LTD. -1235 EAST WnvDING OAKS CIRaE)
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of March 2422000:
TO: James E. Chandler
County Administrator
DEPAITMENT HEAD CONCURRENCE:
r �
Robert M. Keating, AICP
Community Development Director
--V&97
THROUGH: Roland M. DeBlois,1`-AICP
Chief, Environmental Planning
& Code Enforcement
FROM: Kelly Zedek
Code Enforcement Officer
DATE: 03/24/2000
RE: SEA OAKS INVESTMENTS LTD. REQUEST FOR RELEASE OF A
PORTION OF AN EASEMENT AT 1235 EAST WINDING OAKS CIRCLE
It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal consideration by the Board of County
Commissioners at its regular meeting of April 4, 2000.
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
The County has been petitioned by Sea Oaks Invesments, LTD, owner of a parcel at 1235 East
Winding Oaks Circle, for release of a three-foot wide portion of a twelve -foot wide drainage and
utility easement on the parcel. The purpose of the request is to allow construction of a pool deck
into the three-foot wide easement area proposed for release (see attached maps).
ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS
The request has been reviewed by Bell South Communications: Florida Power & Light Corporation:
T.C.I. Cable Corporation; the Indian River County Utilities Department: the County Road & Bridge
and Engineering Divisions; the County surveyor. and the Property Owners Association. None of the
utility providers or reviewing agencies expressed an objection to the requested release of easement.
Therefore, it is staff's position that the requested easement release would have no adverse impact to
utilities being supplied to the subject properties or to other properties.
APRIL 49 2000
boa m = : i'r�l t p
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Board, through adoption of the attached resolution, release the
three-foot portion of the twelve -foot drainage and utility easement on the subject property, as more
particularly described in said resolution.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Stanbridge,
SECONDED by Commissioner Ginn, the Board
unanimously adopted Resolution 2000-037
abandoning a portion of an easement on Tract B, Sea
Oaks Lakeview Estates PRD (Sea Oaks Investment,
Ltd. - 1235 East Winding Oaks Circle).
RESOLUTION NO. 2000-037
A RESOLUTION OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, ABANDONING
A PORTION OF AN EASEMENT ON TRACT B, SEA OAKS LAKEVIEW
ESTATES PRD
WHEREAS, Indian River County has a drainage and utility easement on Tract B, Sea Oaks
Lakeview Estates PRD, as recorded in Plat Book 14, Pages 33 & 33A of the Public Records of
Indian River County, Florida; and
WHEREAS, the retention of a three-foot portion of the easement, as described below, serves no
public purpose;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of County Commissioners of Indian
River County, Florida that:
This release of a portion of an easement is executed by Indian River County, a political
subdivision of the State of Florida, whose mailing address is 1840 25th Street, Vero Beach, Florida
32960, Grantor, to
SEA OAKS INVESTMENTS, LTD.
1235 EAST WINDING OAKS CIRCLE
VERO BEACH, FL 32963 .
successors in interest, heirs and assigns, Grantee, as follows:
APRIL 4, 2000
-28-
•
RESOLUTION N0.2000-037
Indian River County does hereby release and abandon all right, title, and interest that it may
have in the following described easement (portion):
a three foot wide portion of a twelve foot wide drainage and utility easement on Tract A
Sea Oaks Lakeview Estates PRD., more particularly described as the northeasterly three
deet o) the southwesterly twelve feet of Tract B, according to the plat thereof, as recorded
in Plat Book 14, Pages 33 & 33A, of the Public Records of Indian River County, Florida
THIS RESOLUTION was moved for adoption by Commissioner Stanbridge , seconded
by Commissioner Ginn , and adopted on the 4th day of
Apri 1 2000, by the following vote:
Commissioner Fran B. Adams Aye
Commissioner Caroline D. Ginn Aye
Commissioner Kenneth R. Macht Aye
e
Commissioner John W. Tippin Aye
Commissioner Ruth Stanbridge Ate_
The Chairman declared the resolution duly passed and adopted this 4th day of
Anri 1 12000.
BOARD OF COUNTY CONIIMSIONERS
OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
By cSna 13 oz(�,x ".0
Fran B. Adams
Chairman
Attested By. _
Deputy Clerk
STATE OF FLORIDA
COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this 4th day of April
2000, by FRAN B. ADAMS, as Chairman of the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River
County, Florida, and by patrir•i,a I �Ipnes , Deputy Clerk for JEFFREY K. BARTON,
Clerk of the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, who are personally
known to me.
NOTARY PUBLIC
ftberl E Masamg
1✓c ? . MY COMMISSION t CC054M E%PIRES
Printed Nam My 15, 2003
Kim9 assume-- ° WM=Tm WFAWW%MA XWC
Commission No.: CC8554 6
Commission Expiration: July 15, 2003
APPROVED AS TO FORM
AND LE
f_
Terrence P. O'Brien
Acting County Attorney
APRIL 49 2000
-29-
is
�Fl � "~� lv')� it p•v
" J
BOOK i j!
7. F. VERNON G. FOSTER - REQUEST FOR FINAL PD PLAN/PLAT APPROVAL
FOR PELICAN POINTE PHASE H PLANNED DEVELOPMENT
The Board reviewed a Memorandum. of March 2822000:
TO: James E. -Chandler
County Administrator
DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE:
Robert A Keating, AICP
Community Development irect
-44)
THROUGH: Stan Boling, AICP
Planning Director
FROM: John W. McCoy, AICP /`` \h�
Senior Planner, Current Development
DATE: March 28, 2000
SUBJECT: Vernon G. Foster's Request for Final PD Plan/ Plat Approval for Pelican Pointe
Phase H Planned Development (PD)
It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal consideration by the Board of County
Commissioners at its regular meeting of April 4, 2000.
DEVELOPMENT AND LOCATION:
Pelican Pointe Phase II PD is the subdivision of a 3.61 acre multi -family zoned parcel into 15 single
family lots and 2 tracts, consistent with a conceptual PD plan approved for the project by the Board
of County Commissioners. The two tracts will be used for open space and stormwater management.
Generally, the subject site is located on the west side of the Indian River just south of Sebastian.
More specifically, the site is located on the east side of the existing Pelican Pointe development, just
south of the Marina.
At its regular meeting of August 27, 1998, the Planning and Zoning Commission granted preliminary
PD plan/plat approval for the project. The conceptual plan was subsequently modified by approval
of the Board of County Commissioners at its meeting of February 15, 2000 to reduce the project's
APRIL 49 2000
-30-
U
required sidevard setbacks from 14' to 10'. This setback modification did not affect the preliminary
plat design, including lot sizes and layout. The approved preliminary PD plan is consistent with the
approved and modified conceptual PD plan, and proposes 15 detached single-family homes on
individual lots with reduced setbacks. Subsequent to preliminary plan/plat approval, a land
development permit was issued for construction, and construction has commenced. The owner,
Vernon G. Foster, through his agent, Shalloway, Foy, Rayman and Newell, Inc., is now requesting
final plat approval and has submitted the following:
A final plat for Pelican Pointe Phase II PD in conformance with the approved preliminary
plat.
2. A cost estimate for the remaining required subdivision improvements.
A contract for construction of the remaining required subdivision improvements.
4. A letter of credit to guarantee construction of the remaining required improvements.
ANALYSIS:
At this time, construction of some of the required subdivision improvements has commenced. The
applicant has submitted a contract for construction for all of the remaining required subdivision
improvements, along with a letter of credit to secure the contract. Both the county engineering
division and the utility services department have approved the cost estimate and have verified that
the letter of credit amount is adequate to cover the estimated cost of the remaining required
improvements. The county attorney's office has approved the construction contract for legal form
and sufficiency and has approved the format of the letter of credit.
All applicable requirements regarding final plat approval have been satisfied. Pursuant to the
county's LDRs, the applicant will be required to obtain a certificate of completion from public works
after construction of the required improvements. At that time, the applicant will separately warranty
the utility improvements via a Utility Services department Bill of Sale. Since no other improvements
are being dedicated to the public, no other warranties will be required.
RECOMMENDATION:
Based on the above analysis, staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners grant final
PD plan/plat approval for the Pelican Pointe Phase II Planned Development and authorize the
chairman to sign the contract for construction and accept the letter of credit that secures the contract.
APRIL 4, 2000
-31- BOO ,';iC
•
ON MOTION by Commissioner Stanbridge,
SECONDED by Commissioner Ginn, the Board
unanimously granted final PD plan/plat approval for
Pelican Pointe Phase II Planned Development and
authorized the Chairman to sign the Contract for
Construction and accept the Letter of Credit that
secures the contract, as recommended by staff.
DOCUMENTS ARE ON FILE IN THE
OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD
7.G. FLORIDA COMMUNITIES TRUST CLOSING DOCUMENTS FOR COUNTY
COST -SHARE PURCHASE OF THE CASEYPARCELS (ROUND ISLAND
SOUTH) AND THE SALAMA AND EMERSONPARCELS (OSLO RIVERFRONT
SOUTH) - LAACPROPERTIES
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of March 28, 2000:
TO: James E. Chandler
County Administrator
D AR NT HEAD CONCURRENCE:
' , 1'
Robert M. Keating, A16P
Community Development Dir for
FROM: Roland M. DeBloiss
Chief, Environmental Planning
DATE: March 28, 2000
SUBJECT: Approval of Florida Communities Trust Closing Documents for County Cost -Share
Purchase of the Casey Parcels (Round Island South), and the Salama and Emerson
Parcels (Oslo Riverfront South)
APRIL 49 2000
-32-
I
It is requested that the information herein presented be given formal consideration by the Board of County
Commissioners at its regular meeting of April 4, 2000.
The Board of County Commissioners, at a public hearing on March 21, 2000, approved county purchase of
the ± 14.6 acre "Casey parcels" of the Round Island South project using environmental land bond funds.
Similarly, at a public hearing on December 21, 1999, the Board approved purchase of the ± 66 acre Salama
and Emerson parcels of the Oslo Riverfront South environmental land project. Each of the purchases are
scheduled to close at the end of April, with 50% cost -share funding from the Florida Communities Trust
(FCT).
Attached, for the Board's approval consideration, are four documents required by the FCT for the cost -share
purchases: three "Purchaser's Reconciliation of Total Project Costs" statements; and a Grant Award
Agreement (for the Salama and Emerson parcels; a similar agreement was approved for Round Island South
as part of an earlier purchase, and therefore one is not needed for the Casey parcels purchase).
Grant Award Agreement
The Grant Award Agreement for the Salama and Emerson parcels is a standard document that the FCT
requires be recorded in the public records. Generally, the Agreement explains the County's obligations to
manage the property for conservation with compatible public access, as agreed to in the grant application.
The obligations in the Grant Award Agreement are consistent with proposed management activities
described in detail in the conceptual management plan.
Reconciliation of Total Project Costs Statements
The Purchaser's Reconciliation of Total Project Costs statements provide a breakdown of acquisition costs,
and details concerning the cost -share amount that the County will receive from the FCT for each of the
purchases. As calculated, the total amount of the FCT grant award that the County will receive for the Casey
parcels is $119,075.00. The grant award for the Salama and Emerson parcels is $755,476.15 (Salama -
$598,496.15, Emerson - $156,980.00).
Summary
The County's obligations under the FCT cost -share grants are consistent with the objectives of the County's
environmental lands program. Since the County has committed, under its own objectives, to managing the
properties for conservation with limited public access, it is staff s position that the Board should approve the
herein described documents and proceed to obtain the combined total of $874,551.15 from the FCT for the
purchases.
Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners approve the attached documents, and authorize
the Board Chairman to execute the Grant Award Agreement and Purchaser's Reconciliation of Total Project
Costs statements for purchase of the Casey, Salama, and Emerson parcels. Moreover, staff recommends that
the Board authorize county staff to take actions as necessary to finalize closing of the purchases in
coordination with the FCT.
APRIL 4, 2000
-33-
SOCK
SUBJECT CASEY PARCELS (TWO)
a
a
n
(PREVIOUSLY ACQUIRED)
n
APRIL 4, 2000
-34-
05L0 Ftwe'RFRwr 50VT4
Commissioner Ginn felt she could not approve this project and questioned the status
of the purchase of the parcels south of Oslo and east of US#1.
Environmental Planning Chief Roland DeBlois advised that staff is continuing to
negotiate on those parcels. There is little threat of development on those parcels as they are
mostly wetlands.
APRIL 49 2000
ON MOTION by Commissioner Macht,
SECONDED by Commissioner Stanbridge, the
Board, by a 4-1 vote (Commissioner Giem opposed)
approved the Grant Award Agreement and
Purchaser's Reconciliation of Total Project Costs
Statements for purchase of the Casey, Salama, and
Emerson parcels; authorized staff to take the actions
necessary to finalize closing of the purchases in
coordination with the Florida Communities Trust;
and authorized the Chairman to execute the
documentation; all as recommended by staff.
CLOSING DOCUMENTATION IS ON
FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD
E00 ;'AGL
7.H. 1999 PEP REEF SEA TURTLENESTING SEASONREPORT - CHRISTINE
PERRETTA, A B. ECOLOGICAL SERVICES
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of March 28, 2000:
TO: James E. Chandler,
County Administrator
THROUGH: James W. Davis, P.E.,
Public Works Director
FROM: Jeffrey R. Tabar, P.E.,
Coastal Engineer
SUBJECT: 1999 PEP Reef Sea Turtle Nesting
Season Report
DATE: March 28, 2000
The monitoring report is complete for the PEP Reef project for the
1999 sea turtle nesting season. The consultant is requesting final
payment in the amount of $3,500. Staff has reviewed and accepted
the report and findings. The monitoring and report are part of the
permit requirements for the project.
Staff recommends release of final payment in the amount of $3,500.
Funding to be from 128-144-572-033.19.
APRIL 49 2000
ON MOTION by Commissioner Ginn, SECONDED
by Commissioner Stanbridge, the Board
unanimously approved release of final payment in
the amount of $3,500 to Christine Perretta, D. B.
Ecological Services, as recommended by staff.
-36-
•
7L SHOOTING .RANGE -PROJECT #9629 - C. VARGAS & ASSOCIATES
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of March 14, 2000:
TO: James Chandler
County Administrator
THROUGH: James W. Davis, P.E.
Public Works Director
Terry B. Thompson, P.E.
&K
Capital Projects Manager _� //�� .�,,
FROM: G. Sean McGuire, P.E. �3�t""-'
Project Engineer
SUBJECT: Shooting Range - Project No. 9629
DATE: March 14, 2000
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
C. Vargas & Associates, LTD. has requested, and is entitled to Final Payment and 100% Release of
Retainage for their Professional Services on this project. All required reviews have been completed.
RECOMMENDATIONS AND FUNDING
Approve Final Payment and 100% Release of Retainage in the amount of $969.75. Funding from
account # 312-108-575-066.51.
APRIL 4, 2000
ON MOTION by Commissioner Stanbridge,
SECONDED by Commissioner Ginn, the Board
unanimously approved final payment and release of
retainage in the amount of $969.75 to C. Vargas &
Associates, as recommended by staff.
-37-
•
7. J. RESOLUTION 2000-038 CANCELLING CERTAIN DELINQUENT TAXES
UPONPUBLICLY OWNED LANDSPURSUANT TO SECTION 196.28.
FLORIDA STATUTES MmmK 4R BAROT - 41'x' STREET AND OLD DIXIE
RIGHT-OF-WAY) AND RESOLUTION 2000-039 CANCELLING CERTAIN
DELINQUENT TAXES UPONPUBLICLY OWNED LANDS, PURSUANT TO
SECTION 196.28, FLORIDA STATUTES WESALVO - 98wAVENVE
RIGHT-OF-WAY)
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of March 14, 2000:
TO: Board of Commissioners
de o / DATE: March 14, 2000
FROM: Lea R. Keller, CLA
Legal Assistant - County Attorney's Office
RE: Recently Acquired Property - Tax Cancellation
The County recently acquired some property and, pursuant to Section 196.28,
Florida Statutes, the Board 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
C&ector (along with copies sent to the Property Appraiser and Fixed Assets).
Requested Action: Board authorize the Chairman to sign the attached
resolutions which cancel taxes upon the land that the County recently
acquired.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Stanbridge,
SECONDED by Commissioner Ginn, the Board
unanimously adopted Resolution 2000-038
cancelling certain delinquent taxes upon publicly
owned lands, pursuant to Section 196.28, Florida
Statutes (Bhaskar Barot - 41" Street and Old Dixie
Right -of -Way). "
APRIL 49 2000
-38-
10 0
Re: RNV — 410 Street S Old Dixie
BHASKAR BAROT
Taff ID #26-32-39-7-0.18.0
RESOLUTION NO. 2000-038
A RESOLUTION OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA,
CANCELLING CERTAIN DELINQUENT TAXES UPON
PUBLICLY OWNED LANDS, PURSUANT TO SECTION 196.28,
FLORIDA STATUTES.
WHEREAS, Section 196.26, 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:
2. The property is hereby accepted and any and all liens for taxes, delinquent or current, against
the property described in OR Book 1320, Page 2915 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.
3. The Clerk to the Board of County Commissioners is hereby directed to send a certffied copy
of this resolution to the Tax Collector and the Property Appraiser.
The resolution was moved for adoption by Commissioner Stanbridge , and the
motion was seconded by Commissioner Ci nn and, upon being put to a vote, the
vote was as follows:
Chairman Fran B. Adams
Aye
Vice Chairman Caroline D. Ginn
Aye
Commissioner Kenneth R. Macht
Aye
Commissioner Ruth Stanbridge
Aye
Commissioner John W. Tippin
Aye
The Chairman thereupon declared the resolution duly passed and adopted this4th day of
Marrh ,2000.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
TAX CERTIFICATES OUTSTP,rM11i3
no
vLrrr7:6dTPPO AT21)'�RX;:
LEPOSITED WITH TAX COLLECTOR
i
L t
APRIL 49 2000
-39-
ByC�ncCdi►"
Fran B. Adams
Chairman
mean Wry Co Approved Detd
Aumin
20 j
legal
C
hisk Mgr.
BOOKAGE
ON MOTION by Commissioner Stanbridge,
SECONDED by Commissioner Ginn, the Board
unanimously adopted Resolution 2000-039
cancelling certain delinquent taxes upon publicly
owned lands, pursuant to Section 196.28, Florida
Statutes (DeSalvo - 98' Avenue Right -of -Way).
Re: R/W — 9811 Avenue
DeSalvo
Tax ID #33-31-38-3-10-8.0
RESOLUTION NO. 2000- 039
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:
3. The property is hereby accepted and any and all liens for taxes, delinquent or current, against
the property described in OR Book 1,69A Page7� 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.
4. 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.
APRIL 4, 2000
-40-
The resolution was moved for adoption by Commissioner _ Stanbri dge and the
motion was seconded by Commissioner Ginn , and, upon being put to a vote,
the vote was as follows:
Chairman Fran B. Adams -Aye
Vice Chairman Caroline D. Gin
Aye
Commissioner Kenneth R. Macht
Aye
Commissioner Ruth Stanbridge
Aye
Commissioner John W. Tippin
Aye
The Chairman thereupon declared the resolution duly passed and adopted this 4th day of
Marrh , 2000.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
AWN 11111 W
Deputy
TAY. CERTIFICATES OUT C -T a.:E; 41 ""�
no
CLt 9EHTPROIAT.ii't';'�:._'r::.
DEPOSITED WITH TAX COLLECT Orl
t
Fran B. Adams
Chairman
7X PAYMENTS TO VENDORS OF COURT -RELATED COSTS
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of March 2322000:
TO: Board of County Commissioners
,,y�y
FROM: Terrence P. O'Brien, Assistant County Attorney 4 "'
DATE: March 23, 2000
SUBJECT: Payments to Vendors of Court Related Costs
The Office of the County Attorney has processed and approved payment to the following vendors
for the weeks of March 6 through March 20, 2000. Listed below are the vendors
and the amount
of each court related costs.
Vendor: Payment for:
Amount:
Donald B. Edwards, DMD Expert Witness
75.00
Steve Kerby State Attorney Costs
121.42
Gregory C. Landrum, Psy.D. Clinical Evaluation
625.00
Medical Record Services State Attorney Costs
10.55
Patricia W. Key Transcription
56.00
Patricia W. Key Transcription
150.50
Robert J. Brugnoli, Ph.D. Clinical Evaluation
500.00
APRIL 4, 2000
8000 'A �
Gregory C. Landurm, Psy.D.
Clinical Evaluation
450.00
Shirley E. Corbin
Transcription
84.00
Peggy Gollnick
Transcription
56.00
Robert J. Brugnoli, Ph.D.
Clinical Evaluation
500.00
Steve Kerby
State Attorney Costs
101.33
Indian River County Sheriff
Public Defender Costs
7.35
James T. Long, Esq.
Public Defender Conflict-Misd.
900.00
James T. Long, Esq.
Public Defender Conflict -Felony
4,200.00
James T. Long, Esq.
Public Defender Conflict-Juv.
600.00
Patricia W. Key
Transcription
259.00
Patricia W. Key
Transcription
87.50
Edward J. Abare, 111, Esq.
Public Defender Costs
172.78
Fairwinds Travel & Tours
Public Defender Costs
297.00
Sandy Crawford, Clerk
State Attorney Costs
6.00
Peggy Gollnick
Transcription
63.00
Atlantic Reporting
Transcription
19.00
Linda R. Phillips
Transcription
147.00
Randall deB. Bertolette, M.D.
State Attorney Costs
25.00
Karen M. Orlando
Transcription
143.50
Sandy Crawford, Clerk
Public Defender Costs
19.00
Peggy Gollnick
Transcription
283.50
Linda R. Phillips
Transcription
70.00
Joseph J. Alfieri, Ph.D.
Clinical Evaluation/Expert Witness
2,023.00
Hammond & Smith, P.A.
Indigent Dependency Case
2,302.39
Karen M. Orlando
Transcription
70.00
Karen M. Orlando
Transcription
10.50
Linda R. Phillips
Transcription
80.50
Karen M. Orlando
Transcription
87.50
Debby Thomas
Transcription
1578.50
Floyd Evans
Court Interpreter
25.00
Karen M. Orlando
Transcription
42.00
Linda Copeland
Transcription
50.50
Linda R. Phillips
Transcription
63.00
Linda R. Phillips
Transcription
66.50
Debby Thomas
Transcription
154.00
Debby Thomas
Transcription
56.00
Patricia B. Held
Transcription
126.00
Avis
Sheila I. Flinn
Witness Coordination
47.37
Linda Copeland
Transcription
Transcription
161.00
Robert J. Brugnoli, Ph.D.
Clinical Evaluation
350.00
500.00
Margaret Keys -McCain, Esq.
State Attorney Costs
253.40
Pegasus Travel
Roberti. Brugnoli, Ph.D.
State Attorney Costs
533.00
Linda R. Phillips
Clinical Evaluation
Transcription
500.00
Cristi Martin
Transcription
38.50
21.00
Linda R. Phillips
Transcription
154.00
Floyd Evans
Randall deB. Bertolette, M.D.
Interpreter
State Attorney Costs
5.00
Linda R. Phillips
Transcription
17.00
101.50
Cristi Martin
Linda R. Phillips
Transcription
147.00
Avis
Transcription
59.50
Carlos L. Wells
Public Defender Costs
74.50
Carlos L. Wells
Public Defender Costs
170.76
Fairwinds Travel
Public Defender Costs
Public Defender Costs
190.19
Fairwinds Travel
Public Defender Costs
85.00
541.00
Floyd Evans
Robert J. Brugnoli, Ph.D.
Court Interpreter
12.50
Avis
Clinical Evaluation
350.00
Patricia B. Held
Public Defender Costs
34.54
Linda R. Phillips
Transcription
Transcription
87.50
Linda Copeland
Transcription
101.50
119.00
Robert J. Brugnoli, Ph.D.
Barbara G. Schopp
Clinical Evaluation
500.00
Transcription
171.50
APRIL 4, 2000
-42-
Debby Thomas
Transcription
59.50
339.5019.00
Linda Copeland
Transcription
State Attorney Costs
Sandy Crawford, Clerk
Robert Lockwood, Clerk
State Attorney Costs
3.00
35
Patricia Held
Transcription
.00
22,535.00
Total
NO ACTION REQUIRED OR TAKEN.
U. PROCLAMATIONDESIGNATING THE WEEK OFAPRm 9-15,2000.4S
CRIME VICTIMS' RIGHTS WEEK j7yINDIANRIVER COUNTY
The following Proclamation was entered into the record:
PROCLAMATION
WHEREAS, as our County continues its efforts to fight crime at every level, we must
never lose sight of the toll crime takes on victims; and
WHEREAS, those who have suffered a violation of their person, property or trust deserve
to be treated with dignity and respect by our criminal and juvenile justice systems and by society
at -large; and
WHEREAS, crime victims play an indispensable role in bringing offenders to justice; and
WHEREAS, law-abiding citizens are no less deserving of justice, rights, resources,
restoration and rehabilitation than the violent offenders who victimize them; and
WHEREAS, the citizens across America believe that Victims' Rights are Right for
America and the millions of survivors of crime and their families deserve justice; and
APRIL 49 2000
-43-
WHEREAS, let us Dare to Dream that in the year 2000 and beyond, respect and dignity
will be basic rights for everyone victimized by crime; and
WHEREAS, Indian River County is joining forces with victim service programs, criminal
justice officials and concerned citizens throughout Indian River County to observe National Crime
Victims' Rights Week:
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT PROCLAIMED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA that the week of April —15,
2000 be designated as
CRIME VICTIMS' RIGHTS WEEK
in Indian River County, and urge the citizens of this County to use the week to reaffirm our
commitment to see that crime victims receive our respect, understanding and help this week and
throughout the year.
Adopted this 4'h day of April, 2000.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
Fran B. Adams, Chairman
8. CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS AND GOVERNMENTAL
AGENCIES - SHERIFF GARY C. WHEELER - NOTICE OF
REQUEST FOR PUBLIC HEARING -1999 LOCAL LAW
ENFORCEMENT BLOCK GRANT (LLEBG)
The Board reviewed a letter of March 27, 2000:
APRIL 4, 2000
0
Vero Beach, Florida 32960
RE: Notice of Request For Public Hearing, 1999 LLEBG
Dear Chairman Adams:
Once again, it is time to review the spending plan for the Local Law Enforcement Block Grant (LLEBG)
1999 program year. In meeting the special requirements of the grant each year, we are required to
present a proposed spending plan at a public hearing.
Please allow this letter to serve as a request to set the public hearing date of May 2, 2000, at the next
Board of County Commissioners' Meeting scheduled for 04/04/00. Attached is a copy of the proposed
spending plan, as allowed under LLEBG Program Purpose Area I: Law Enforcement support for
eouinment. technology. and other material directly related to basic law enforcement functions
Should you have any questions, feel free to contact Sandy Shields at 978-6254. Thank you for your
assistance.
Sincerely,
A7C� u.-�4u�
Gary C. Wheeler, Sheriff
Indian River County •
GCW:ss
Attachment (1)
cc: Caroline D. Gimr, Commissioner
Kenneth R. Macht, Commissioner
Ruth M. Stanbridge, Commissioner
John W. Tippin, Commissioner
The 173rd Internationally Accredited Law Enforcement Agency ON
w
Accredited by the COmmL;dOn on Accreditation for Law Enforcement Agencies, Incorporated as
"k•
APRIL 49 2000
-45-
;L L ...
I
,__ .7,, -)
�LL
iff* ` GARY C. WHEELER • INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
wEi1s ER FLCRiOA SHERIFFS ASSCC;AT.Cti
MEM B ER OF NATIONAL SHERIF=S ASSCC;;.T,CN
4055 41 st AVENUE VERO BEACH, FLORIDA 32960-1808 PHONE (561) 569-6700
Proposed Spending Plan: 1999 Local Law Enforcement Block Grant
Purpose Area I. Law Enforcement support for: Procuring equipment, technology, and other
material directly related to basic law enforcement functions.
1999 LLEBG Grant Award = $76,471
Local Match = $8,497
Total Program Money = $84,968
Item #1: Voice Writer, $30,000
To optimize current C.A R.E. system by providing a digital dictation from the field for reporting
purposes. This option will allow deputies to call in reports twenty four hours a without having to
wait for a live call taker, or hand write reports. Reports can then be transcribed by CARE
Operators upon reporting for duty the next day. The system automatically prompts deputies
through the report format substantially increasing effectiveness of the field reporting process.
Item #2: Expansion of Mobile Computing Project, $54,968
Expansion of current mobile computing project providing additional laptops for deputies in the
field. The market has increased the options available to meet the needs of law enforcement; this
in turn has allowed the Sheriffs Office to pursue more modestly priced hardware. Current laptops
under review cost approximately $1,900 each to acquire; once readied for field use and wireless
access, the total cost per unit is approximately $4,000. We anticipate acquisition of 13 additional
laptops.
3kiIW
The 173rd Internationally Accredited Low Enforcement Agency ,
Accredited by the Commission on Accreditation for Law Enforcement Agencies. Incorporated
APRIL 4, 2000
-46-
ON MOTION by Commissioner Macht,
SECONDED by Commissioner Stanbridge, the
Board unanimously authorized staff to set a public
hearing date of May 2, 2000 for presentation of the
proposed spending plan for the 1999 Local Law
Enforcement Block Grant (LLEBG), as requested.
9.A.1. PUBLIC HEARING - WAYNE KLEKAMP - REQUEST
FOR PLANNED DEVELOPMENT SPECIAL EXCEPTION
USE AND PRELIMINARY PLANNED DEVELOPMENT
PLAN APPROVAL FOR AN AGRICULTURAL PD TO BE
KNOWN AS "WHITE GATE"
PROOF OF PUBLICATION OF ADVERTISEMENT FOR HEARING IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE
CLERK TO THE BOARD
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of March 28, 2000:
TO: James E. Chandler
County Administrator
DMS -51 N HEAD CONCURRENCE:
Robert M. Keating, AICP
Community Development D' ctor
THROUGH: Stan Boling, AICP
Planning Director
FROM: Jeff Blackstone _f
Staff Planner, Community Development
APRIL 49 2000
-47-
K " r
•
b 0 0 K
DATE: March 28, 2000
SUBJECT: Wayne Klekamp's Request for PD (Planned Development) Special Exception
Use and Preliminary PD Plan Approval for an Agricultural PD to be Known as
White Gate
It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal consideration by the Board of County
Commissioners at its regular meeting of April 4, 2000.
DESCRIPTION & CONDITIONS:
Knight, McGuire & Associates, Inc. has submitted an application for PD (Planned Development)
special exception use and preliminary PD plan approval on behalf of Wayne Klekamp to create eight
(8) 5 acre tracts in an agriculturally designated area. The subject property is a 40 acre parcel of land
that is located on the south side of 41' Street, 3/4 of a mile west of W Avenue. The entire property
is presently a citrus grove.
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 8 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.
• 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), in a manner that minimizes residential/agricultural use conflicts. Therefore, the LDRs
limit the maximum lot or homesite size to 1 acre, with remaining areas designated as open space (see
attachment #4). Lot or homesite clustering also preserves the ability for future development of the
overall property at a higher density if, in the future, the comprehensive plan is changed and the
property is re -designated 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 roadway. Under
such clustering designs, each tract could be individually owned. This type of clustering concept has
been used in the design of the proposed White Gate subdivision, which proposes 1 acre homesite
areas on 5 acre tracts, with the homesite areas clustered around a proposed project roadway. Thus,
individually owned tracts comprise the entire project site, yet residential homesites (located within
tracts) are clustered in relation to a proposed road.
It should be noted that agricultural PD requirements have been reviewed by the Agricultural
Advisory Committee (AAC) and the Board of County Commissioners is scheduled to review these
requirements at its April 4, 2000 meeting; the same meeting at which this PD proposal is scheduled
for approval. Based upon its review, the Board could change current agricultural PD requirements.
The applicant has been made aware of this reconsideration process and potential agricultural PD
changes, and has decided to go through the current agricultural PD process. Therefore, current
agricultural PD regulations and policies have been applied to this application and have been satisfied.
APRIL 4, 2000
r�
• PD Project Process
As a PD project, the process involved in review and approval of this proposal is as follows:
Approval Needed Reviewing Body
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 fust 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
proposed improvements.
• Planning and Zoning Commission Consideration
The Planning and Zoning Commission considered the first two steps in the PD process for this
project at its regular meeting held March 9, 2000. At that meeting, the Planning and Zoning
Commission unanimously approved the preliminary plat application subject to the Board of County
Commissioners approval of the special exception use. The Planning and Zoning Commission also
recommended that the Board grant the special exception use for the project as proposed (see
attachment #6).
• 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.
ANALYSIS:
1. Size of PD Area: 37.02 acres
Note. The subject site originally consisted of ±40 gross acres but is now less than 40 acres
due to canal right-of-way dedications.
2. Zoning Classification: A-1, Agricultural (up to 1 unit per 5 acres)
3. Land Use Designation: AG -1, Agricultural (up to 1 unit per 5 acres)
4. Density: Allowed: up to .20 units/acre
Proposed: .20 gross units/acre*
*Based upon the site's original gross acreage of 40 acres with 8 homesites proposed. This
density calculation is consistent with county allowances and previous project approvals that
recognize gross acreage of agricultural PD sites.
APRIL 49 2000
-49-
I
5. Minimum Tract Size: Required: 200,000 sq. ft. the in A-1 zoning district
Proposed: 201,000 sq. ft. (individual tract, including 1
acre homesite area)
6. Maximum Lot/Homesite Area:
Allowed: 1 acre
Proposed: 1 acre (encompassed within individual S acre
tracts)
7. Open Space:
Required: 60%
Provided: 80%
8. Surrounding Land Use and Zoning:
North: 45' Street, Grove/A-1
South: Grove/A-1
East: Grove, Pasture/A-1
West: IRFWCD Range Line Canal, Sebastian River Drainage District Lateral 'V'
Canal/A-1
9. Traffic Circulation: Due to the small number of units proposed, no special traffic study was
required. In addition, no off-site traffic improvements are required, and none are proposed.
The 8 tracts will be accessed via a one-way internal loop road that will have a full -
movement, two-way connection to 41" Street. This internal private road, to be known as 73d
Avenue, is not required to be paved and is proposed as a stabilized marl/shell surface road.
The road will not be located within a right-of-way; instead a 125' wide drainage, utility, and
roadway easement will be established via the plat and the road will be located within that
easement. The road will be owned by the individual lot owners and will be maintained by
the property owners. Traffic Engineering has approved the proposed circulation plan and 41'
Street connection, and has no objection to PD plan approval.
10. Stormwater Management: A conceptual stormwater management plan has been reviewed
by the Public Works Department. Public Works will perform a more detailed drainage
review in conjunction with review of the county Type "C" stormwater permits that will be
required for each single-family house. Prior to the issuance of an LDP or LDP waiver, the
developer will need to obtain a Type "B" stormwater management permit for the required
subdivision improvements.
11. Utilities: Because the site is located outside of the Urban Service Area, no water or sewer
service is required, and none is proposed. Therefore, the project will have -on-site wells and
septic tanks for each tract. These utility provisions have been approved by the Department
of Utility Services and the Environmental Health Department
12. Dedications and Improvements:
Paving, Sidewalk, and Bikeway: Since the proposed development is a low volume
traffic generatodattractor and is located outside the Urban Service Area, the applicant
is not required to pave 41' Street, and no such paving is proposed. No sidewalk or
bikeway improvements are required, and none are proposed.
APRIL 4, 2000
Murphy Act Deed: A Murphy Act road reservation exists along the site's 41" Street
frontage, affecting the northern 55' of the site. Some private project improvements
are proposed within this 55' reservation area, including an equestrian/walking trail
to be located along the north property line of the site.. Prior to the issuance of an LDP
or LDP waiver, either the Murphy Act Deed must be released or the PD plan must
be revised to relocate improvements outside of the Murphy Deed reservation area.
Roadway, Drainage, Utility and Easement: It will be the responsibility of the
property owners to maintain these improvements.
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. Buffers and Setbacks: Given that the surrounding area is presently used for and is
designated for agricultural purposes, no special buffering is required. Since the A-1 district
30' setbacks exceed the 25' planned development perimeter setback, the 30' A-1 district
setback will control. Therefore, no special setbacks are requested, and none will apply to this
PrejecL
15. 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 restrictions must be included in the project's covenants and
restrictions, which will be reviewed at the time of final plat application.
16. Waivers: The only waiver being requested by the applicant relates to the provision of a
roadway easement instead of the standard dedication of a separate road right-of-way.
Planning staff does not object to the granting of this waiver.
RECOMMENDATION:
Based on the above analysis, staff and the Planning and Zoning Commission recommend that the
Board of County Commissioners grant PD special exception use approval and the requested waiver,
with the following conditions:
1. Prior to the issuance of a land development permit, the applicant shall obtain a
release of the Murphy Act Deed Road Reservation along the northern edge of the site
or revise the PD plan to relocate the proposed improvements outside the reservation
area.
2. That prior to or via the final plat 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 within the
project area.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Application
2. Location Map
3. Preliminary PD Plan
4. LDR Excerpts
5. Land Use Policy 5.8
6. Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes from March 9, 2000
APRIL 49 2000
-51-
BOOK r�l
v
The Chairman opened the public hearing and asked if anyone wished to be heard
regarding this matter. There being none, the Chairman closed the public hearing.
Under discussion, Commissioner Stanbridge thought there should be a way to put
people on notice when they move into the area that they are not in an urban service area and
that their neighbor is an agricultural PD.
Acting County Attorney Terry O'Brien felt the regulations could be amended to
require disclosure of the agriculturally zoned land and disclosure that urban service area
amenities would not be available.
The Chairman then reopened the public hearing.
Ellen Roberts, 7070 41" Street, had lived there for 18 years and had no problem with
development but was concerned about the long term impact. They live V2 mile from 41'
Street and have suffered a large increase in traffic. The 40 acres to the east of them is also
for sale. 41' Street is a low-density, dirt road used by horses and cars in increasing numbers.
They would love to have sewers and paved roads and certainly did not plan on the
Ryanwood or Indian River Malls. She asked the Board to consider the impact of further
development on that road.
Jeff Meade, 7100 41' Street, questioned whether the 4 acres left after development
of the 1 -acre homesite would be used as "common ground", and Planning Director Boling
responded that the 4 acres belong to the homesite and would not be common ground. He
also explained to Mr. Meade the requirements for setbacks and green areas.
APRIL 4, 2000
-52-
I
The Chairman then asked if anyone else wished to be heard regarding this matter.
There being none, the Chairman closed the public hearing.
APRIL 4, 2000
ON MOTION by Commissioner Macht,
SECONDED by Commissioner Tippin, the Board
unanimously granted PD special exception use
approval and waived the dedication of a separate
road right-of-way in lieu of the provision of a
roadway easement, with the following conditions:
(1) Prior to the issuance of a land development
permit, the applicant shall obtain a release of the
Murphy Act Deed Road Reservation along the
northern edge of the site or revise the PD plan to
relocate the proposed improvements outside the
reservation area; and (2) Prior to or via the final plat,
a restrictive covenant shall be established on the
project site prohibiting Caribbean fruit fly host
plants, with a PD special exception use condition
that Caribbean fruit fly host plants are prohibited
within the project area; all as recommended by staff.
-53-
9.A.2. PUBLIC HEARING - (1) ORDINANCE 2000-010
AMENDING THE FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT OF
THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN BY CHANGING THE
LAND USE DESIGNATION FOR ±8.21 ACRES LOCATED
APPROXIMATELY 1/4 MILE SOUTH OF 37m STREET
AND ±492 FEET NORTH OF 33RDSTREET FROM L-1 TO
C/I AND BY CHANGING THE LAND USE
DESIGNATION FOR ±8.21 ACRES LOCATED ON THE
NORTH SIDE OF BAPTIST RETIREMENT CENTER
±470 FEET SOUTH OF 37TH STREET FROM C/I TO L-1
AND (2) ORDINANCE 2000-011 AMENDING THE
ZONING ORDINANCE AND ACCOMPANYING ZONING
MAP FROM RS -3 TO MED FOR ±8.21 ACRES LOCATED
APPROXIMATELY 1/4 MILE SOUTH OF 37m STREET
AND ±492 FEET NORTH OF 33" STREET AND FROM
MED TO RM -3 FOR ±8.21 ACRES LOCATED ON THE
NORTH SIDE OF BAPTIST RETIREMENT CENTER
±470 FEET SOUTH OF 37m STREET (INDIAN RIVER
MEMORIAL HOSPITAL AND KENNEDY GROVES,
INC.
PROOF OF PUBLICATION OF ADVERTISEMENT FOR HEARING IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE
APRIL 49 2000
CLERK TO THE BOARD
-54-
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of March 17, 2000:
TO: James E. Chandler; County Administrator
DECENT HEAD CONCURRENCE
,
ert M. Keating, AICP; Community Development Director
THROUGH: Sasan Rohani, AICP; Chief, Long -Range Planning S'11
FROM: John Wachtel; Senior Planner, Long -Range 04,
DATE: March 17, 2000
RE: Indian River Memorial Hospital and Kennedy Groves, Inc., Request to Amend
The Comprehensive Plan to Redesignate +8.21 Acres From L-1 to CA, And to
Rezone Those +8.21 Acres From RS -3 to MED; And to Amend The
Comprehensive Plan to Redesignate +8.21 Acres From C/I to L-1, And to
Rezone Those 18.21 Acres From MED to RM -3
PLAN AMENDMENT NUMBER: LUDA 99-08-0002
It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal consideration by the Board of County
Commissioners at its regular meeting of April 4, 2000.
This is a request to redesignate *8.21 acres from L-1, Low -Density Residential -1 (up to 3 units/acre)
to C/1, Commercial/Industrial, while simultaneously redesignating a nearby ±8.21 acre tract from
C/I to L-1. Unlike commercial industrial node expansion requests, the proposed -amendment will
not increase the amount of C/I designated land and will not increase land use density/intensity.
Rather, this amendment will reconfigure the US 1/37th Street Medical/Commercial Node.
Figure 1, on page three of this staff report, shows the location of each of the subject properties and
depicts their comprehensive plan future land use designations. Figure 2, on page four, shows the
location and zoning district of each of the subject properties.
The property to be redesignated from L-1, Low -Density Residential -1 (up to 3 units/acre) to C/1,
Commercial/Industrial, is located approximately a quarter mile south of 37" Street and ±492 feet
north of 33`d Street. This property will be referred to as Subject Property 1. The request involves
rezoning Subject Property 1 from RS -3, Single -Family Residential District (up to 3 units/acre) to
MED, Medical District.
The property to be redesignated from C/I to L-1 is located ±1,450 feet to the east of Subject Property
1, ±470 feet south of37" Street. That property will be referred Property 2. The request
Prop
to as Subject
also involves rezoning Subject Property 2 from MED, Medical District, tot Prop Multiple -Family
Residential District (up to 3 units/acre).
APRIL 49 2000
The purpose of this request is to reconfigure the shape of the existing medical/commercial node to
accommodate expansion of the Indian River Memorial Hospital (IRMH) Campus. Currently the
county's second largest employer, IRMH is projected to continue to be an important element of the
county's economy in the future. This request is needed to secure the necessary land use designation
and zoning district to develop Subject Property 1 with medical/commercial uses.
On October 28, 1999, the Planning and Zoning Commission voted 4 to 0 to recommend that the
Board of County Commissioners approve the proposed land use amendment and rezoning. On
December 7, 1999, the Board of County Commissioners voted 4 to 1 to transmit the proposed land
use amendment to the State Department of Community Affairs (DCA) for its review.
Consistent with state regulations, DCA reviewed the proposed amendment and prepared an
Objections, Recommendations and Comments (ORC) Report (dated February 17, 2000) which
planning staff received on February 21, 2000. The DCA ORC Report did not contain any objections
or comments relating to the proposed amendment.
Although the number of plan amendments that a local government may consider is not limited, the
frequency with which local governments can amend their comprehensive plan is regulated by state
law. According to Florida Statutes, plan amendments are limited to twice per calendar year. For that
reason, the county accepts general plan amendment applications only during the "window" months
of January and July. In this case, the subject application was the only application submitted during
the July 1999 window.
APRIL 4, 2000
-56-
•
Figure 1: Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use
Designation and Location of Subject Properties
APRIL 49 2000
•
6
y
4titi�
Yt
1 Subject
�
V
,,
Property
._
1
1
33rd Street
APRIL 49 2000
•
SOCK
Figure 2: Zoning District and Location of Subiect Properties
B �
o�
-ubject
�-------
11Property 1
i 7.... ..`
RS=3
-
I 33rd Street.-
.��
�� �..�� ■� ���� ��
Nil loll
APRIL 4, 2000
-58-
•
•
The procedures for reviewing comprehensive plan amendments involve several steps. First, the
Planning and Zoning Commission, as the Local Planning Agency, conducts a public hearing to
review the request. The Commission has the option to recommend approval or denial of the
Comprehensive Plan amendment request to the Board of County Commissioners. Also, the Planning
and Zoning Commission may recommend approval of or deny any associated rezoning request. If
the rezoning request is denied, only the land use amendment request is forwarded to the Board,
unless the denial to rezone is appealed.
Following Planning and Zoning Commission action, theBoard of County Commissioners conducts
two public hearings. The first of those hearings is for a preliminary decision on the land use
amendment request. At that hearing, the Board determines whether or not the land use amendment
warrants transmittal to DCA for fiuther consideration. A Board of County Commissioners decision
not to transmit the land use amendment to DCA constitutes denial of both the land use amendment
and rezoning requests.
If the land use amendment is transmitted, DCA conducts a review which includes soliciting
comments from the Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council, several state agencies, and
neighboring local governments. After its review, DCA compiles its objections, if it has any, in an
Objections, Recommendations, and Comments (ORC) Report, and transmits that report to the
county. After staff addresses any issues that were raised in the ORC Report, the second and final
Board of County Commissioners public hearing is conducted. The Board takes final action to
approve or deny the land use amendment and rezoning requests at that time. If the Board approves
the requests, the effective date of the adoption ordinances is when the land use amendment is found
"in compliance" by DCA.
The Board of County Commissioners is now to decide whether or not to adopt the proposed land use
designation and zoning for both subject properties.
Subject Property 1.
Subject Property 1 and properties to the east and south are zoned RS -3 and are part of a 40 acre citrus
grove. Land along Subject Property 1's west boundary is zoned RM -6, Multiple -Family Residential
District (up to 6 units/acre), and consists of undeveloped upland habitat and possibly some
jurisdictional wetlands. North of Subject Property 1, land is zoned MED and consists of medical
office buildings and Indian River Memorial Hospital.
Subject Property 2
Subject Property 2 and land to the north and west are zoned MED and part of the Indian River
Memorial Hospital Campus. Subject Property 2 consists of stormwater management tracts for that
campus. Adjacent land to the east is also zoned MED. That land consists of a medical office
building and undeveloped wetlands.
Land to the south of Subject Property 2 is zoned RS -3 to the east and RM -3 to the west. The RS -3
area contains subdivisions of single-family homes and a golf course. The RM -3 area contains the
Baptist Retirement Center assisted living facility.
APRIL 49 2000
-59- BOOR
BOCK
.� rAGL
Subject Property 1
Subject Property 1 and properties to the east and south are designated L-1, Low -Density Residential -
1, on the county's future land use map. The L-1 designation permits residential uses with densities
up to 3 units/acre. To the west of Subject Property 1, land is designated M-1, Medium -Density
Residential -1, on the county's future land use map. The M-1 designation permits residential uses
with densities up to 8 units/acre. Land to the north of Subject Property 1 is designated CII,
Commercial/Industrial, on the county's future land use map. This designation permits various
commercial and industrial zoning districts.
Subject Property 2
Subject Property 2 and lands to the north, east, and west are designated CA, Comrnercial/Industrial.
Land to the south of Subject Property 1 is designated L-1, Low -Density Residential -1, on the
county's future land use map.
Subject Property 1
Subject Property 1 is part of a citrus grove. No wetlands or any other environmentally sensitive
habitat exist on Subject Property 1. The site is not within a designated flood hazard area.
Subject Property 2
Subject Property 2 consists entirely of a stormwater management area. No jurisdictional wetlands
or any other environmentally sensitive habitat exist on Subject Property 2. A small area of native
upland habitat exists in the southeast comer of the site. The site is within an "AE" 100 year
floodplain, with a minimum base flood elevation requirement of 7 feet NGVD.
Utilities and Cervices
Water lines extend to within a quarter mile of both subject sites from the South County Reverse
Osmosis Plant, while wastewater lines extend to within a quarter mile of the sites from the Central
Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant.
Transportation System
Either 36'" Street or 37's Street could provide access to the subject properties. Classified as an urban
collector roadway on the future roadway thoroughfare plan map, the segment of 37`" Street that is
east of US 1 is a two-lane paved road with approximately 110 feet of existing public road right-of-
way. Currently, there are no plans to expand this segment of 37`s Street.
Thirty Sixth Street is a two lane local road with 80 feet of public road right-of-way. Currently, there
are no plans to expand this segment of 36' Street.
APRIL 49 2000
•
In this section, an analysis of the reasonableness of the application will be presented. Following a
discussion of plan amendment review standards, this section will include the following:
• an analysis of the proposed amendment's impact on public facilities;
• an analysis of the proposed amendment's compatibility with surrounding areas;
• an analysis of the proposed amendment's consistency with the comprehensive plan; and
• an analysis of the proposed amendment's potential impact on environmental quality.
Unlike most land use designation amendment requests, this request does not involve an increase in
land use intensity. As proposed, the request involves a minor reconfiguration, rather than an
expansion, of a commercial/industrial node.
For this reason, the subject request can be characterized differently from most plan amendments.
Typically, plan amendments involve increases in allowable density or intensity of development. As
such, the typical amendment would result in impacts to public facilities and changes to land use
patterns. Consequently, both the county comprehensive plan and state policy dictate that a high
standard of review is required for typical plan amendments. This standard of review requires
justification for the proposed change based upon adequate data and analysis.
The subject amendment, however, differs significantly from a typical plan amendment request.
Instead of proposing density or intensity increases, the subject amendment involves only a locational
shift in future land uses without an increase in land use intensity.
Staff's position is that these different types of plan amendments wan -ant different standards of
review. Since the typical type of amendment can be justified only by challenging the projections,
need assessments, and standards used to prepare the original plan, a high standard of review is
justified. For amendments involving just shifts in land uses and no intensity/density increase, less
justification is necessary. This recognizes that no single land use plan map is correct and that many
variations may conform to accepted land use principles and meet established plan policies.
In fact, in March 1998, the county amended its comprehensive plan to specifically allow future land
use map amendments that do not increase the county's overall land use density or intensity. That
change was recommended in the county's adopted Evaluation and Appraisal Report (EAR), which
was found sufficient by DCA. EAR based amendments, including that recommendation, were
adopted by the county and found "in compliance" by DCA.
Both sites comprising this request are located within the County Urban Service Area, an area deemed
suited for urban scale development. The comprehensive plan establishes standards for.
Transportation, Potable Water, Wastewater, Solid Waste, Stormwater Management, and Recreation
(Future Land Use Policy 3.1). The adequate provision of these services is necessary to ensure the
continued quality of life enjoyed by the community. To ensure that the minimum acceptable
standards for these services and facilities are maintained, the comprehensive plan requires that new
development be reviewed For land use designation amendment requests, this review is undertaken
as part of the conditional concurrency determination application process.
APRIL 49 2000
0
—61—
UU mly 1� ir'J;L . o
BOOK F� J :'A L
As per section 910.07 of the County's Land Development Regulations (LDRs), conditional
concurrency review examines the available capacity of each facility with respect to a proposed
project. Since land use amendment 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 land use designation.
For commercial/industrial land use amendment requests, the most intense use (according to County
LDRs) is retail commercial with 10,000 square feet of gross floor area per acre of land proposed for
redesignation. The site information used for the concurrency analysis of Subject Property 1, the
commercial/industrial portion of the proposed amendment, is as follows:
1. Size of Area to be Redesignated: 18.21 acres
2. Existing Land Use Designation: L-1, Low -Density Residential -1 (up to 3 units/acre)
3. Most Intense Use with Existing Land Use Designation: 24 units
4. Proposed Land Use Designation: CA, Commercial/ Industrial Node
5. Most Intense Use with Proposed
Land Use Designation: 82,100 square feet of Retail Commercial (Shopping
Center in the 6th Edition ITE Manual).
For residential land use amendment requests, the most intense use (according to County LDRs) is
the maximum number of units that could be built on the site, given the size of the property and the
maximum density under the proposed land use designation. The site information used for the
concurrency analysis of Subject Property 1, the portion of the proposed amendment to be
residentially designated, is as follows:
1. Size of Area to be Redesignated: 18.21 acres
2. Existing Land Use Designation: C/I, Commercial/ Industrial Node
3. Most Intense Use with Existing
Land Use Designation: 82,100 square feet of Retail Commercial (Shopping
Center in the 6'h Edition ITE Manual).
4. Proposed Land Use Designation: L-1, Low -Density Residential -1 (up to 3 units/acre)
5. Most Intense Use with Proposed Land Use Designation: 24 units
As per section 910.07(2) of the Concurrency Management Chapter of the County's LDRs, projects
which do not increase density or intensity of use are exempt from concurrency requirements. This
land use amendment request is exempt from concurrency review because the requested land use
designation changes would not increase the square footage of retail commercial use or the total
number of potential units that the sites could accommodate.
It is important to note that there will be no effect on service levels for any public facility as a result
of this land use designation amendment.
As with all projects, a detailed concurrency analysis will be done in conjunction with site
development. That concurrency analysis will address facility service levels and demand.
APRIL 49 2000
-62-
CompAtibility with the Surrounding Area
Subject Property 1
The following factors indicate that commercial/industrial development on Subject Property i would
be compatible with surrounding areas.
• Adjacent land on the north is designated C/I; therefore, the request is for the continuation of
the existing zoning pattern from the north.
• The residentially designated property to the east and south is under the same ownership as
Subject Property 1.
• County land development regulations somewhat mitigate potential impacts through site
design and by requiring commercial/industrial development to provide vegetative buffers.
• At approximately 31 acres in size, the residentially designated property to the east and south
is large enough to provide additional buffers from Subject Property 1, if necessary.
• Property to the west is designated M-1 (up to 8 units/acre), one of the county's most intense
residential land use designations. That property, which is zoned RM -6, Multiple -Family
Residential District (up to 6 units/acre), is currently vacant.
Generally, multiple -family development is more dense than single-family development and
has more flexibility, in terms of site design that could mitigate impacts from adjacent
commercial/industrial development, than single-family development. For those reasons,
multiple -family projects are more compatible with commercial/industrial uses than single-
family projects, and the RM -6 zoning district is an appropriate district for residential land
that abuts commercial/industrial uses.
• At approximately 21 acres in size, the residentially designated property to the west is large
enough to provide additional buffers from Subject Property 1, if necessary.
Subject Property 2
Currently, Subject Property 2 is a stormwater management tract that is unlikely to be developed.
At some time in the future, however, the stormwater management characteristics of the site could
be altered or moved, allowing development of the site. If that happened, the following factors
indicate that residential development on Subject Property 2 would be compatible with surrounding
areas.
• Adjacent land to the south is residentially designated, therefore, the request is for the
continuation of the existing zoning pattern from south.
• Adjacent C/I designated land on the north, east, and west is zoned MED, and consists of
primarily of medical offices. In terms of aesthetics, noise, traffic, and hours of operation,
medical offices have less impact on surrounding areas than most other commercial land uses.
Due to the medical orientation of the subject node, the types of uses surrounding Subject
Property 2 are not likely to change.
• Adjacent C/I designated land on the west and north is under the same ownership as Subject
Property 2.
APRIL 4, 2000
-63-BOOK -L I � � rf {:E i
BOCK !- LL
• At 8.21 acres in size, and 270 feet to 310 feet wide, Subject Property 2 has sufficient size to
provide additional buffers, if necessary.
• County land development regulations somewhat mitigate potential impacts through site
design and by requiring new commercial/industrial development on surrounding property
to provide vegetative buffers.
• At approximately 70 acres, the adjacent C/I designated land on the west and north is large
enough to provide additional buffers from Subject Property 2, if necessary.
• Due to the high probability of adjacent land to the east containing wetlands, there is limited
development opportunity for those lands.
For these reasons, staff feels that the proposed land use amendment would not increase potential
incompatibilities with surrounding areas.
Consistency with Comprehensive Plan
Land use amendment and rezoning requests are reviewed for consistency with all policies of the
comprehensive plan. As per section 800.07(1) of the land development regulations, the
"comprehensive plan may only be amended in such a way as to preserve the internal consistency of
the plan pursuant to Section 163.3177(2), FS." Amendments must also show consistency with the
overall designation of land uses as depicted on the Future Land Use Map; which includes
agricultural, residential, recreational, conservation, and commercial and industrial land uses and their
densities.
The goals, objectives and policies are the most important parts of the comprehensive plan. Policies
are statements in the plan which identify actions which the county will take in order to direct the
community's development. As courses of action committed to by the county, policies provide the
basis for all county land development related decisions—including plan amendment and rezoning
decisions. While all comprehensive plan objectives and policies are important, some have more
applicability than others in reviewing plan amendment and rezoning requests. Of particular
applicability for this request are the following policies and objectives.
Future Land Use Element Policy 143
In evaluating a land use amendment request, the most important consideration is Future Land Use
Element Policy 14.3. This policy requires that one of four criteria be met in order to approve a land
use amendment request. These criteria are:
• The proposed amendment will correct a mistake in the approved plan;
• The proposed amendment will correct an oversight in the approved plan;
• The proposed amendment is warranted based on a substantial change in circumstances
affecting the subject property; or
• The proposed amendment involves a swap or reconfiguration of land use designations at
separate sites and, that swap or reconfiguration will not increase the overall land use density
or intensity depicted on the Future Land Use Map.
In this case, the proposed amendment meets the policy's fourth criterion. As specifically cited in
the policy, the proposed amendment involves a swap or reconfiguration of land use designations at
APRIL 4, 2000
•
separate sites, and that swap or reconfiguration will not increase the overall land use density or
intensity depicted on the Future Land Use Map. For those reasons, the proposed amendment meets
the fourth criterion of Future Land Use Element Policy 14.3.
Because the proposed amendment meets the policy's fourth criteria, the proposed amendment is
consistent with Future Land Use Element Policy 14.3.
Future Land Use Element Policies 1.11 and 1.12
Future Land Use Element Policies 1.11 and 1.12 state that the L-1, Low -Density Residential -1, land
use designation should be within the urban service area and is intended for urban and suburban scale
residential development with densities up to 3 units/acre.
Located within the urban service area, and near existing low density residential development, Subject
Property 2 is appropriate for residential development with a density of up to 3 units/acre. The
proposed amendment would allow that type of low density residential development on Subject
Property 2. Therefore, the proposed amendment is consistent with Future Land Use Element
Policies 1.11 and 1.12.
Future Land Use Element Policy 1.15
Future Land Use Element Policy 1.15 states that the Commercial/Industrial land use designation
should be within the urban service area, in areas that are suitable for urban scale development and
intensities.
Located adjacent to Indian River Memorial Hospital property, within the urban service area, near
US 1 and Indian River Boulevard, and with urban services available, Subject Property 1 is
appropriate for commercial uses. The proposed amendment would allow commercial development
on Subject Property 1. Therefore, the proposed amendment is consistent with Future Land Use
Element Policy 1.15.
Future Land Use Element Policy 1.16
Future Land Use Element Policy 1.16 sets specific maximum intensities and densities for
commercial/industrial development. Those standards limit the intensity of commercial/industrial
development throughout the county. Therefore, through Future Land Use Element Policy 1. 16, the
county has intensity standards for commercial/industrial development. Because any
commercial/industrial development on either subject property would be subject to those standards,
the request is consistent with Future Land Use Element Policy 1.16.
Future Land Use Element Policy 1.17
Future Land Use Element Policy 1.17 states that county land development regulations shall provide
performance standards for commerciaUindustrial development which at a minimum address the
following:
• gross floor area;
• impervious surface ratios;
• minimum open space;
• parldng;
• buffering and landscaping; and
• environmental impact.
APRIL 49 2000
I
0
As mandated in Future Land Use Element Policy 1. 17, county land development regulations contain
standards for commercial/industrial development. Those standards limit the intensity of
commercial/industrial development throughout the county. Therefore, through Future Land Use
Element Policy 1.17, the county has intensity standards for commercial/industrial development.
Because any commercial /industrial development on either subject property would be subject to
those standards, the request is consistent with Future Land Use Element Policy 1.17.
Future Land Use Element Policy 1.20
Future Land Use Element Policy 1.20 states that nodes shall have a designated size based on the
intended use, service area population, existing land use pattern and other demand characteristics.
The amount of C/I designated land is based on service area population, the existing land use pattern,
and other demand characteristics. The proposed amendment will not alter the amount of CA
designated land. Therefore, the proposed amendment is consistent with Future Land Use Element
Policy 1.20.
Future Land Use Element Policy 1.22
Future Land Use Element Policy 1.22 states that 70% of the land area of a node should be developed
with non-residential and non-agricultural uses before that node is considered for expansion. The
intent of this policy is to regulate increases in the amount of C/I designated land. Since the proposed
amendment does not increase2�o a veloped standard doamount of CA es designated aPP1Y to this land in the subject
mendmenFuture Land
Use Element Policy
Future Land Use Element Policy 1.24
Future Land Use Element Policy 1.24 specifically allows the Bd County eno Commissioners
to
initiate a land use designation amendment to change C/I designated
ed
land, provided that the following conditions exist:
• The parcel has been redesignated to CIL Commercial/Industrial, since comprehensive plan
adoption on February 13,1990; and
• The parcel is. currently designated C/I; and
• More than two years have passed since approval of the ordinance redesignating the parcel
to C/I; and
• No construction activity has commenced on the parcel since approval of the ordinance
redesignating the parcel to CA.
If the proposed amendment is adopted, and if no construction activity takes place on Subject
property 1 within the referenced time frames, Policy 1.24 would apply and the Board could initiate
an amendment to change Subject Property 1 back to a residential designation.
APRIL 49 2000
As part of the staff analysis, all relevant policies in the comprehensive plan were considered. Based
upon that analysis, staff determined that the proposed land use designation amendment is consistent
with the comprehensive plan.
Neither subject property contains wetlands or any other environmentally sensitive habitat. Federal,
state, and county environmental protection rules regulating impacts on adjacent and nearby
environmentally sensitive lands apply to both subject properties, regardless of land use designation
or zoning district. The following are examples of county policies that protect floodplain, wetlands,
and other environmentally sensitive areas.
• FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT POLICIES: 1.3, 3.3, 3.4, 7.1, 7.3, 7.4, 7.5, and 7.6
• CONSERVATION ELEMENT POLICIES: 2.4, 5.3, 7.2, 7.3, and 7.4
• STORMWATER MANAGEMENT SUB -ELEMENT POLICIES: 1.1 and 1.2
• CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT ELEMENT POLICIES: 3.3 and 3.5
• LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS CHAPTERS 928 (Wetland and Deepwater
Habitat Protection) and 930 (Stormwater Management and Flood Protection)
For these reason, the proposed amendment is not anticipated to adversely impact environmental
quality.
rONCi .USION
The proposed amendment is consistent with the comprehensive plan, compatible with all
surrounding land uses, and will cause no adverse impacts on the environment or the provision of
public services. The proposed change increases land use efficiency and facilitates economic
development. By facilitating the implementation of a "Campus Master Plan" for Indian River
Memorial Hospital, the amendment promotes a strong, diverse local economy. For these reason,
staff supports the request.
Based on the analysis, staff and the Planning and Zoning Commission recommend that the Board
of County Commissioners approve the request by adopting the attached land use amendment and
rezoning ordinances.
APRIL 49 2000
-67-
IRMH and Kennedy Groves, Inc.
Land Use Amendment Request
within 60 days DCA nansmits objeetions
cewromeodations a� comtnetus report to the wtmty
Board ofCounty Commissioners holds final public bearing
It
Adopted amendments are hansmitted to DCA for compliance
review
Previous BCC Action
• The BCC voted 41 to transmit to DCA
APRIL 49 2000
B 0 0
-68-
PZC Recommendation
• PZC voted 40 to recommend approval
DCA O=Report
• No Objections or Comments
BCC RESPONSIBILITY
I
• Determine whether or not to adopt the
proposed land use amendment & rezoning
Land Use Designation
• Subject Property I subject Property 2
- Som L-1 to C!1 - from C/I to L-1
Criteria Analyzed
• Concurrency
• Comprehensive Plan
• Compatibility
• Environment
APRIL 4, 2000
Land Use Designation "Swap"
` Subject Property I
Subject Property Z
- 811 acres
- 811 acres
- from residential
- from commercial
- to commercial
- to residential
- Kennedy Groves. Inc.
- Ind. Riv. Mem. Hosp.
- Cintas Grove
- stomtwater
management tact
MI
Concurrency
• No change in land use intensity
Compatibility
• Subject Property I
— Applicant owns land on the east & south
— Multi -family development likely on west
— Subject Property 1 can accommodate buffers
— Surrounding land can accommodate buffers
— Design and approval process
Comprehensive Plan
• Most applicable
— Future land Use Mement Policies 14.3, 1.11,
1.12, 1.15, 1.16, 1.17, 1.20, 1.22, and 1.24
• Consistent with all GOPs
Conclusion
• Consistent
• Compatible
• No impact on public facilities
• No environmental impacts
• Increases land use efficiency
• Facilitates economic development
• Staff supports the request
APRIL 4, 2000
Compatibility 71
• Subject Property 2
- Unlikely to be developed
- Land on the east is unlikely to be developed
— Applicant owns land on the north & west
— Medical development pattern on north & west
— Subject Property 2 can accoaunodate buffers
— Surrounding land can accommodate buffers
— Design and approval process
-70-
Environmental Impacts
• No wetlands
• No environmentally sensitive habitat
• Same regulations
• No additional impacts
Recommendation
• Staff & the PZC recommend adoption of the
proposed land use amendment & rezoning
I
GENERAL
Applicant: Kennedy Groves, Inc.
Location: • '/. mile south of 37`" Street and ±492 feet north of 33`d Street
Acrengc: ±8.21
Fxisting Land Use Designation: L-1, Low -Density Residential -1 (up to 3 units/acre)
Rcquested Land Use De ig an tion: CA, Commercial/Industrial
Existing .onin : RS -3, Single -Family Residential District (up to 3 units/acre)
Requested ZoninnMED, Medical District
Rxigting Land IIc ; Citrus grove
ADJACENT LAND
hlorth: Medical offices, IRMH; zoned MED, Medical District
South & Fast: Citrus grove; zoned RS -3, Single -Family Residential District
West: Vacant, wooded; zoned RM -6, Multiple -Family Residential District
INFRASTRUCTURE
Water and sewer available; access from 37h Street
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSTRAINTS
None
PUBLIC NOTIFICATION
Staffrontact: John Wachtel
Date Advertised: March 22, 2000
# of Surrounding RQ cM Owners Notified: 26
Date Notification Mailed; March 17, 2000
Date SigI3 Posted: March 17, 2000
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff supports the request
APRIL 49 2000
nrw."rr y
IfiiE
tA,^,k�'
•:auk
Yom.
f �
a
UGKi rI�P
L
GENERAL
Applicant: Indian River Memorial Hospital District
Location: North side of Baptist Retirement Center, ±470 feet south of 37'h Street
Acreage: ±8.21
Existing Land Use Designation: C/I, CommerciaUIndustrial
Requested T .and Use Desi ^tion: L-1, Low -Density Residential- 1.(up to 3 units/acre)
Existing Z=ing: MED, Medical District
Requested Zoning: RM -3, Multiple -Family Residential District (up to 3 units/acre)
Existing T. n -a_ -d Use: Stonnwater Management Tract
ADJACENT LAND
north: IRMH; zoned MED, Medical District
South: Baptist Retirement Center (zoned RM -3); Single -Family S/D's (zoned RS -3)
Fast: Medical office, vacant wetlands; zoned MED, Medical District
K=: IltMH; zoned MED, Medical District
INFRASTRUCTURE
Water and sewer available; access from 371s Street
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSTRAINTS
None
PUBLIC NOTIFICATION
litaff contact: John Wachtel
Date Advertised: March 22, 2000
# of Surrounding Prot, Owners Notified: 26
Date Notification Mailed: March 17, 2000
Date Sieh Posted: March 17, 2000
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff supports the request
APRIL 49 2000
•
V I C-bt4
-72-
C7
, w4w
.■•6
APRIL 49 2000
•
V I C-bt4
-72-
C7
Community Development Director Bob Keating explained the process and advised
there would be no increase in density or intensity of use. He then responded to several
questions from Commissioner Ginn relating to regulations addressing the kind of
development allowed and access to the property. He noted that the surrounding property is
zoned MED to the north and residential to the east, south and west. Staff has informed the
developer that the remainder of the property which is not developed at this time will not be
recommended for residential zoning in the future by staff.
Chairman Adams believed this is a good swap and the medical use creates a less
intensive demand on all of the amenities.
Director Keating confirmed that this will be an extension of the hospital campus.
The Chairman opened the public hearing and asked if anyone wished to be heard in
this matter.
Dean Luethje of Carter & Associates stated that this is a cooperative event between
Indian River Memorial Hospital District and Indian River Memorial Hospital, Inc.
HealthSystems of Indian River, Inc. will be the title owner to the whole 40 acres. He then
introduced Don Loftus, Executive Director for the Hospital District; Rock Tonkel, Assistant
to Jeff Susi, Executive Director of the Hospital; and Bill Stewart, legal counsel representing
the Hospital. There is a real need for the expansion of the Hospital campus.
Commissioner Macht questioned whether there would be an ownership transfer or
a lease, and Mr. Luethje responded that HealthSystems will own and develop the property.
Commissioner Ginn questioned how this relates to the taxpayer.
APRIL 4, 2000
-73-
Bill Stewart, legal counsel for the Hospital, noted that all of the property that the
Hospital owns will revert to the District at the end of the leases.
Commissioner Macht then asked whether the subsidiary will own the property in fee
simple, and Mr. Stewart responded that they will, there is just a reverter clause.
Commissioner Ginn then questioned why the District Trustees will not have title, and
Mr. Stewart responded that private corporations are able to do things that governmental
entities cannot do. As a practical matter all the lands revert back to the District.
The Chairman asked if anyone else wished to be heard regarding this matter. There
being none, the Chairman closed the public hearing.
Rock Tonkel, Special Assistant to Jeff Susi, noted that the contiguous nature of the
project is very important to the Hospital's future plans. The acquisition price of the property
across the street was substantially higher and this will be a benefit to the taxpayers. The
planned development was not possible on the existing hospital property.
Don Loftus clarified that this development has been discussed with the Trustees and
they are in full agreement.
APRIL 4, 2000
ON MOTION by Commissioner Macht,
SECONDED by Commissioner Tippin, the Board
unanimously adopted Ordinance 2000-010 amending
the Future Land Use Element of the Comprehensive
Plan by changing the Land Use Designation for
±8.21 acres located approximately 1/4 mile south of
-74-
I
0
376` Street and ±492 feet north of 33rd Street from L-
1, Low -Density Residential-1(up to 3 units/acre) to
C/I, Commercial Industrial, and by changing the
Land Use Designation for ±8.21 acres located on the
north side of Baptist Retirement Center, ±470 feet
south of 37' Street from C/I, CommercialAndustrial,
to L-1, Low -Density Residential -1 (up to 3
units/acre)(Indian River Memorial Hospital and
Kennedy Groves, Inc.).
ORDINANCE NO. 2000- 010
AN ORDINANCE OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, AMENDING THE FUTURE
LAND USE ELEMENT OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN BY CHANGING THE LAND USE
DESIGNATION FOR ±8.21 ACRES LOCATED APPROXIMATELY A QUARTER MILE
SOUTH OF 37TH STREET AND ±492 FEET NORTH OF 33RD STREET, FROM L-1, LOW-
DENSITY RESIDENTIAL -1 (UP TO 3 UNITS/ACRE) TO CA, COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL;
AND BY CHANGING THE LAND USE DESIGNATION FOR ±8.21 ACRES LOCATED ON
THE NORTH SIDE OF BAPTIST RETIREMENT CENTER, ±470 FEET SOUTH OF 37TH
STREET, FROM C/I, COMMERCIAL/ INDUSTRIAL TO L-1, LOW-DENSITY RESIDENTIAL -
1 (UP TO 3 UNITS/ACRE); AND PROVIDING SEVERABILITY AND EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners adopted the Indian River County
Comprehensive Plan on February 13, 1990, and
WHEREAS, the county received comprehensive plan amendment applications during its July
1999 amendment submittal window, and
WHEREAS, the Local Planning Agency held a public hearing on this comprehensive plan
amendment request on October 28, 1999 after due public notice, and
WHEREAS, the Local Planning Agency recommended approval of this comprehensive plan
amendment to the Board of County Commissioners, and
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County held a Transmittal
Public Hearing on December 7, 1999 after advertising pursuant to Section 163.3184(15)(b)1 and (c),
FS, and
APRIL 49 2000
•
BOOK J- J
ORDINANCE NO. 2000-010
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners approved the transmittal of this
comprehensive plan amendment to the Florida Department of Community Affairs for their review
and comment, and
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners announced at the transmittal public
hearing its intention to hold and advertise a final public hearing at the adoption stage of the plan
amendment process for this plan amendment, and
WHEREAS, the Florida Department of Community Affairs received this Comprehensive
Plan Amendment on December 13, 1999, for the State review pursuant to Section 163.3184(4), FS,
and
WHEREAS, Indian River County received the Objections, Recommendations, and
Comments (ORC) Report from the Florida Department of Community Affairs on February 21, 2000,
and
WHEREAS, the ORC Report contained no objections or comments regarding this
Comprehensive Plan Amendment, and
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County held a
Comprehensive Plan Amendment Adoption Public Hearing on April 4, 2000, after advertising
pursuant to Section 163.3184(15)(b)2 and (c), FS, and Section 125.66(4), FS;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED, by the Board of County Commissioners of Indian
River County, Florida, that:
SECTION 1. rompohensive Plan Amendment Adoption nnd Transmittal
The amendment to the Indian River County Comprehensive Plan identified in section 2 is
hereby adopted, and three (3) copies are directed to be transmitted to the State of Florida Department
of Community Affairs and one (1) copy is directed to be transmitted to the Treasure Coast Regional
Planning Council.
APRIL 49 2000
-76-
I
•
ORDINANCE NO. 2000- 010
SECTION 2. Amendments tn the Compnbengive Plan
The land use designation of the following described property situated in Indian River County,
Florida to wit:
THE WEST 419.26 FEET OF THE NORTH 853.00 FEET OF THE SOUTHWEST
QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 36, TOWNSHIP 32
SOUTH, RANGE 39 EAST, INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA.
Is changed from L-1, Low -Density Residential -1 (up to 3 units/acre) to CA, Commercial/Industrial,
and the Future Land Use Map is hereby revised accordingly.
ME
The land use designation of the following described property situated in Indian River County,
Florida to wit:
THE NORTH 490.00 FEET OF THE SOUTH 800.00 FEET OF THE EAST 274.52
FEET AND THE SOUTH 310.00 FEET OF THE EAST 720.00 FEET OF THE
NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 36,
TOWNSHIP 32 SOUTH, RANGE 39 EAST, INDIAN RIVER COUNTY,
FLORIDA.
Is changed from C/I, Commercial/Industrial, to L-1, Low -Density Residential -1 (up to 3 units/acre),
and the Future Land Use Map is hereby revised accordingly.
SECTION 3. meal of Conflicting Provisions
All previous ordinances, resolutions, or motions of the Board of County Commissioners of
Indian River County, Florida which conflict with the provisions of this ordinance are hereby repealed
to the extent of such conflict.
SECTION 4. Severabili
It is declared to be the intent of the Board of County Commissioners that if any provision of
this ordinance and therefore, the Indian River County Comprehensive Plan Amendment is for any
reason finally held invalid or unconstitutional by any court of competent jurisdiction, such provision
shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and such holding shall not affect the
validity of the remaining provisions.
SECTION 5. F.ffeWXtDAtC
The effective date of this ordinance, and therefore, this plan amendment, shall be the date a
final order is issued by the Department of Community Affairs or Administration Commission
finding the amendment in compliance with Section 163.3184(1)(b), Florida Statutes, whichever
occurs earlier. No development orders, development permits, or land uses dependent on this
amendment may be issued or commence before it has become effective. If a final order of
noncompliance is issued by the Administration Commission, this amendment may nevertheless be
made effective by adoption ata public meeting after public notice of a resolution affirming its
effective status, a copy of which resolution shall be sent to the Florida Department of Community
Affairs, Division of Resource Planning and Management, Plan Processing Team.
APRIL 49 2000
-77- �. ,'r�r
0
je u =,1.a q
ORDINANCE NO. 2000- 010
This ordinance was advertised in the Press -Journal on the 22nd day of March, 2000 for a
public hearing to be held on the 4`h day of April, 2000 at which time it was moved for adoption by
Commissioner Macht , seconded by Commissioner Ti ppi n , and adopted by the
following vote:
Chairman Fran B. Adams
Vice -Chairman Caroline D. Ginn
Commissioner Kenneth R Macht
Commissioner Ruth M. Stanbridge
Commissioner John W. Tippin
4 II'811S7MW
�It/l,'.►IJE'Ilirl�f
Ave
Aye
Aye
Aye
Ave
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
BY:y/Q''& 8
Fran B. Adams, Chairman
ATTEST (�) .0,
Jeffrey K. Barton, tk
41 n .
Acknowledgment by the Department of State of the State of Florida this 11 day of�2000
� 1
Acknowledgment from the Department of State received on this::�y ofGAj, 2000, at It .a0
A.M./P.M. and filed in the office of the Clerk of the Board of County Comdissioners of Indian
River County, Florida. u\v\jUuVrmht\ludaordwpd
APRIL 49 2000
-78-
ON MOTION by Commissioner Macht,
SECONDED by Commissioner Tippin, the Board
unanimously adopted Ordinance 2000-011 amending
the Zoning Ordinance and the accompanying Zoning
Map from RS -3 to MED for +8.21 acres located
approximately 1/4 mile south of 3-/d. Street and +492
feet north of 33'd Street; and from MED to RM -3 for
±8.21 acres located on the north side of Baptist
Retirement Center +470 feet south of 371h Street
(Indian River Memorial Hospital and Kennedy
Groves, Inc.).
ORDINANCE NO. 2000- 011
AN ORDINANCE OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, AMENDING THE ZONING
ORDINANCE AND THE ACCOMPANYING ZONING MAP FROM RS -3 TO MED, FOR ±8.21
ACRES LOCATED APPROXIMATELY A QUARTER MILE SOUTH OF 37'x' STREET AND
±492 FEET NORTH OF 33RD STREET; AND FROM MED TO RM -3, FOR ±8.21 ACRES
LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF BAPTIST RETIREMENT CENTER, ±470 FEET SOUTH
OF 37"' STREET; AND DESCRIBED HEREIN, AND PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY AND
EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission, sitting as the local planning agency on
such matters, has held a public hearing and subsequently made a recommendation regarding this
rezoning request; and
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, did
publish its Notice of Intent to rezone the hereinafter described property; and
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners has determined that this rezoning is in
conformance with the Comprehensive Plan of Indian River County; and
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners has held a public hearing pursuant to this
rezoning request, at which parties in interest and citizens were heard;
APRIL 49 2000
-79-
0
BOOK
I
ORDINANCE NO. 2000- 011
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 WEST 419.26 FEET OF THE NORTH 853.00 FEET OF THE SOUTHWEST
QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 36, TOWNSHIP 32
SOUTH, RANGE 39 EAST, INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA.
Be changed from RS -3 to MED.
L F
THE NORTH 490.00 FEET OF THE SOUTH 800.00 FEET OF THE EAST 274.52
FEET AND THE SOUTH 310.00 FEET OF THE EAST 720.00 FEET OF THE
NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 36,
TOWNSHIP 32 SOUTH, RANGE 39 EAST, INDIAN RIVER COUNTY,
FLORIDA.
Be changed from MED to RM -3.
All with the meaning and intent and as set forth and described in said Land Development
Regulations.
Effective Date: This ordinance shall become effective upon the issuance by the State Department
Of Community Affairs of a Notice of Intent to find the related Comprehensive Plan Land Use
Designation Amendment contained in Ordinance Number 2000- 010 , "in compliance" in
accordance with Section 163.3184(9), FS, or the issuance of a final order by the Administration
Commission finding the referenced amendment in compliance with Section 163.3184(10), FS.
Approved and adopted by the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, on
this 4`h day of April, 2000.
This ordinance was advertised in the Press -Journal on the 22°d day of March, 2000, for a public
hearing to be held on the a day of April, 2000, at which time it was moved for adoption by
Commissioner Macht , seconded by Commissioner Ti ppi n , and
adopted by the following vote:
APRIL 49 2000
-80-
ORDINANCE NO. 2000-011
Chairman Fran B. Adams Aye
Vice -Chairman Caroline D. Ginn Ave
Commissioner Kenneth R. Macht Ave
Commissioner Ruth M. Stanbridge _ Aye
Commissioner John W. Tippin AYe
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
BY: s
Fran B. Adams, Chairman
ATTEST B �) ,e, ,
Jeffrey K. Barton, Cler
This or ' ance was filed with the Department of State on the following date:
9r0
u\v\j\lu\irmhl\rzonord.wpd
APRIL 49 2000
-81-
�
®F" .ij 1 R F-'' ,
eoc�� , f_.
F,
9.B.1. PUBLIC DISCUSSION ITEM - BIBBLE IRVIN -
REQUEST TO SPEAK REGARDING THE BEACH SET
LINE PLUS MORE IMPORTANT INFORMATION
Bibble Irvin stated that he is a former engineer and has been closely monitoring the
County's beaches for over 20 years. Mr. Irvin displayed a number of photographs on the
ELMO. (CLERK'S NOTE: The photographs were not submitted to the Clerk as backup.)
He commented that he had heard a remark that the erosion at Humiston Park was so bad it
was threatening Ocean Drive and he believed that to be an unfair statement. He continued
that hurricanes have eroded the beaches for years but the reef system protects these same
beaches. He was unsure about the performance of the PEP reef and had spoken to several
lifeguards about the buoys on the reef. He was advised by one of the lifeguards that they
have to go down on the beach and warn people to stay away from the PEP reef. He believed
that the beaches have built up quite a bit and noted that he built a tiki but for George Bunnell
about 20 years ago and you now need to crawl on your knees to get under it. He also noted
that Mr. Summerlin had to add 40 feet of walk because of the beach buildup. He believed
that people just felt that the beaches were bigger long ago and in checking back over the last
40 years, he did not believe there was enough erosion to make a preservation plan necessary.
Commissioner Ginn asked for a copy of a photograph of the Ocean Grill, and Mr.
Irvin complied.
NO ACTION REQUIRED OR TAKEN.
APRIL 4, 2000
•
9.B.2. PUBLIC DISCUSSION ITEM - ALONZO SHARPE
REQUEST TO SPEAK TO THE BOARD REGARDING
CODE ENFORCEMENT ACTION AGAINST HIS
PROPERTY AT 10385 130THAVENUE
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of March 28, 2000:
TO: James E. Chandler
County Administrator
DEPaTAIENT HEAD CONCURRENCE:
Robert M. Keating, AICP
Community Development ' ctor
FROM: Roland M. DeBloi4p CP
Chief, Environmental Planning
and Code Enforcement
DATE: March 28, 2000
SUBJECT: ALONZO SHARPE REQUEST TO SPEAK TO THE BOARD REGARDING CODE
ENFORCEMENT ACTION AGAINST HIS PROPERTY AT 10385130'" AVENUE
It is requested that the information herein presented be given formal consideration by the Board of County
Commissioners at its regular meeting of April 4, 2000.
DPWRTMON AND CONDITIONS
Alonzo Sharpe, owner of property at 10385 130`6 Avenue, has requested to speak to the Board of County
Commissioners regarding code enforcement action against his property. The subject —5 acre property is
zoned A-1, Agriculture, in the unincorporated vicinity of Fellsmere.
Summary of Code Enforcement Action
On September 10, 1999, code enforcement staff sent Mr. Sharpe a Notice of Code Violation identifying code
violations on his property, summarized as follows:
• use of a barn structure for a rooming house (resolved)
• remodeling of a building without required building permits (unresolved)
• accumulation of junk vehicles and junk, trash, and debris (partially resolved)
• illegal mobile home (unresolved)
Since staffs issuance of the Notice of Code Violation, Mr. Sharpe's code enforcement case has been heard
by the County Code Enforcement Board on the following three occasions (see attached Code Board minutes):
Evidentiary hearing (October 25, 1999)
Compliance hearing (January 24, 2000)
Rehearing request (February 28, 2000)
APRIL 49 2000
-83-
0
Status of Compliance
The Code Enforcement Board has granted Mr. Sharpe until April 21, 2000, to resolve the cited code
violations on his property. If the violations are not resolved by that time, the Board will hold a compliance
hearing on April 24, 2000, and will decide to either grant an additional period of time for compliance, or
impose a fine in the form of a lien against the property.
On February 28, 2000, at the rehearing request before the Code Enforcement Board, Mr. Sharpe's main point
of contention concerned the Code Board's fording that the mobile home on his property is not
"grandfathered," and needs to be removed. The Code Board's fording that the mobile home is not
grandfathered was based testimony at the October 25, 1999 evidentiary hearing and at the February rehearing
(see attached Code Board meeting minutes).
Purview of the Commission
The Indian River County Code Enforcement Board was established pursuant to Chapter 162. Florida
Statutes, adopted by reference in the County Code (County Code Section 103.03). Section 162.11, F.S.,
provides that an aggrieved party may appeal a final administrative order of an enforcement board to the
circuit court. As such, if Mr. Sharpe's intent is to appeal the County Code Enforcement Board's findings
of violations, it is the circuit court, and not the County Commission, that is charged with hearing the appeal.
The Board of County Commissioners does have the authority to "execute a satisfaction or release of lien"
entered pursuant to Chapter 162 (Section 162.09, F.S). In Mr. Sharpe's case, however, there is currently no
lien imposed by the Code Board, and therefore the County Commission's authority to satisfy or release a lien
is not applicable.
Amendment to County Regulations
The Board of County Commissioners has the authority to adopt and amend county regulations, as wan -anted,
subject to public hearing procedures. It is staff s position that the county regulations at issue in Mr. Sharpe's
case are appropriate and do not warrant revision. Notwithstanding, Mr. Sharpe has the right, as do all
citizens, to apply for an amendment to county regulations, subject to established procedures and an
application fee.
Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners defer any action on Alonzo Sharpe's code
enforcement case to the County Code Enforcement Board.
Morris Thomas,103 85 103rd Aveme, Fellsmere, Mr. Sharpe's brother, explained that
Mr. Sharpe had been told that the trailer on the property was grandfathered in when he
purchased the property. He then related a disagreement between Mr. Sharpe and one of his
neighbors who had called the Code Enforcement Department. The trailer has been on the
property since at least 1971. He advised that Mr. Sharpe is considered to be legally blind
and raises cows and chickens on his property. The people living in the trailer are there to
assist Mr. Sharpe.
APRIL 49 2000
-84-
• 0
Chairman Adams asked Acting County Attorney O'Brien for a legal opinion as to the
Board's position in this discussion since the ruling came from the Code Enforcement Board.
Acting County Attorney O'Brien advised that the Board appoints members and sets
up the rules for the Code Enforcement Board but has no authority over that Board.
Alonzo Sharpe commented that Mr. Thomas had covered most of what he wanted to
say but believed that the County was aware that the trailer was on the property when he
purchased it and should have advised him at that time that the trailer was not legal.
Chairman Adams advised Mr. Sharpe that, under the circumstances, he would have
to take the problem back to the Code Enforcement Board.
Environmental and Code Enforcement Chief Roland DeBlois stated that this problem
has been before the Code Enforcement Board both in an evidentiary hearing and then a
compliance hearing. This is really now a matter of compliance.
Mr. Sharpe was advised that his recourse at this point in time would be through an
appeal to the Circuit Court.
NO ACTION REQUIRED OR TAKEN.
APRIL 4, 2000
-85- - `�
BOCK x J i Ftl l ✓�r�
9.B.3. PUBLIC DISCUSSION ITEM - 21ST CENTURY
SATELLITE COMMUNICATIONS. INC. - APPEAL OF
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION DENIAL OF
AN AFTER -THE -FACT REQUEST FOR A 110 FOOT
"CAMOUFLAGED" TOWER IN LAKEWOOD VILLAGE
MOBILE HOME PARK
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of March 2912000:
TO: James E. Chandler
County Administrator
77*,-f,
N HEAD CONCURRENCE:
P r" *i '
-"
Robert M. Keating, AICs¢
Community Development Director
FROM: Stan Boling, AICP
Planning Director
DATE: March 29, 2000
SUBJECT: Appeal by 21s` Century Satellite Communications, Inc. of a Planning and
Zoning Commission Denial of an After -the -fact Request for a 110'
"Camouflaged" Tower in Lakewood Village Mobile Home Park
It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal consideration by the Board of County
Commissioners at its regular meeting of April 4, 2000.
BACKGROUND:
Lakewood Village Mobile Home Park Tower
Lakewood Village Mobile Home Park is located south of 16" Street, on both sides of 90`h Avenue,
and is zoned RMH-8 (residential mobile home up to 8 units/acre). In 1998, an agent for 2V Century
Satellite Communications, Inc. constructed a 110' tower in a 315'x 393' fenced compound area
located in the southeastern portion of the Park (see attachment #1). The Park is owned by Lakewood
Village Resident Owned Association, Inc., while the tower is owned by 21' Century.
APRIL 49 2000
-86-
The tower was constructed to support various communications structures. including broadcast
receiving antennas. that are part of a single parcel cable TV system servicing only Lakewood Village.
Broadcasts received by these structures are fed into the system run by 21' Century to serve
Lakewood Village residents with "local" over -the -air broadcasts as well as satellite broadcasts. No
approval was requested or given for construction of the tower.
In response to a complaint received from a resident who lived near the tower, staff determined that
a 110' tower had been constructed without approval. Consequently, code enforcement staff issued
a :ode violation notice to the property owner on September 16, 1998. Contrary to assertions made
by 21' Century, code enforcement investigation and action were not based upon complaints from
a competitor of 21' Century. The park owner is under code enforcement action to cure the violation
by either removing the tower or by obtaining after -the -fact approval for the existing tower or a
modified tower.
County Tower Regulations
During 1996 and 1997 in the face of increased requests for towers, the Planning and Zoning
Commission and the Board of County Commissioners held a series of public workshops and
hearings on the adequacy of county tower regulations. Since major changes to county tower
regulations were anticipated, the Board enacted a moratorium on new tower applications until the
regulations could be revised. Through the workshop and public hearing process. new comprehensive
tower regulations were enacted that reasonably accommodate telecommunications needs, minimize
unnecessary proliferation of new tower sites, and protect property values and community aesthetics.
These regulations, which are contained in the current land development regulations (LDRs), provide
incentives to co -locate antennas, dishes, and similar structures on existing towers and other existing
tall structures. Within the LDRs, there are incentives to retrofit and expand the capacity of existing
towers, and to use "camouflaged" towers so as to build structures that function as towers but look
like other kinds of structures that fit into a given local setting. The LDRs also contain disincentives
to construct new, non -camouflaged towers in new locations; such new tower locations are limited
and are considered a "last resort".
To protect residential areas from adverse aesthetic impacts, current LDRs allow commercial towers
,.,in residential zoning districts only if such towers are "camouflaged". Because Lakewood Village
Mobile Home Park is located in a residential district, the district regulations applicable to that site
allow "camouflaged" commercial communications towers only.
After -the -fact Approval Request and Appeals
The applicant, 21" Century Satellite Communications. Inc., applied for an administrative approval
site plan to obtain after -the -fact approval for a "camouflaged" tower. Staff denied that application
based upon a determination that the applicant's proposal does not constitute a "camouflaged tower"
under current county LDRs and that a re -design is necessary. The applicant then appealed staff s
decision to the Planning and Zoning Commission. At its meeting of February 10, 2000 the Planning
and Zoning Commission voted 7-0 to deny the appeal and uphold staffs determination that the tower
and proposed modifications do not constitute a "camouflaged" commercial communications tower
as defined in the county LDRs (see attachment #8).
21' Century now has appealed the Planning and Zoning Commission's denial to the Board of County
Commissioners (see attachment #9). In addition to filing this appeal to the Board, 21' Century has
also filed with Federal Communications Commission (FCC) a Petition for Declaratory Ruling and
Preemption seeking federal "relief' from county tower regulations (see attachment #10). Staffs
review of the petition indicates that the petition contains false "statements of fact".
APRIL 49 2000 J pp
FAL t
-87_
I
In accordance with LDR sections 914.07(2)(g) and 902.07, the Board of County Commissioners is
to consider the appeal and either uphold or overturn the Planning and Zoning Commission's
decision.
ANALYSIS:
The request for after -the -fact approval was trade by 21' Century via a minor site plan application
that was reviewed by the TRC (Technical Review Committee) on February 10, 1999. Subsequently,
over a period of several months, staff from the county planning division, telecommunications
division, and the attorney's office discussed various alternatives and proposals with 21' Century, its
attorneys and its design professional. Those alternatives include meeting existing county LDR tower
regulations or seeking a change to the county tower regulations. The applicant -has chosen to apply
for after -the -fact approval under the existing county tower regulations, although the applicant's
presentation to the Planning and Zoning Commission was more appropriate for an LDR amendment
request than an appeal based on the existing LDRs.
It is staff s position that the unpermitted tower construction performed to date has no bearing on
review of the application and that the tower request should be reviewed as if the subject site is
vacant. Therefore, in accordance with the approach of the county's tower LDRs, staff directed 21'
Century to assess the feasibility of locating its antennas in off-site areas where commercial towers
exist and are allowed or in areas where the zoning allows new, non -camouflaged towers. Staff also
explored technical issues with the applicant regarding justification for the tower's function and
height, and legal issues regarding constraints on local regulating authority. These issues are
summarized below.
1. Local Regulatory Authority
At the time of TRC review, the County Attorneys Office reviewed relevant statutes and case
law, and concluded that the county has the authority to control the siting (location),
construction, and modification of communication towers, so long as local regulations do not
unreasonably discriminate among telecommunication providers of the same services (e.g. TV
broadcast providers) or prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting the provision of wireless
communications services (see attachment #2). Staff's conclusion is that the LDRs
reasonably provide areas (sites) where antennas may be located (existing structures, retro-
ftttedlrebuilt structures, new towers). At this time, 21' Century is challenging before the
FCC the county's authority to regulate 2191 Century's type of service and the county's tower
LDRs. At the same time, 2V Century is contesting the Planning and Zoning Commission's
determination that its proposal does not constitute a "camouflaged" tower under the existing
LDRs.
2. The Proposed Tower's Function
21" Century contends that, to effectively compete with cable TV providers, it must provide
its customers over the air "local" (e.g. Orlando and West Palm Beach) TV broadcasts as well
as broadcasts it can pull off of satellites. At some point in time, these "local" broadcasts may
be available via satellite. Currently, local broadcasts are available by satellite in major
markets. If these "local" broadcasts were available via satellite, rather than over the air only,
then there would be no need for a tall tower, and lower level satellite dishes could be used.
Staff, however, accepts 21" Century's assertion that, for now, certain "local" broadcasts can
be received only over the air via antennas.
APRIL 4, 2000
3. The Proposed Tower's Height
21" Century has provided staff technical data and analysis to justify the 110' height of the
proposed tower. County telecommunications division manger, Terry Smith, has reviewed
this information and has asked the applicant for more information from the applicant. As of
the date of this report, the additional information has not yet been received. Based upon Mr.
Smith's review it appears that under current broadcast technology and -conditions, a tower
of a height of 70' is justified to ensure reception of a quality signal of certain "local"
broadcasts from distant locations. However, Mr. Smith has not yet received sufficient
information to conclude that the proposed 110' tower height is justified (see attachment #11).
It should be noted that, in 1998, when staff first became aware that the tower had been
constructed, staff coordinated with the applicant regarding aviation safety. The applicant
contacted FAA and confirmed that the 110' tower in its present location did not require an
FAA review and did not require lighting (see attachment #3). Based upon this FAA contact
and confirmation, staff determined that the county's airport zoning regulations (height
notification requirements) were satisfied.
4. Alternative Sites and Co -location
Staff requested that the applicant explore alternative sites in the surrounding area for either
construction of a new tower in an appropriate zoning district (e.g. industrially zoned sites
located north of Lakewood Village along 90' Avenue) or co -location on the closest existing
towers in the area (e.g. BellSouth/Life for Youth Ranch, FDOT at I-95, county utilities
wastewater plant). The applicant provided some details regarding co -location on the closest
tower site and found that alternative to cost more than 21' Century is willing to spend. The
applicant argued that any other alternatives would be more expensive then the alternative
explored. Expenses involved in obtaining an off-site location that were noted by the
applicant included a cost of "... over $29,000 to build a hard coaxial cable link..." to the
existing off-site tower, costs of leasing tower space, and concerns about use of right-of-way
for a cable link connection and any resulting franchise requirements (such as those imposed
on cable companies). Thus, the applicant's main reason for not pursuing alternative sites and
co -location is his sense that these alternatives are too expensive. Therefore, the applicant has
decided to concentrate resources on the subject site.
5. "Camouflaging" Proposal
Because the applicant determined that alternative sites and co -location off-site were not
feasible, the applicant has pursued the other option available under the L.DRs, which is the
option of constructing a "camouflaged" tower. The applicant's "camouflaged" tower
proposal is to locate a 110' guyed tower in a 315'x 393' open area in the southeast comer of
the Park site, and to plant a landscape buffer around the fenced perimeter of the area.
Landscaping is to consist of canopy trees planted at a height of 12' and understory trees
planted at a height of 8'. The proposed buffer is similar to the county's Type "C" buffer. The
applicant contends that the proposed landscaping will help "camouflage" the tower by
partially screening it. In addition, the applicant proposes to mount 2 light fixtures at the
tower's 50' level, in an attempt to give the tower structure the appearance of a streetlight (see
attachment #4). It should be noted that the applicant's tower elevation rendering does not
depict the 9 dish/antenna structures currently attached to the tower.
APRIL 412000
-89-
v. A
1'29
6. `Backdoor" Argument for Changing the LDRs
At the February 10, 2000 Planning and Zoning Commission meeting, the applicant, rather
than justifying the camouflaging proposal under the current LDRs, actually made a case for
changing the county's existing LDRs. The applicant argued that a thin lattice work tower
with landscaped base is less visually obtrusive than types of camouflaged towers allowed
under the current tower regulations. Thus, the Board, if it finds merit in the applicant's
analysis of visual impacts, can initiate and consider an LDR amendment that would apply
countywide and accommodate the applicant's proposal.
In staffs opinion, the proposed tower does not constitute a camouflaged tower as defined in
the current LDRs (see attachment #6), because it simply is not "... disguised so as not to have
the appearance of a communications tower...". In staff s opinion, the proposed structure has
the appearance of a 110' tall guyed tower with a landscaped base and lighting fixtures located
half -way up that will be visually "lost" among the various existing tower attachments. Thus,
the proposed structure is not disguised and has the appearance of a tower. Therefore, it is not
proposed to be camouflaged.
There is nothing site-specific about the design that blends the tower "... into the existing
surroundings..." at the Lakewood Village site. If through the appeal process it is determined that this
proposal does constitute a "camouflaged tower", then the county would have to allow similar
designs in all residential districts throughout the county. Thus, the decision as to whether or not the
proposed design constitutes a "camouflaged tower" will set a powerful precedent applicable to all
residential districts.
Such a precedent would allow similar towers whenever "single parcel" cable systems, such as the
Lakewood Village/21' Century system, are feasible. Generally such systems are feasible on
residential project sites that consist of one large, single parcel, usually condominium projects,
apartment projects, mobile home parks, or private subdivisions. Therefore, the outcome of this
appeal will determine how tower proposals will be regulated in other large single parcel residential
projects. Some examples of projects where single parcel cable systems may be feasible and therefore
where towers may be proposed include Village Green, Countryside, Vista Plantation, Lake -in -the -
Woods, The Club at Vero, and other large single parcel residential projects; some of these sites have
significant frontage along major roads such as SR 60 and US #1 -
Board of County Commissioners Review Guidelines for Appeals
Section 902.07 provides guidelines for the Board's review of the appeal. Under section 902.07, the
Commission is to review the Planning and Zoning Commission's decision and make findings in the
following four review areas:
1. Did the reviewing official fail to follow the appropriate review procedures?
Response: The Planning and Zoning Commission did not fail to follow the appropriate minor
site plan approval and appeal review procedures. The lengthy timeframe for review
of this application was due to the length of time necessary for the applicant to provide
complete responses and to discuss various legal issues. The length of time to
schedule the first appeal was due to a request by the appellant to allow several
months "lead time" to avoid scheduling conflicts for its participants.
It also should be noted that, on various occasions, the county has sought to delay
Code Enforcement Board action to allow ample time for the applicant to exhaust its
efforts to obtain after -the -fact approval and pursue appeals. At no time has county
review of the code violations or applicant proposals halted telecommunications
services to the park or halted revenues received by 21' Century for such services.
APRIL 4, 2000
s
2. Did the reviewing official act in an arbitrary or capricious manner?
Response: The Planning and Zoning Commission did not act arbitrarily or capriciously, but
acted based upon the LDR definition of "commercial camouflaged tower", county
zoning requirements (Chapter 911 and specific tower regulations (971). In
accordance with LDR provisions that'have been supplied to and discussed with the
applicant since the beginning of-tl a code enforcement and after -the -fact site plan
review process. The Commission's determination ensures that, within residential
districts, commercial towers are camouflaged so as to "... blend into the existing
surroundings and to be disguised so as not to have the appearance of a
communications tower...". Thus, the Commission's decision is not arbitrary or
capricious since it is clearly based on the LDRs.
3. Did the reviewing official fail to consider adequately the effects of the proposed development
upon surrounding properties, traffic circulation or public health, safety, and welfare?
Response: The Planning and Zoning Commission did not fail to consider adequately effects on
surrounding properties. In fact, as previously stated, the entire review process was
initiated in response to a complaint from a surrounding resident. The Commission's
decision ensures that the LDR standards are followed to protect abutting property
owners and residents (existing and future) from adverse aesthetic impacts of an
inadequately camouflaged commercial tower. Furthermore, the Commission's
decision protects owners of residential properties throughout the county by
preventing a precedent that would allow similar inadequately camouflaged
commercial tower designs in all residential districts.
4. Did the reviewing official fail to evaluate the application with respect to the comprehensive plan
and land development regulations of Indian River County?
Response: The Planning and Zoning Commission did not fail to evaluate the application with
respect to the LDRs and Comprehensive Plan. As previously stated, a clear and
straight -forward reading of the definition of camouflaged towers has been applied.
The Commission's application of the LDRs is reasonable and upholds the stated
intent of the county's tower regulations to "...avoid(ing) unnecessary proliferation of
new tower sites, and minimize(ing) negative aesthetic impacts of communications
towers and antennas...". Also, the Commission's decision is firmly based on the
adopted comprehensive plan land use element policy to "...address aesthetic
concerns regarding telecommunication towers and antennas by several means
including: providing incentives for co -location on existing structures, limiting the
possible location of future towers, setbacks, landscaping, camouflaging, and
requiring unobtrusive lighting...". Thus, the Commission's decision is clearly based
upon the comprehensive plan and the LDRs (see attachment #7).
RECOMMENDATION:
Based on the analysis performed, staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners:
1. Make a fording that the Planning and Zoning Commission's decision did not fail any
of the areas outlined in LDR section 902.07, and
2. Deny the appeal and uphold the Planning and Zoning Commission's decision to deny
the proposed tower design based upon a determination that the design does not
constitute a camouflaged tower under the existing LDRs.
APRIL 49 2000
•
boa Is'i('
I.� r. UL
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Location Map
2. County Attorney Opinion
3. FAA Contact and Confirmation (Exhibit "E")
4. "Camouflaging" Proposal
5. Application and Site Plan Graphics
6. Letter of Staff Denial
7. Comprehensive Plan and LDR Excerpts
8. February 10, 2000 Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes
9. Appeal to the Board of County Commissioners
10. Notice of FCC Filing
11. Memo from Terry Smith on Necessary Tower Height
APRIL 4, 2000
-92-
Planning Director Stan. Boling noted that a Code Enforcement action was initiated
when a resident had called Code Enforcement and asked about the tower. Subsequent
investigation found that no permits were issued and no site plan was approved. Staff and 21at
Century then met and went over the tower regulations covered in the LDRs and the
Comprehensive Plan. The tower is located in a residential area and the owner has several
options. There are greater opportunities for towers in areas to the north and northwest which
are zoned commercial or the tower can be sited as proposed if adequately camouflaged as
defined in the existing LDRs.
Telecommunications Manager Terry Smith showed a number of photographs of the
tower on the ELMO.
Attorney Dorothy Hudson, 2903 Cardinal Drive, representing 21' Century and the
Lakewood Village Property Owners Association, noted that the tower is being used as a
replacement for TCI Cablevision and that Lakewood Village has the best, highest speed
Internet access in the County as a result of this technology. The cable has been placed
underground which is an aesthetic factor as well as providing additional service during
storms. She felt that the key to camouflage is that it blends in and meets site specific criteria.
Don Cuozzo, Houston Cuozzo Group, 49 Flagler Avenue, Stuart, noted that this tower
had been up for quite some time before it was even noticed. He felt that this lattice -type
tower is the least obtrusive and blends into the surroundings much better than anything else.
He commented that a "clock" tower over 110 feet tall would not blend in nearly as well and
could cost as much as Y2 million dollars.
APRIL 49 2000
aonr
-93-
Robert Birch, 3110 Cherry Palm Drive, Tampa, President of 21' Century,
commented that the existing tower was priced under $10,000, while a "tree" tower would be
approximately $180,000. The tower in question is an after -the -fact permit application.
When 21' Century became aware that no permits had been pulled, they immediately tried
to remedy the situation. The contractor was dismissed immediately and they have worked
with staff to try to reach an agreeable settlement. They have a commitment to the residents
of Lakewood Village and the only formal complaint came from their competitor, TCI. They
are a reputable company and have never had another situation such as this. They will
accommodate the County wherever they can, within reason. He asked the Board to accept
their apology and noted that they have bent over backward trying to comply with the
County's regulations.
Carl Haulk, 1798 Split Fork Drive, West Palm Beach, a telecommunications
consultant, responded to Commissioner Macht's questions regarding the necessity for a 110 -
foot tower and all the antennas being used. He did not feel they could make do with a lower
tower and also felt that camouflaging the tower would weaken their reception.
Steve Ross, Ross & Hardies, 888 16' Street NW, Washington, D.C., a
communications attorney for 31 years, stated that he is very familiar with FCC regulations
and believes this tower is necessary to provide service to the residents of Lakewood Village.
He felt that, in addition to whether or not the tower is camouflaged, there is also a need to
determine whether or not the County's ordinance interferes with the Telecommunications
Act:. Mr. Ross believed that staff's determination is discriminatory and anti -competition.
To require them to build a tower costing $180,000 is ridiculous because there are no trees
around there of that height. He believed the existing tower to be necessary and consistent
APRIL 4, 2000
-94 0
-
with the County's ordinance. He also felt that the County did not want to be embroiled with
the FCC over non-discriminatory issues.
Norman Ebhart, 1455 90' Avenue, President of the Shareholders of Lakewood
Village, stated that they have 320 homes and only 1 complaint on record about the tower.
You can't even see this tower from a few hundred yards away and it is loaded with birds in
the evening.
Patricia Martin, 1455 90' Avenue, Lakewood Village, stated that the Lakewood
Village residents had TCI cable service for 21 years and were never asked if they wanted 21d
Century. She has been complaining for 2 years to 21' Century about her reception. The
tower is not bringing in Channels 5 through 12 but she was not here to talk about the service.
She believes the tower is ugly and should be taken down.
Lewis Galpert, 1455 Wh Avenue, Lakewood Village, felt the County ordinance is
very restrictive. He stated that, looking to the southwest from his home, he can see a very
large utility tower. Between that tower and his home is the tower in question and it is not
noticeable. The ordinance needs to be revised.
Dorothy Hudson asked that the record contain the transcript from the P&Z appeal, all
pictures, the petition, the entire file on the site and the Code Enforcement action. (CLERK'S
NOTE: Documents are on file with the Planning & Zoning Commission, the Code
Enforcement Department and the Planning Department.)
Director Boling wanted to confirm that the County regulations will stay as they are
and 21' Century can go forward with a petition to the FCC to preempt County regulations
and/or apply for an LDR change.
APRIL 4, 2000
Acting County Attorney O'Brien noted that they could also appeal to the circuit court.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Stanbridge,
SECONDED by Commissioner Ginn, the Board
unanimously found that the Planning and Zoning
Commission's decision did not fail any of the areas
outlined in LDR Section 902.07; denied the appeal;
and upheld the Planning and Zoning Commission's
decision to deny the proposed tower design based
upon a determination that the design does not
constitute a camouflaged tower under the existing
LDRs; all as recommended by staff.
9.C. PUBLIC NOTICE ITEMS SCHEDULED FOR PUBLIC
HEARING ON APRIL 11, 2000
9. C.1. SUN -UP OFINDIANRim - REQUEST TO REZONE f40ACRES
LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF 57ff STREET SW. ±655FEET
EAST OF 2TfAVENUE FROMRS--6 TO RM -6 (QUASI -.JUDICIAL)
9. C.2. CO UN77 INHZ4 7ED REQUEST TO REZONE f0.37ACRES LOCATED
AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF 27W AVENUE AND 14THSTREET
SW FROM CG TO RS -6 (QUASI-.IUDICIAL)
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of March 24, 2000:
APRIL 4, 2000
I
.7
TO:
James E. Chandler, County Administrator
D ION HEAD CONCURRENCE:
Robert M. Keating, AIQP; Comm)mity Development Director
THROUGH:
S�•%l.
Sawn Rohani, AICP; Chief. Long -Range Planning
FROM:
John Wachtel; Senior Planner, Long -Range Planning ct�
DATE:
March 24, 2000
SUBJECT: Notice of Scheduled Public Hearings for the April 11, 2000, Board Meeting
It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal consideration by the Board of County
Commissioners at its regular meeting of April 4, 2000.
DF.S _ IPTION AND CONDMONS:
Please be advised that the following public hearings have been scheduled for Board consideration at its April
11, 2000 meeting.
1. Sun -Up of Indian River and others' request to rezone ±40 acres located on the south side of 5`h
Street, S.W.,1655 feet east of 27th Avenue from RS -6, Single -Family Residential District (up to 6
units/acre), to RM -6, Multiple -Family Residential District (up to 6 units/acre). (Quasi -Judicial)
2. County initiated request to rezone ±0.37 acres located at the northeast comer of 27' Avenue and 14'h
Street, S.W. from CG, General Commercial District, to RS -6, Single -Family Residential District (up
to 6 units/acre). (Quasi -Judicial)
The above referenced public hearing date is provided for the Board's information. No action is needed.
NO ACTION REQUIRED OR TAKEN.
APRIL 49 2000
-97-
•
11.A.1. AGRICULTURAL PLANNED DEVELOPMENTS
(CLUSTERING) - DISCUSSION
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of March 27, 2000:
TO: James E. Chandler; County Administrator
TMEE/NT�HEEAD CONCURRENCE
Robert M. Keating, AICD; Comm dnnity Development Director
THROUGH: Susan Rohani, AICP; Chief, "n//g-Range Planning
FROM: John Wachtel; Senior Planner, Long -Range Planning /
DATE: March 27, 2000
RE: Discussion of Agricultural Planned Developments
7t is requested that the data herein presented be given formal consideration by the Board of County
Commissioners at its regular meeting of April 4, 2000.
Over the last several months, the Board of County Commissioners has considered both county policy and
specific projects involving residential development on agriculturally designated land. Policies 1.10 and 5.8
of the Future Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan regulate land use and development on
agriculturally designated land. Consistent with those policies, all residential subdivisions of two or more
lots (other than a one time lot split) on agriculturally designated land must be approved as Agricultural
Planned Developments (PDs). One of the requirements for Agricultural PDs is to cluster residential lots or
homesites on a relatively small portion of the overall project property. The remainder of the site, regardless
of its ownership, must remain in open space (either as natural; agricultural; or to a limited degree,
recreational areas) for as long as the property retains an agricultural land use designation.
In Indian River County, clustering has been broadly interpreted and applied. For that reason, Agricultural
PDs have been designed in a manner that results in "unclustered" five acre lots with homesites "clustered"
near a road. No approved agricultural PD has a large open space area owned by a single entity.
Past Actions
During the last year, several proposals involving kgricultural PDs have been considered by the Board of
County Commissioners at public hearings. In reviewing those proposals, the Board questioned whether
residential subdivisions located on agriculturally designated land should be required to cluster.
Issues raised at those public hearings include the following:
Should clustering be required for Agricultural PDs?
APRIL 49 2000
0
-98- 0
•
• Is there any benefit, generally, to the clustering of residential development on agriculturally
designated land? and
• If there is a benefit generally, does that benefit apply to small tracts?
To address those issues, the Board held an Agricultural PD Works
P on October e Board instru99. At cted staff
the Board did not take any specific action regarding Agricultural c�tmal PD
to obtain input and recommendations from the Agricultural Advisory Committee regarding Agri
regulations, and then schedule another Board workshop.
At its February 2, 2000, Special Meeting, the Agricultural Advisory Committee considered the county's
current regulations regarding Agricultural PDs and clustering. (The staff report Prepared for that meeting
comprehensively addressed the Agricultural PD issue and is attached to this staff report.) After nearly two
hours of discussion, the Committee members agreed that they could not reach a consensus at that meeting
and decided to continue the discussion at their next meeting.
At the next meeting (March 16, 2000), the Committee voted 5 to 0 to recommend that the Board of County
Commissioners eliminate the clustering requirement for residential development on agriculturally, designated
land. The Committee's recommendation specified that the Agricultural PD process should remain an option.
ALTERNATIVES
With respect to Agricultural PDs, the Board of County Commissioners has the follow alternatives:
Alternative 1: Continue the current system of broadly defined clustering. This alternative requires
residential development on agriculturally designated land to go through the Agricultural PD process, but
broadly defines clustering to allow one acre homesites on five acre lots. There is widespread consensus that
this alternative does not work. Those interested in residential development feel that the Agricultural PD
process is too long, complicated, and expensive—particularly when only two or three lots desired. Similarly,
those interested in agricultural preservation and discouraging suburban sprawl feel that allowing one acre
homesites on five acre lots is inconsistent with the intent of clustering. For those reasons, the current system
should be revised.
Alternative 2: Retain Agricultural PDs, but narrowly define clustering. This alternative requires true
clustering: small (1 acre or less) adjacent lots with the remaining land (at least 80% of the site) being open
space under a single ownership.
Alternative 3: Eliminate the requirement that residential development on agriculturally designated
land be approved as an Agricultural PD. This alternative eliminates the clustering requirement and treats
residential development outside the urban service area the same as inside the urban service area. This
alternative requires a comprehensive plan text amendment revising Future Land Use Element Policies 1.10
and 5.8 and other portions of the comprehensive plan. The Agricultural Advisory Committee supports this
request.
Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners give direction to staff regarding Agricultural
PD regulations.
Community Development Director Bob Keating reviewed the background of these
regulations and explained that the Agricultural Advisory Committee's recommendation to
the Board is to discontinue the requirement for clustering but to retain the option, if desired.
APRIL 4, 2000
-99- EOC4
%�
Ralph Sexton, 8005 37' Street, noted that on 12' Street he has a 75 -acre grove and
intends to sell 40 acres and keep 35. He commented that the Board will receive lots of
complaints about bees and agricultural spraying if they allow residential to abut agricultural
areas. He believed that they are attempting to farm in town and felt this is another way to
put the farmer out of business. Clustering might work in certain areas but if you are going
to have a growing citrus concern, you need to be away from the public. He had no
suggestions for solving the problem but believed that clustering is not a good idea.
Dean Luethje, Carter & Associates, asked the Board to consider Alternative 3.
Peter Robinson, President of Laurel Homes, also believed Alternative 3 is the way
to go and that now is the time to address urban service area expansions.
Dan Culbert, Agricultural Extension Service Director, encouraged the Board to
remove the clustering requirement and emphasized that few agricultural operations would
be able to survive on 4 acres.
Victor Knight, 940 Oyster Shell Lane, commented that he had developed an
agricultural project about a year ago and the homesites were located on 1 acre close to the
road which was a "band-aid" solution for him. He asked that the Board consider agricultural
PDS without the clustering requirements.
Commissioner Tippin referenced an agricultural development called Panther Woods
east of Bradenton which has been very successful and is still expanding. He felt that
clustering is not a part of the free American system and noted that most of that development
APRIL 4, 2000
-100-
used to be tomato fields until over 50% of the tomato farmers were put out of business by
imported tomatoes from Mexico. This development saved those farmers from bankruptcy
by giving them an opportunity to sell their lands at a reasonable price.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Ginn, SECONDED
by Commissioner Tippin, the Board unanimously
approved Alternate 3, eliminating the requirement
that residential development on agriculturally
designated land be approved as an Agricultural PD,
as set out in the Memorandum.
11.A.2. WABASSO CORRIDOR PLAN ONGOING REVIEW
TASK FORCE AND "CR -510 EAST CORRIDOR
COMMITTEE" — CONSIDERATION OF
RECOMMENDATIONS
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of March 28, 2000:
TO: James E. Chandler
County Administrator
D ON HEAD CONCURRENCE:
Robert M. Keating, AICP
CommunityADevelopment'Directer
FROM: Stan Boling, AlCP
Planning Director
DATE: March 28, 2000
SUBJECT: Consideration of Recommendations from the Wabasso Corridor Plan On-going
Review Task Force and the "CR 510 East Corridor Committee"
APRIL 49 2000
a a:.,
-101-
EOa
It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal consideration by the Board of County
Commissioners at its meeting of April 4, 2000.
BACKGROUND:
At its meeting of September 28, 1999, the Board of County Commissioners amended the land
development regulations (LDRs) and adopted various changes to the Wabasso Corridor Plan and
corresponding LDRs as recommended by the Wabasso Corridor Plan Task Force. The adopted
changes primarily consisted of adding many aspects of the SR 60 Corridor Plan to the Wabasso
Corridor Plan. The adopted changes included: expansion of the corridor boundaries along US #1
from 81" Street south to 77" Street, exemptions from certain corridor requirements for industrial
uses. SR 60 sign size and design restrictions, SR 60 building finish and design standards, SR 60
color and lighting requirements, SR 60 foundation planting requirements, SR 60 non -conformities
provisions, and a reduction of the original Wabasso Corridor Plan Task Force from a 15 member
body to a 6 member on-going review task force (see attachment #1).
At the September 28' meeting, the Board also directed staff to coordinate with Bill Glynn of the
North Beach Civic Association and other interested parties to review existing corridor plan
regulations with respect to that portion of the Wabasso Corridor Plan area which is located along the
CR 510 corridor east of US #1 (see attachments #2 and 3). In response to that directive, staff
coordinated with Mr. Glynn and held two meetings with the "CR 510 East Corridor Committee".
At its last meeting (December 1999), that Committee made several recommendations to the Board
and addressed various discussion items. Those recommendations and discussion items were then
considered by the Wabasso Corridor Plan On-going Review Task Force at its special meeting of
February 17, 2000. At that meeting the Task Force voted to support the "CR 510 East Corridor
Committee's" recommendations for additional development regulations along CR 510, east of US
#1, and to support the Committee's recommendations on other north barrier island issues.
The Board of County Commissioners is now to consider these recommendations and decide whether
or not to initiate action to implement some or all of the recommendations.
ANALYSIS:
Attached is staff's December 1999 report to the "CR 510 East Corridor Committee" (see attachment
#4). That report provides background and analysis for the items considered by the "CR 510 East
Corridor Committee" and the Wabasso Corridor Plan On-going Review Task Force. The committee
and task force developed recommendations for each item. Those recommendations are broken-down
into the following 6 areas:
Potential Changes to the Wabasso Corridor Plan LDRs
1. Adopt special regulations, over and above the existing Wabasso Corridor Plan
requirements, in the area east of US #1 within 300' of the centerline of CR 510.
Within this area that measures 300' from either side of the centerline of CR 510, the
Committee recommends that the Board of County Commissioners adopt the
following additional regulations:
a. Real Estate Signs: Continue to apply the countywide real estate sign
maximum size, number. and height restrictions, but add a limitation on the
duration of sign posting. The recommended duration: remove the real estate
sign within 30 days of closing. See attachment #5 for a similar provision in
the Port Orange land development code.
APRIL 49 2000
•
b. SR 60 Plan Aspects Not Currentiv in the Wabasso Plan: Apply the
following provisions from the SR 60 Corridor Plan that were not included in
the recent update amendments to the Wabasso Corridor Plan (see details in
attachment #4).
(1) Special Thoroughfare Plan road (e.g. CR 510) buffer for multi -family
projects (landscaping plus 6'- 8' opaque feature).
(2) Prohibition of log cabins.
(3) Gas station canopy fascia restrictions.
(4) Prohibition of fiberglass or asphalt shingles in non-residential
projects.
(5) Five (5) year amortization/landscaping of non -conforming free-
standing signs.
C. Residential Project Entrances: Limit the height of residential project
entrance features (e.g. walls, archways) to a maximum height of 8' above
grade and require foundation plantings in front of the wall/entrance feature.
CR 510 East Corridor Committee Recommendation: That the Board initiate amending the LDRs
to enact the above referenced items la; lb; and lc.
Wabasso Corridor Plan On-going Review Task Force Recommendation: That the Board initiate
amending the LDRs to enact items la and lc, above; and enact the items under lb, above, except for
item lb.(4) which should be modified to apply the log cabin prohibition only to areas east of the
Indian River Lagoon.
Non-LDR North Barrier Island Issues
These items deal primarily with issues on the north barrier island that are not directly related
to corridor plan development regulations. These items rare as follows:
2. Revise the county's capital improvements priority list to move up provision of a
center -turn lane for CR 510 east of US#1.
3. Ensure that the design for CR 510 improvements between the Indian River Lagoon
and SR A -1-A include short, paved aprons for Jungle Trail at the CR 510/Jungle
Trail intersection and include landscaping improvements to beautify the Jungle
Trail/CR 510 intersection.
4. Have the Parks and Recreation Committee (staffed by Public Works) consider park
upgrade and security issues. Also, have Public Works consider placing trash
containers on the Wabasso Beach Park beach during the day.
5. In regard to motorists stopping and parking in the right-of-way at SR A -1-A and CR
510, have Public Works explore the possibility of using "no stopping" signs instead
of using only "no parking" signs.
6. Apply corridor plan standards along SR A -1-A on the north barrier island.
APRIL 4, 2000
•
-103-
BOOK
CR SIO East Corridor Committee Recommendation: That the Board implement items 2-6, above.
Wabasso Corridor Plan On-going Review Task Force Recommendation: That the Board appoint
a North Barrier Island Task Force, that has geographical representation of all affected areas and fair
gender representation, to address items 2-6, above including formation of a North SR A -1-A
Corridor Plan. The Task Force has no objection to items 2,3,5, and 6 and had no recommendation
on item K above.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Board direct staff to initiate any of the task force or committee
recommendations that the Board wishes to implement.
Bill Glynn, 1802 East Barefoot Place, introduced the members of the CR -5 10 East
Corridor Committee: Ray Hilton, President of Sea Oaks; Rod Williams, architect; Jim
Doyle; Bob Bruce; Bill Johnston; and Ernie Polverari. Mr. Glynn felt that this should be an
ongoing committee and expressed his hope that this corridor will be included as a part of a
scenic highway. He expressed his concerns about overnight non-resident surfers and the lack
of trash bins at Wabasso Beach Park. Evidently the trash bins were removed in preparation
for one of the fall hurricanes and never replaced. He also expressed the Committee's
recommendation that the corridor run all the way to US# 1.
APRIL 4, 2000
-104-
Chairman Adams could not support the corridor going all the way to US#1 because
all the citizens involved had not had an opportunity to give their input.
Commissioner Ginn expressed concerm-about the gas station on the comer of US#1
and commented that it was not a "fishing village" station.
Director Boling reminded the Board that the lighting problems at that gas station had
been addressed in the LDRs.
Commissioner Stanbridge questioned where the "fishing village" idea had come from,
and Director Boling stated it was not in the Corridor Plan.
Chairman Adams thought the idea was actually more of an "Old Florida" flavor.
After more discussion, Chairman Adams suggested they address the LDR amendments
first and explained what the group was requesting
APRIL 49 2000
ON MOTION by Commissioner Ginn, SECONDED
by Commissioner Tippin, the Board unanimously
approved initiating the changes to the Wabasso
Corridor Plan LDRs: 1(a), 1(b) and 1(c) with the
exception of 1(b)(2) as set out in the Memorandum;
agreed 1(a), 1(b) and 1(c) would apply along CR -
5 10
R-510 east of the west shore of the Lagoon; as to the
Non-LDR North Barrier Island Issues,
CONSENSUS was reached to have staff come back
with further recommendations; and authorization
was given to set up a commercial property task
force.
-105-
Chairman Adams thanked Bill Glynn's group for their time and effort.
Bill Glynn thanked the Board for their support and urged them to set up another task
force for the commercial sections of the Corridor.
11.E. SETTLEMENT OF GENERAL LIABILITY CLAIM -
MARY CLARK, FOR TAURUS CLARK, A MINOR
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of March 21, 2000:
TO:
James E. Chandler, County Administrator
THRU:
Joseph Baird, Assistant County Administrator
FROM:
Beth Jordan, Risk ManageG
DATE:
21 March 2000
SUBJECT:
Settlement; General Liability Claim
Staff requests consideration of the following information at the April 4, 2000, regular meeting of the
Board of County Commissioners.
Background
In keeping with Board policy, Administrative Policy Manual 1000.1, Section 210, the Claims Review
Committee consisting of James Chandler, County Administrator, Joseph Baird, Director, Office of
Management and Budget, Charles Vitunac, County Attorney, James Davis, Public Works Director,
and Beth Jordan, Risk Manager, met on June 28, 1999 to review the claim of Mary Clark, at al, on
behalf of her great-grandson, Taurus Clark, and to discuss the mediation held on June 23, 1999.
Because the parties could not reach agreement on the settlement value of the claim, the Committee
unanimously agreed, with the advice of Lyman Reynolds, defense counsel, to proceed to trial unless
the plaintiffs' demand was greatly reduced. A minor at the time of his February 19, 1992 bicycle
collision with a truck, Taurus Clark through his guardians had brought a third party suit against the
County, alleging the sidewalk on 4th Street dust west of Citrus Elementary School had created a trap,
contributing to the collision.
Analysis
On March 16, 2000, attorneys for the Clarks contacted Mr. Reynolds to discuss settlement prior to
the scheduled March 20 trial. On March 17, 2000, the Clarks' attomeys confirmed their acceptance
of the County's non-negotiable offer of $15,000.00, including fees and costs. Staff unanimously
concurred with this settlement.
Recommendation
No Board action is required for this matter. The Claims Review Committee has authority to settle
such claims. It is being placed on the agenda as a matter of public record.
NO ACTION REQLUED OR TAKEN.
APRIL 4, 2000
-106-
• •
•
11.F. PAY PLAN STUDY - CODY & ASSOCIATES, INC.
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of March 16, 2000:
TO: James E. Chandler
County Administrator
FROM: Ron Baker
Personnel Director
DATE: March 16, 2000
SUBJECT: Consultant Agreement with Cody & Associates, Inc.
Staffrequests consideration ofthe following information at the April 4, 2000, regular meeting ofthe
Board of County Commissioners.
Background
At the March 7, 2000, regular meeting ofthe Board of County Commissioners, the Board approved
staff's recommendation to select Cody & Associates, Inc., as the consultant to conduct a pay plan
and position classification study for the County. Staff notified N. E. Pellegrino, Senior Partner at
Cody & Associates, Inc., ofthe Board's approval and also provided Mr. Pellegrino with a Consultant
Agreement for his signature.
Analysis
Mr. Pellegrino reviewed and signed the Consultant Agreement but expressed concerns regarding the
insurance requirements of the County, especially the Professional Liability/Errors & Omissions
insurance. In the County's RFP #2025, Consultant Services for Pay Plan and Position Classification
Study, insurance requirements were not mentioned. Therefore, Cody & Associates, Inc., did not take
into consideration the cost of purchasing Professional Liability/Errors & Omissions insurance when
they prepared their response to the RFP.
Recommendation
Based on the aforementioned, staff requests the Board waive the Professional Liability/Emors &
Omissions insurance requirement and execute the attached Consultant Agreement with Cody &
Associates, Inc.
APRIL 49 2000
-107-
Bo it
0
Bo%
ON MOTION by Commissioner Ginn, SECONDED
by Commissioner Stanbridge, the Board
unanimously waived the Professional
Liability/Errors & Omissions insurance requirement;
approved the Consultant Agreement with Cody &
Associates, Inc.; and authorized the Chairman to
execute the Agreement; all as recommended by staff
AGREEMENT IS ON FILE IN THE
OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD
11.G.1. WABASSO CAUSEWAY PARK DIPROVEMENTS -
AMENDMENT NO.2 - BRAD SMITH ASSOCIATES
(WILLIAM GLOVER, INC.1
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of March 23, 2000:
TO: James Chandler
County Administrator
THROUGH: James W. Davis, P.E.
Public Works Directo
Terry B. Thompson, P.F;j�
Capital Projects Manager
FROM: G. Sean McGuire, P.E.
Project Engineer AV ' '-
SUBJECT: Wabasso Causeway Park Improvements
Amendment No. 2
DATE: March 23, 2000
APRIL 4, 2000
-108-
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
Brad Smith Associates, Inc. is under contract with Indian River
County to provide Professional Design Services for Wabasso Causeway
Park Improvements. Within the scope of services in the original
Agreement, Brad Smith Associates prepared designs for a sanitary
sewer lift station to serve the proposed restroom building. At
that time the building was designed on a pile foundation and the
lift station was placed on higher ground, with a deep wet well to
accommodate an underground sewer line from the building. During
the award process, the apparent low -bid contractor, William Glover,
Inc., suggested changing the building foundation design to a soil
filled stem wall. The BOARD accepted this change and received a
credit of $28,284.27. Staff has subsequently determined that the
lift station could be conveniently located within the same soil
filled foundation. This will result in a substantial reduction of
the lift station construction cost and will provide a more easily
maintainable facility.
Brad Smith Associates has proposed to revise the construction
drawings for a lump sum fee of $4,850.00.
The total compensation for Amendment No. 2 is to be $4,850.00.
This added to the current contract of $63,572.50 results in a new
contract amount of $68,422.50.
The construction contract was awarded to William Glover, Inc. on
February 15, 2000. A request for a Change Order Proposal for a
credit will be issued to William Glover, once the revised plans
have been prepared.
RECOMKENDATIONS AND FMMING
Staff recommends that the Board authorize the Chairman to sign the
attached Amendment No. 2 in the amount of $4,850.00.
Funding is from account #315-210-572-068.09
APRIL 4, 2000
ON MOTION by Commissioner Grin, SECONDED
by Commissioner Tippin, the Board unanimously
approved Amendment No. 2 for the Wabasso
Causeway Park Improvements Project with Brad
Smith Associates, Inc., and authorized the Chairman
to execute the Amendment, as recommended by
staff.
AMENDMENT IS ON FILE IN THE
OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD
-109- B005
11.G.2. ALLOCATION OF DISTRICT 3 TRAFFIC IMPACT FEES
FOR BARBER STREET IMPROVEMENTS - INTERLOCAL
AGREEMENT WITH CITY OF SEBASTIAN
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of March 14, 2000:
TO: James E. Chandler,
County Administrator
FROM: James W. Davis, P.E.
Public Works Directo
il
SUBJECT: Request from City of Sebastian
Traffic Impact Fees for Barber
for Allocation of District 3
Street Improvements
REF. LETTER: Terrence Moore, City Manager, to James Davis dated March 3, 2000
DATE: March 14, 2000
The City of Sebastian is experiencing rapid growth. As a result,
the level of service on Barber Street west of US 1 is
deteriorating, particularly at the intersection of Barber Street
and Schumann Drive. To resolve the congestion, the City has
identified the need for improvements estimated to cost $400,000. To
fund the project, the City Manager is requesting a $200,000
allocation from District 3 Traffic Impact Fee Fund(as established
prior to Sept. 1999). The City will match the funding from other
revenue sources.
As of 12/31/99, there exists $903,741.68 in the old District 3
Traffic Impact Fee fund. The funds were to be used as follows:
Barber Street bridge widening - City of Sebastian $ 135,000
CR 512 Widening, Phase III S 660,000
(Total project cost est. $2,815,400 + R/W) $ 795,000
Remaining unencumbered funds available - $ 108,741.68
APRIL 4, 2000
•
•
In addition to the old District 3 fund, the new District 1 Traffic
Impact Fee fund has $212,165.79. Since the CR512 Phase I project
is estimated to cost $2,815,400, new District 1 revenue is needed.
The County's 2020 Long -Range Transportation Plan approved by the
MPO and BCC includes Barber Street improvements during 2001-2005.
RECOMMENDATIONS AND FUNDING
Since the Barber Street project is included in the 2020 Long Range
Transportation plan, staff recommends allocating $105,000 from the
old District 3 Traffic Impact Fee fund (pre Sept. 1999) and $95,000
from the new District 1 Traffic Impact Fee Fund. The attached
Interlocal Agreement between the County and City should be approved
and the Chairman authorized to execute. All additional funding for
the project'shall be by other City of Sebastian revenue sources.
ATTACEMENT
1) Referenced letter
2) Interlocal Agreement
3) 2020 Long Range Transportation Plan
4) Public Works Projects Budget
APRIL 49 2000
ON MOTION by Commissioner Stanbridge,
SECONDED by Commissioner Ginn, the Board
unanimously approved the Interlocal Agreement with
the City of Sebastian; authorized the Chairman to
execute same; approved allocating $105,000 from
the Old District 3 Traffic Impact Fee Fund (pre -
September, 1999) and $95,000 from the new District
1 Traffic Impact Fee Fund, with all additional
funding to be by other City of Sebastian revenue
sources; all as recommended by staff.
AGREEMENT WILL BE ON FILE IN THE OFFICE
OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD
WHEN EXECUTED AND RECEIVED
BOOK r'iG
11.G.3. 5TH STREET SW RIGHT-OF-WAY ACQUISITION
(BETWEEN 27TH AND 43" AVENUES) - SIDEWALK
IMPROVEMENTS - 3700 5TH STREET SW - RUBY B.
THORNTON
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of March 24, 2000:
TO: James Chandler, County Administrator
THROUGH: James W. Davis, P.E., Public Works Direc
AND
Christopher J. Kafer, Jr., P.E., County Engin
FROM: Ronald L. Callahan, SRA, County Right-of-Wa Agent ?k
SUBJECT: Right -of -Way Acquisition I
5" Street SW between 27t° and 43' Avenues
Sidewalk Improvements
3700 5" Street SW, Vero Beach, Florida 32968
Ruby B. Thornton
DATE: March 24, 2000
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
An additional 50 feet (50') of right-of-way is needed along the north side of 5' Street SW,
between 2r Avenue and 43'd Avenue. The owner has executed a contract at a negotiated price of
$0.80 per square foot for this RS -3 zoned land. This price per square foot is comparable to other
similar RS -3 zoned parcels the County has purchased based upon appraisals or evaluations.
The Contract Price for the land is $8,752.00 based upon a total of 10,940 square feet. There are
other conditions and terns in the contract.
ADDITIONAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS
The County, through negotiation, has agreed to the following:
A) To compensate the property owner for 13 citrus trees @ $100.00 each = $1,300.00
B) Additionally, the County has agreed to:
APRIL 49 2000
•
•
1. Replace culvert pipes under the driveway and under 5"' St SW;
2. Remove section of chain link fence, if necessary;
3. Driveway (circular) entrances will be filled for continuous usage;
4. Install a new Aashboard riser and corrugated metal piping/owner's swale system.
Total additional compensation = $1,300.00
The Total Contract Price is $10,052.00 ($8,752.00 + $1,300.00) based on all terms and
conditions. There are no appraisal or attorneys fees.
ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS
None.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners approve the $10,052.00 purchase,
and authorize the Chairman to execute the contract.
Funding will be from Account #315-214-541-066.12.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Contract/w/addendum
2. Legal Description and Sketch
ON MOTION by Commissioner Ginn, SECONDED
by Commissioner Stanbridge, the Board
unanimously approved the $10,052 purchase from
Ruby B. Thornton and authorized the Chairman to
execute the contract, as recommended by staff.
CONTRACT IS ON FILE IN THE
OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD
APRIL 49 2000
-113-
E0 i
11.H.1. ANITA PARK SUBDIVISION - 37TH AND 38TH STREET
(BETWEEN 56TH AND 58" AVENUES) - PETITION
WATER SERVICE - PROJECT UW -00 -08 -DS -
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of March 24,,2000:
DATE: MARCH 24, 2000
TO: JAMES E. CHANDLER
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
FROM: DONALD R. HUBBS, P.E.
DIRECTOR OF UTILITY SEAVICES
PREPARED JAMES D.CHAWAMENT
L
AND STAFFED MANAGER OF PROJECTS
BY: DEPARTMENT OF UTILITY SERVICES
SUBJECT: ANITA PARK SUBDIVISION — 37TH & 38TH STREETS
(BETWEEN 56TH & 58TH AVENUES) -PETITION WATER SERVICE
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY PROJECT NO. UW40-08-DS
BACKGROUND
A petition has been received from the residents of 37TH and 38th Streets, (a portion of Anita Park
Subdivision), requesting the County to supply potable water to its residents. We are now coming to
the Board of County Commissioners to seek approval to begin design of the above-mentioned
project (See attached Exhibit A- Plat Map, and Exhibit B - Petition).
ANALYSIS
There are 45 platted residential lots, which may benefit from this proposed water line on 37t' Street
and 381h Place. The owner's signatures represent primary owner -occupants. Owners of the 20 lots
who have not supported the petition, include the following (see attached Exhibit C - Schedule):
In relation to Exhibit C, Six are rental properties; some owners are out of state; three are vacant
lots; two are out of state owners (not contacted); one house and two extra lots are being foreclosed;
two include a home with two lots (owner deceased) in probate, and one sale is pending, with verbal
support from the prospective purchaser, according to the petitioner.
The owners of 25 lots, 56% of the lots, have signed the petition, and a purchaser (sale pending) has
given verbal approval (58%). The properties are typically 0.17 of an acre. The attached map
(EXHIBIT A) displays the area to benefit from the assessment project
APRIL 4, 2000
In 1992, a Petition Water Assessment included 30 lots on 38th Place, in this same subdivision (Anita
Park), 100% of these homes are connected to County water. Over the past nine (9) years, the water
quality in this neighborhood has been reported, to me as substandard, by many of the owners and
occupants.
This project is to be paid through the assessment of property owners along the proposed water line
route. Funding will be from the assessment fund No. 473. Design services will be provided by the
Department of Utility Services.
RECOMMENDATION
The staff of the Department of Utility Services recommends approval of the above -listed project,
and requests authorization for the Department to proceed with the design engineering work and
award a contract for survey services through the issuance of a purchase order based on the most
favorable quote, in preparation for the special assessment project.
LIST OF EXHIBITS•
ap
B -Petition (�C. G�GtX �st C 4�� tF
C -Schedule of Properties
APRIL 4, 2000
ON MOTION by Commissioner Tippin,
SECONDED by Commissioner Macht, the Board
unanimously approved the project and authorized
staff to proceed with the design engineering work
and award a contract for survey services through the
issuance of a purchase order based on the most
favorable quote, in preparation for the special
assessment project, as recommended by staff.
-115-
ILH.2. RESOLUTION 2000-040 (PROVIDING TOTAL
ESTIMATED COST, METHOD OF PAYMENT OF
ASSESSMENTS, NUMBER OF ANNUAL
INSTALLMENTS, AND LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF THE
AREA SPECIFICALLY SERVED) AND RESOLUTION
2000-041 (SETTING A TIME AND PLACE AT WHICH
THE OWNERS OF PROPERTIES AND OTHER
INTERESTED PERSONS MAY APPEAR BEFORE THE
BOARD AND BE HEARD AS TO THE PROPRIETY AND
ADVISABILITY OF CONSTRUCTING THE WATER
MAIN EXTENSION, AS TO THE COST THEREOF, AS
TO THE MANNER OF PAYMENT THEREFOR, AND AS
TO THE AMOUNT THEREOF TO BE SPECIALLY
ASSESSED AGAINST EACH PROPERTY BENEFITTED
THEREBYO - SEBASTIAN WATER EXPANSION PHASES
H -D AND H -E - PROJECTS UW -97 -13 -DS AND UW -97 -14 -
DS
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of March 24, 2000:
APRIL 4, 2000
DATE: MARCH 24, 2000
TO: JAMES E. CHANDLER
COUNTY ADMMVISTRATOR
FROM: DONALD R. HUBBS, P.E.
DIRECTOR OF UTILITY SERVICES
PREPARED JAMES D. CHASTX_W
AND STAFFED MANAGER OF S PROJECTS
BY: DEPARTMENT OF UTILITY SERVICES
SUBJECT: SEBASTIAN WATER EXPANSION PHASES 11-D & H -E
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY PROJECT NOS. UW -97 -13 -DS
AND UW -97 -14 -DS RESOLUTIONS I AND H
BACKGROUND
On September 29, 1995, Indian River County entered into an Agreement with the City of Sebastian to
assume ownership of the City's water distribution and wastewater collection systems. As a part of the
contract, the County agreed to expand the water distribution system. On June 18, 1996, the Indian River
County Board of County Commissioners approved Option 1 in order for the County to proceed with the
installation of water lines as set forth in the Inter -local Agreement between Indian River County and the
City of Sebastian. (See attached copy of minutes -Exhibit 1.) Said Agreement provided for the transfer of
the City of Sebastian's water and wastewater system to Indian River County.
On June 22, 1999, at a public hearing, the Board of County Commissioners approved Phase II -C , which
is presently under construction and should be completed by late April 2000. (See attached agenda item
and copy of minutes —Exhibit 2.) We are now ready to proceed with Phases II -D and II -E (Combined).
ANALYSIS
Within the Phase II -D & II -E project area, North from Wimbrow Dr, including Main Street, there are
1,661 lots, approximately 913 homes, 6 churches and the City of Sebastian complex, to benefit from this
project. Typical platted lot sizes are .25 acre, plus or minus.
More effective management of project construction, inspections, cash flows, and interaction with property
owneff is being accomplished by having divided Phases II and III into smaller projects. This may enable
more utility construction contractors to bid on these projects possibly making the bid process more
competitive. The attached map displays the area to benefit from the assessment projects, as divided into
parts A, B, C, D & E, for Phase II (Exhibit 3). Phases II -D & II -E are being combined to adhere with
scheduling agreed upon with the City of Sebastian and to complete the remainder of Phase II (North of
CR 512). This system will serve the City of Sebastian municipal complex, as well as provide potable
water and fire protection to an area noted for failing well systems. The City of Sebastian is waiting for
APRIL 49 2000
—117—
r�
EOCe
BOCK
the completion of the water line installation in order to complete road & drainage improvements and
comply with bonding requirements.
Project No. -
Lots
Parcel LD. Nos:
Locations`^ ; ^ k`j=`` -� `j 'f' AA+v jA:' •'.
I1 -A UW -96 -20 -DS
479
448
West of Roseland Road
II -B UW -97 -11 -DS
758
714
East of Roseland Rd South of Vocelle Ave.
II -C UW -97 -12 -DS
562
j 525
North of Vocelle Ave. along Layport Dr.
II -D UW -97 -13 -DS
636
614
North of Layport Dr, West of Fleming St.
II -E UW -97 -14 -DS
1,025
912
East of Fleming St, Main St. to Lonisiana Ave.
Total
3,461
3,213
Engineering design has been completed by the staff of the Department of Utility Services for Phases II -D
and II -E. We are now ready to begin the assessment process associated with this project, as outlined
herein. Summary assessment rolls for Phases II -D & II -E are attached (Exhibit 4). The full assessment
rolls are on file in the commission office. This project is to be paid through the assessment of property
owners along the proposed water line route. Financing will be from the assessment fiord 473. If needed,
inter -fund borrowing will be available from the capacity fee fund 472, account numbers 473-000-169-
356.00 & 473-000-169-357.00 The estimated project cost and amount to be assessed for Phases II -D & H-
E is $ 3,515,740.52 (rounded) (Exhibit -5). The estimated cost per square foot is $0.194416 (rounded).
The actual assessed cost, as with any project will be determined based on actual competitive bid prices.
On March 24, 2000, a letter was sent to the City Manager, of the City of Sebastian, with a copy of a draft
agenda item and a map of the project area (Exhibit 6).
RECOMMENDATION
The staff of the Department of Utility Services recommends that the Board of County Commissioners
approve the attached Resolutions I and A and set the public hearing date.
LIST OF EXHIBITS:
I -June 18, 1996 BCC minutes 4 -Summary assessment roll
2 -June 22, 1999 BCC minutes 5 -Estimated Project cost
3 -Map of Project area 6 -Letter to City of Sebastian
APRIL 4, 2000
-118-
ON MOTION by Commissioner Ginn, SECONDED
by Commissioner Stanbridge, the Board
unanimously adopted Resolution 2000-040
providing for the Sebastian Area Phases H -D and H-
E Water Expansion (an area north from Wimbrow
Avenue including Main Street); providing the total
estimated cost, method of payment of assessments,
number of annual installments, and legal description
of the area specifically served.
Providing (First Reso.) 3/00(rsso/sebIIDBE)k/DC
RESOLUTION NO. 2000. 040
A RESOLUTION OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, PROVIDING FOR
THE SEBASTIAN AREA PHASES II -D and II -E WATER EXPANSION (AN
AREA NORTH FROM WIMBROW AVENUE INCLUDING MAIN STREET);
PROVIDING THE TOTAL ESTIMATED COST, METHOD OF PAYMENT OF
ASSESSMENTS, NUMBER OF ANNUAL INSTALLMENTS, AND LEGAL
DESCRIPTION OF THE AREA SPECIFICALLY SERVED.
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County has determined
that the improvements herein described are necessary to promote the public welfare of the
county and has determined to defray the cost thereof by special assessments against certain
properties to be serviced by water main extensions to Phases II -D and II -E of the Sebastian
Area (located north from Wimbrow Drive including Main Street), hereinafter referred to as
Projects Nos. UW -97-13 and 14 -DS;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, as follows:
1. The County does hereby determine that water lines shall be installed to benefit 1,661 lots in
an area located north of Wimbrow Drive including Main Street, and that the cost thereof shall
be specially assessed in accordance with the provisions of Sections 206.01 through 206.09
of the Code of Indian River County.
2. The total estimated cost to be assessed is $3,515,740.52 or $0.194416 per square foot to be
paid by the property specially benefited as shown on the assessment plat on file with'the
Department of Utility Services. Assessments are to be levied against all lots and lands
adjoining and contiguous or bounding and abutting upon the improvements or specially
benefited thereby and further designated by the assessment plat with respect to the special
assessments.
APRIL 49 2000
-119-
F,
0
BOCK .L I >J
3. A special assessment in the amount of $0.194416 per square foot shall be assessed against
each of the properties designated on the assessment plat. This assessment may be raised
or lowered by action of the Board of County Commissioners after the public hearing, at the
same meeting, as required by the referenced County Code.
4. The special assessments shall be due and payable and may be paid in full within 90 days
after the date of the resolution of the Board with respect to credits against the special
assessments after completion of the improvements (the "Credit Date") without interest. If not
paid in full, the special assessments may be paid in ten equal yearly installments of principal
plus interest. If not paid when due, there shall be added a penalty of 1-1/2% of the principal
not paid when due. The unpaid balance of the special assessments shall bear interest until
paid at a rate to be determined by the Board of County Commissioners when the project is
completed.
5. There is presently on file with the Department of Utility Services a plat showing the area to
be assessed, plans and specifications, and an estimate of the cost of the proposed
improvements. All of these are open to inspection by the public at the Department of Utility
Services.
6. An assessment roll with respect to the special assessments shall promptly be prepared in
connection with the special assessments.
7. Upon the adoption of this resolution, the Indian River County Utility Services Department
shall cause this resolution (along with a map showing the areas to be served) to be
published at least one time in the Vero Beach Press Journal before the public hearing as
required by Section 206.04.
The resolution was moved for adoption by Commissioner Ginn , and the motion was
seconded by Commissioner Stanbridge, and, upon being put to a vote, the vote was as
follows:
Chairman Fran B. Adams Aye
Vice Chairman Caroline D. Ginn AyP
Commissioner John W. Tippin AyE
Commissioner Kenneth R. Macht Aye
Commissioner Ruth Stanbridge AyP
The Chairman thereupon declared the resolution duly passed and adopted this 4th
day of Aori 1 , 2000.
Attest: J. K. Barton, Cler
B
Deputy Clerk
APRIL 4, 2000
-120-
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
By; r 02Q
Fran B. Adams, Chairman
Indin am C► Aporove0 Dote
Admin
Legal
G
9uage �
3 t�
Dept.
00
Risk Mgr.
•
ON MOTION by Commissioner Ginn, SECONDED
by Commissioner Stanbridge, the Board
unanimously adopted Resolution 2000-041 setting
and time and place at which the owners of properties
located in the Sebastian Phases II -D and II -E Water
Expansion Area (in an area north from Wimbrow
Drive including Main Street) and other interested
persons may appear before the Board of County
Commissioners and be heard as to the propriety and
advisability of constructing the water main
extension, as to the cost thereof, as to the manner of
payment therefor, and as to the amount thereof to be
specially assessed against each property benefitted
thereby.
Time and Place (Second Reso.)
RESOLUTION NO. 2000. 041
3/00(reso/sebllD&E)k/DC
A RESOLUTION OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, SETTING A TIME
AND PLACE AT WHICH THE OWNERS OF PROPERTIES LOCATED IN
THE SEBASTIAN PHASES II -D and II -E WATER EXPANSION AREA (IN AN
AREA NORTH FROM WIMBROW DRIVE INCLUDING MAIN STREET) AND
OTHER INTERESTED PERSONS, MAY APPEAR BEFORE THE BOARD
OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AND BE HEARD AS TO THE PROPRIETY
AND ADVISABILITY OF CONSTRUCTING THE WATER MAIN EXTENSION,
AS TO THE COST THEREOF, AS TO THE MANNER OF PAYMENT
THEREFOR, AND AS TO THE AMOUNT THEREOF TO BE SPECIALLY
ASSESSED AGAINST EACH PROPERTY BENEFITED THEREBY.
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County has, by
Resolution No. 2000- d40 , determined that it is necessary for the public welfare of the citizens
of the county, and particularly as to those living, working, and owning property within the area
described hereafter, that waterlines be installed to serve 1,661 lots located in an area north from
Wimbrow Drive including Main Street; and
APRIL 4, 2000
-121 BonK
-
WHEREAS, it has been determined that the cost to be specially assessed with respect
thereto shall be $0.194416 per square foot; and
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners has caused an assessment roll to be
completed and filed with the Clerk to the Board; and
WHEREAS, Section 206.06, Indian River County Code, requires that the Board of
County Commissioners shall fix a time and place at which the owners of the properties to be
assessed or any other persons interested therein may appear before the Board of County
Commissioners and be heard as to the propriety and advisability of constructing such water
main extension, as to the cost thereof, as to the manner of payment therefor, and as to the
amount thereof to be assessed against each property benefited thereby,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, as follows:
1. The County Commission shall meet at the County Commission Chambers in the County
Administration Building at the hour of 9:05 a.m. on Tuesday, May 2, 2000, at which time the
owners of the properties to be assessed and any other interested persons may appear
before said Commission and be heard in regard thereto. The area to be improved and the
properties to be specially benefited are more particularly described upon the assessment
plat and the assessment roll with regard to the special assessments.
2. All persons interested in the construction of said improvements and the special assessments
against the properties to be specially benefited may review the assessment plat showing the
area to be assessed, the assessment roll, the plans and specifications for said
improvements, and an estimate of the cost thereof at the office of the Department of Utility
Services any week day from 8:30 a.m, until 5:00 p.m.
3. Notice of the time and place of this public hearing shall be given by two publications in the
Press Journal Newspaper one week apart. The last publication shall be at least one week
prior to the date of the hearing.
4. The Indian River County Department of Utility Services shall give the owner of each property
to be specially assessed at least ten days notice in writing of such time and place, which
shall be served by mailing a copy of such notice to each of such property owners at his last
known address.
The resolution was moved for adoption by Commissioner Gi nn , and the
motion was seconded by Commissioner Stanbridge . and, upon being put to a vote, the
vote was as follows:
Chairman Fran B. Adams Aye
Vice Chairman Caroline D. Ginn Aye
Commissioner John W. Tippin _Aye
Commissioner Kenneth R. Macht
Ade
Commissioner Ruth Stanbridge Aye
The Chairman thereupon declared the resolution duly passed and adopted this 4th
day of Apri 1 .2000.
Attest: J. K. Barton, Cie k
By
"Deputy
Attachment: ASSESSMENT ROLL
APRIL 49 2000
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
By tq7Q-,0— �18
Fran B. Adams, Chairman
.
-122-
•
�M4
X74 -M
.'.jLW#j=W054M
�1
FPO =ff_WM
.
-122-
•
0
Pape 1
COMPLETE ASSESSMENT ROLL IS ON FILE IN THE
OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD WITH THE
ORIGINAL RESOLUTION 2000-041
APRIL 49 2000
-123-
A
B
I C
D
E
1
2
3
SEBASTIAN WATER EXPANSION PHASE 0 - D
3.1-2000
4
J. D. C.
5
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY PROJECT NO. UW -97 -13 -DS
SBPHSIID
6
7
FARCE.
EXIST
SQUARE
8
yamR
am
OWNER
FOOTAGE
ASSESSMENT
e
10
01313800002 0010 00001 A
X
SHUMATE
20,000
$3,888.32
11
013138 MOM 0010 00003.0
X
ELLIS
10,000
51,944.18
12
01313B 2 W10 00004.0
X
ESTRUCH
13,969
$2,715.79
13
013138 ODOM W10 00005.0
WEBER
10.061
$1,956.01
14
013138 00002 0080 00001 A
X
LULICA
11,875
$2,308.69
15
013138 0080 OW19.0
X
FOWLER
21,875
$4,252.85
16
01313800002 028000001.0
HAZEN
12,500
$2,43020
17
013138OW02028000002A
X
OCH
10AW
$1,944.16
18
01313800002 0280 00003.0
X
FROST
10,000
$7,944.16
19
013138 00002 0280 00004.0
X
PERRY
10,000
$1,944.16
20
01313800002 0280 OOOOSA
MARION
10,515
$2,065.67
21
01313800002028000008.0
X
WHITE
20.625
$4,009.83
22
01313800002028000008.0
X
ALBEE
10,000
$1,844.16
23
013138 00002 028000009.0
ALBEE
10 000
$1,944.16
24
013138 00002 0280 000'10.0
X
BRANDT
12AM
$2,43020
25
013138000020280WWl.0
SANBORN
10,875
$$11427
26
01313800002 0280 00002D
STORCH
30,625
$5.953,99
27
01313800002 0290 00005.0
TERRANOVA
10,625
S2,085.67
28
013138 0290 MM.0
MOORE
10,000
$1,944.16
29
013138 0290 0OW7.0
ANDREWS
10,000
$1.944.16
M-1013138OW02029000006.0
X
WARWICK
20,875
$4,058.43
1
013138 00002 030000001 A
X
OXFORD
12,500
52,43020
32
01313800002030000002A
PIERRE
10,000
$1,944.16
33
01313800002030000003.0
X
KREJCI
10,000
$1,944.16
34
01313800002 03W 00004.0
FROGGATT
10,000
$1,844.16
35
01 31 36 m00020300OOOOS.O
REYNOLDS
10,525
$2,065.67
38
013136 ' ' 03W 00006.0
KALINOWSKI
10,525
$2,065.67
37
013138 00002 0300 00007.0
TEELUCKSINGH
10,000
$1,944.16
38
013138 00002 03W .0
FUOARINO
10,000
$1.944.16
39
013138 ODD02 0300 OW09.0
X
COCUZZA
10,000
$1,944.16
40
013138 00002 03W 00010.0
X
ROGERS
12 500
$2,43020
41
0131 3B OW03 0630 00002.0
X
FLATT
10,000
$1,944.16
42
01313800003 0630 00003.0
STORCH
10,000
$7,944.16
43
C" 3138 00003 0830 00004.0
X
BENJAMIN
10,000
$1,944.16
44
013138 00003 0630 00005.0
X
MARCINKOSKI
20.000
$3,888.32
45
013138 OWW 0630 OW07.0
X
CLARK
10,000
511944.16
46
01313800003 0630 00008.0
SCHULZ
10,000
$1,944.16
47
013138 OM OD009.0
X
SCHULZ
11,875
$2,308.69
48
01313800003065000OD4A
SHIELDS
10,000
$1,944.16
49
013138 0650 00WS.0
X
STURGEON
10,000
$1,944.16
6013138
0650 00006.0
STURGEON
10,000
$1,944.16
51
013130 065D OD007.0
X
WALLUK
10,000
$1,944.16
52
01313800003085000008.0
WALLUK
10,580
$2,056.92
53
01313800003 065000009.0
GROSS
10.580
$2.056.92
9013138
0850 00010.0
X
PAMPEL
10,625
$2,085.67
9013135
06SD 00011.0
X
FRANKHUISEN
10,625
$2,065.67
56
013138 00003 0850 X12.0
X
JANSSEN
10,625
$2,065.67
57
013138 00003 0650 00013.0
KEANE
10,625
S2,06S.67
58
01313800003 06$0 00014.0
X
LMNGSTON
10,625
$2,065.67
59
01313800003065000015.0
HUETTL
10,625
$2,065.67
013138 OW03 0650 00016.0
X
GROTKE
10,625
$2,065.87
81
013138 0650 00017.0
X
BARTON
21,250
$4,131.34
62
01313800003 OS5O 00019.0
X
GILL
12,719
$2,472.77
63
013138000030000620.0
X
DRUMMOND
10,000
$1,944.16
9013138
DOW 00021.0
X
CATINELLA
10,000
511944.16
65
013138 OW03OM 0 0 02 2.0
X
COMPITELLO
10,000
$1,944.16
68
01313800003 0850 00023.0
X
BATES
10,000
$1,844.18
67
013138 00003 0850 00024.0
X
WARDLOW
10,000
$1,944.16
88
013138 osso 00025.0
X
DIXON
10,000
$1,944.16
69
01313800003065000026.0
X
ACOSTA
10,000
$1,844.16
70
013138 06M 00027.0
ACOSTA
10,000
51,944.18
71
013138 00003 0650 00028.0
X
TATRO
10,000
$1,944.18
72
01313800003065000DZ9.0
CASARLO
10,000
$1,944.16
73
013130 OOM 0850 W030.0
O'CONNELL
10,000
1944.16
COMPLETE ASSESSMENT ROLL IS ON FILE IN THE
OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD WITH THE
ORIGINAL RESOLUTION 2000-041
APRIL 49 2000
-123-
vim. i J�1, t_
111 CHILDREN'S SERVICES ADVISORY COMMITTEE -PLAN
UPDATE FOR 2000-2001
The Board reviewed a letter of March 28, 2000:
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
1840 25th Stmt, Vero Beach, Florida 32960
Telephone: (407) 5674WW
March 28, 2000
Indian River County Commissioners
1840 25'" Street
Vero Beach, Florida 32960
Suncom Telephone: 2241011
The report titled "Children's Services Plan Update 2000-2001" was approved at the
March 22nd meeting of the Children's Services Advisory Committee.
Staff recommends acceptance of the Children's Services Plan Update 2000-2001.
Respectfully submitted,
�J
Joyce Johnston -Carlson
APPROVED AGENDA ITEM
For April 4, 2000
By: �--- �--�
/��i00/1 T /'5roA'L y
Al
APRIL 4, 2000
-124-
• •
9
Joyce Johnston -Carlson reviewed the update of the 3 -Year Plan for Children's
Services which had been prepared by the Needs Assessment Committee. She explained that
this would be used as the background material for the Grant Committee when they make
their recommendations for funding.
Commissioner Ginn expressed her concerns and questions about several points in the
update as well as the Plan, and Ms. Johnston -Carlson responded.
Commissioner Ginn also reviewed her handouts and pointed out that asset mapping
also means finding prevention for the gaps in services. She questioned the term "child asset
building', and Commissioner Macht explained that was a method of teaching children how
to get through life.
Joyce Johnston -Carlson added that adults are also taught to be mentors to the children
Other highlights are the costs of after-school childcare for low-income families and
transportation to after-school recreation programs. She also noted that there has been a
decrease in fighting in schools thanks to better camera monitoring.
Commissioner Ginn stated she could not support the motion.
Carl Pease, 1436 32' Avenue, candidate for District #3 Board of County
Commissioners, complained that handouts were not available in BCC office when he
requested them, and Chairman Adams suggested he speak with Executive Aide Kimberly
Massung after the meeting. Chairman Adams commented that all agenda materials should
be furnished to all candidates for County Commission.
APRIL 4, 2000
-125-
BOCK
r
d' 1 d`�Y v1 r
Up 0rl y AI i, �- f-�8
V v K - ot.. r .d I '
ON MOTION by Commissioner Macht,
SECONDED by Commissioner Tippin, the Board,
by a 4-1 vote (Commission Ginn opposed) accepted
the Children's Services Plan Update 2000-2001, as
requested.
THE PLAN UPDATE IS ON FILE IN THE
OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD
WITH THE BACKUP FOR TODAY'S MEETING
12. RECONSIDERATION OF THOMAS AND GRETCHEN
COLLINS REZONING (EARRING POINT DRIVE AND
JUNGLE TRAILI (ORIGINALLY BEFORE THE BOARD ON
MARCH 21, 2000)
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of March 2812000:
TO: The Board of County Commissioners
FROM: -Ui f William G. Collins II — Deputy County Attorney
DATE: March 28, 2000
SUBJECT: Reconsideration of Tom Collins' Rezoning
After the Board's March 21, 2000 denial of the rezoning of Mr. Collins' ±.54 -acre
building site from RS -1 to RS -6, Mr. Collins called both me and Chairman Adams
inquiring as to why the County did not approve the rezoning. I informed him that
the Commission was concerned that, although he may be limited to one dwelling
unit, if the property was transferred with RS -6 zoning, there would be the
possibility of some other owner developing three dwelling units on what they
consider to be a small and sensitive site along the Indian River.
APRIL 4, 2000
-126-
• .
Mr. Collins proposed to resolve this fear by recording a deed restriction on the
property which would run with the land, limiting the .54 -acre site to one single-
family dwelling unit.
The Indian River County Code, Rules of Debate, Section 102.06(7) states that "A
motion to reconsider an action taken by the Commission may be made only
during the session at which such action was taken. Such motion must be made
by one on the. prevailing side, but may be seconded by any member. This
section shall not preclude any Item on which Commission action has
already been taken from being placed on the subsequent agenda."
(Emphasis added.)
I advised the Chairman that this matter should be brought to the Commission for
a decision as to whether they wish to reconsider their action based upon Mr.
Collins' willingness to deed restrict the property to a single unit. If the Board
does pass a motion to reconsider, since this involves rezoning, there roust be
public notice advertised in the paper, and the hearing would be scheduled for
May 2nd.
In view of the foregoing, the Board should decide whether they wish to pass a
motion to reconsider, initiating advertisement and scheduling a public hearing on
May 2nd.
APRIL 4, 2000
ON MOTION by Commissioner Macht,
SECONDED by Commissioner Ginn, the Board, by
a 4-1 vote (Commissioner Stanbridge opposed)
agreed to reconsider this matter and authorized staff
to advertise a public hearing for May 2, 2000, as
requested.
A;;�
-127-
p
B.A. CHAIRMAN FRAN B. ADAMS - DISCUSSION OF
ORDINANCE 1999-021 ESTABLISHING REGULATIONS
GOVERNING ALARMS RESPONDED TO BY LAW
ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES
Chairman Adams asked the Board's permission to have stafftalk with Deputy Sheriff
Ron Kramer and Sandy Shields concerning the False Alarm Ordinance to determine how the
Ordinance can be modified due to the large number of complaints she has received.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Macht,
SECONDED by Commissioner Ginn, the Board
unanimously authorized staff to work with Deputy
Ron Kramer and Sandy Shields of the Sheriff's
Department on resolving these complaints.
13.1). COMMISSIONER RUTH STANBRIDGE - UPDATE
REGARDING THE DIVISION OF STATE LANDS CASE
(LOST TREE ISLAND51
Commissioner Stanbridge reported on the status of the Lost Tree Islands submerged
land matter. She felt it is important that Indian River County take a stand regarding the court
cases and the suggestion that the County purchase half of the Lost Tree land that was
originally contemplated at double the price. She requested that a letter be sent to the
Department of Community Affairs, the Governor and the Cabinet, advising them that Indian
River County is not interested in any deal regarding those lands at this time.
APRIL 4, 2000
-128-
®
w
Commissioner Ginn believed the letter should state that the County is still interested
in the purchase of the lands, but at an appraised price.
Commissioner Stanbridge noted that our guidelines call for a "willing" seller and an
appraised price.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Stanbridge,
SECONDED by Commissioner Macht, the Board
unanimously authorized a letter to the Department of
Community Affairs and the State Cabinet to inform
them that (1) Indian River County is not interested in
partnering any deal they might make with the owners
of Lost Tree Village and/or the Town of Indian
River Shores and (2) Indian River County's
guidelines for purchase of environmental lands
include purchase from a willing seller at or below
the appraised value of such lands.
14.A. EMERGENCY SERVICES DISTRICT
None.
U.B. SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL DISTRICT
The Chairman announced that immediately upon adjournment the Board would
reconvene as the Board of Commissioners of the Solid Waste Disposal District. Those
Minutes are being -prepared separately.
APRIL 4, 2000
-129- ��
U.C. ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL BOARD
None.
There being no further business, on Motion duly made, seconded and carried, the
Board adjourned at 2:04 p.m.
W"039
C Y, - k t) C
J. K. on, Clerk
�A0amt,-:3
Fran B. Adams, Chairman
Minutes Approved: q a 00C,
APRIL 4, 2000