HomeMy WebLinkAbout7/18/20000 MINUTES ATTACHED 0
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY9 FLORIDA
AGENDA
TUESDAY, JULY 18, 2000 - 9:00 A.M.
County Commission Chamber
County Administration Building
1840 25`x' 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)
James E. Chandler, County Administrator
Paul G. Bangel, 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 James W. Davis
3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Comm. Kenneth R. Macht
4. ADDITIONS/DELETIONS to the AGENDA/EMERGENCY ITEMS
ADDITION: 10 Schedule Joint Meeting with City of Vero Beach Concerning
Memorandum of Understanding with Dodgers
DELETION: 11.G. Final Payment -Artificial Reef Project
5. PROCLAMATION and PRESENTATIONS
None
6. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Regular Meeting of June 20, 2000
7. CONSENT AGENDA
A. Received & Placed on File in Office of Clerk to the Board:
Report of Convictions, June, 2000
B. Approval of Warrants
(memorandum dated July 6, 2000) 1-9
BK 1 14 PG 200
FACOUNTY ADMINWARGARErAGENDAUULY 18 2000 AGENDA.DOC
7. CONSENT AGENDA (cont'd.): BACKUP
PAGES
C. Request permission for Comm. Adams to attend the 40
Annual Fla. Shore & Beach Preservation Assoc. — Fine -
Tuning Beach Management in Fla. to be held Sept. 13-15,
2000, in Captiva Island, FL 10-16
D. Request permission for Commissioners to attend the
Regional Commissioners Forum to be held July 26, 2000
at the Daytona International Speedway 17-20
E. Appointment of Beverly J. Raymond to IRC Extension
Advisory Council
(memorandum dated July 7, 2000) 21-25
F. Award Bid #2047 Purchase of Emergency Generator for
HRS Building
(memorandum dated July 3, 2000) 26-34
G. Annual County Tax Deed Applications
(memorandum dated July 6, 2000) 35-43
H. Resolution Appointing Value Adjustment Board Members
and Rejecting Statutory Per Diem Compensation for Value
Adjustment Board Members
(memorandum dated July 12, 2000) 44-46
I. Frank Oberbeck to serve on Utilities Advisory Committee
(letter dated July 10, 2000) 47
8. CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS and
GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES
None
9. PUBLIC ITEMS
A. PUBLIC HEARINGS
LDR Amendments
(memorandum dated July 12, 2000) 48-50
B1{ 1 1 4 PG 20 1
F:\COUNTY ADMINWARGARETIAGENDAVULY 18 2000 AGENDA.DOC 0
BACKUP
9. PUBLIC ITEMS (cont'd ): PAGES
A. PUBLIC HEARINGS (cont'd.):
1. AN ORDINANCE OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY,
FLORIDA, AMENDING LAND DEVELOPMENT
REGULATIONS (LDRS) CHAPTER 953, FAIR -
SHARE ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS; AND PRO-
VIDING FOR REPEAL OF CONFLICTING PRO-
VISIONS, CODIFICATION, SEVERABILITY AND
EFFECTIVE DATE
Traffic Impact Fee ordinance measure for assessing new
golf course development and other minor changes
(memorandum dated July 6, 2000) 51-67
2. AN ORDINANCE OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY,
FLORIDA, AMENDING LAND DEVELOPMENT
REGULATIONS (LDRS) CHAPTER 911, ZONING;
AND PROVIDING FOR REPEAL OF CONFLICTING
PROVISIONS, CODIFICATION, SEVERABILITY AND
EFFECTIVE DATE
CR510 East additional corridor regulations (regulations
applicable to a sub -area of the Wabasso Corridor Plan
area)
(memorandum dated July 6, 2000) 68-92
3. AN ORDINANCE OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY,
FLORIDA, AMENDING LAND DEVELOPMENT
REGULATIONS (LDRS) CHAPTER 911, ZONING;
AND PROVIDING FOR REPEAL OF CONFLICTING
PROVISIONS, CODIFICATION, SEVERABILITY AND
EFFECTIVE DATE
SR60 Corridor Window Sign Allowance
(memorandum dated July 6, 2000) 93-107
4. AN ORDINANCE OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
AMENDING LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS
(LDRS) CHAPTER 911, ZONING; AND PROVIDING FOR
REPEAL OF CONFLICTING PROVISIONS, CODIFICATION,
SEVERABILITY AND EFFECTIVE DATE
SR60 Corridor I-95 area free-standing sign allowance
(memorandum dated July 6, 2000) 108-121
5. AN ORDINANCE OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
AMENDING LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS
(LDRS): CHAPTER 901, DEFINITIONS; CHAPTER 911,
ZONING; CHAPTER 912, SINGLE-FAMILY DEVELOP -
PG 202
F:�COUNTY ADMINWARGARErAGENDM9MY 18 2000 AGENDA.DOC
9. PUBLIC ITEMS (cont'd.): BACKUP
A. PUBLIC HEARINGS (cont'd.): PAGES
5. (cont'd):
MENT; AND PROVIDING FOR REPEAL OF CONFLICTING
PROVISIONS, CODIFICATION, SEVERABILITY AND
EFFECTIVE DATE
Building height regulations
(memorandum dated July 6, 2000) 122-167
B. PUBLIC DISCUSSION ITEMS
1. Request by Bibble Irvin to speak regarding Beach Issue
(no backup provided)
2. Homeless Review 168-182
C. PUBLIC NOTICE ITEMS
None
10. COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S MATTERS
None
11. DEPARTMENTAL MATTERS
A. Community Development
Approval of Contract with Georgia-Pacific Corp. for Timber
Removal from the North Sebastian Conservation Area, in
Accordance with the Sebastian Area -Wide Scrub -Jay Habitat
Conservation Plan
(memorandum dated July 10, 2000) 183-194
B. Emergency Services
None
C. General Services
1. Award Bid #2055 Purchase of Trucks for the Parks
Division, Road & Bridge, Emergency Services and
Buildings and Grounds
(memorandum dated July 10, 2000) 195-213
2. Architectural Services Agreement with Dow, Howell,
Gilmore & Associates, Inc. for Design and Construc-
tion Services for an Addition to Main Library
(memorandum dated July 3, 2000) 214-284
D. Leisure Services
None
8K 114 PG 203
0
F^COUNTY ADMINIMARGARMAGENI)MMY IS 2000AGENDA.DOC 0
•
•
11. DEPARTMENTAL MATTERS kont'd):
BACKUP
E.
Office of Management and Budget
PAGES
None
F.
Personnel
None
G.
Public Works
Final Payment for Contract #2040
McCully Marine Services, Inc.
Artificial Reef Project
(memorandum dated July 10, 2000)
285-301
H.
Utilities
County Route 512 Roadway Improvements (Water/Force Main
Replacement) and County Route 510 Wastewater Improvements
Request for Authorization to Proceed with Professional
Engineering Design Services to Masteller & Moler Consulting
Engineers
(memorandum dated June 29, 2000)
302-324
I.
Human Services
None
12. COUNTY ATTORNEY
None
13. COMMISSIONERS ITEMS
A.
Chairman Fran B. Adams
B. Vice Chairman Caroline D. Ginn
C. Commissioner Kenneth R. Macht
D. Commissioner Ruth Stanbridge
BK 114 PG 204
F:\COUNTY ADMINIMARGARErAGENDAUULY 19 2000 AGENDAMOC
13. COMMISSIONERS ITEMS (cont'd):
E. Commissioner John W. Tippin
14. SPECIAL DISTRICTSBOARDS
A. Emergency Services District
None
B. Solid Waste Disposal District
1. Approval of Minutes — meeting of June 20, 2000
BACKUP
PAGES
2. Recycling & Education Grant
Waste Tire Grant
Litter Control Grant
(memorandum dated July 10, 2000) 325-344
3. Disaster/Hurricane Debris Removal & Disposal
(memorandum dated July 10, 2000) 345-380
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: http://bccl.co.indian-river.fl.us
Full agenda back-up material is available for review in the Board of County Commission Office,
Indian River County Main Library, IRC Courthouse Law Library, and North County Library
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.
014 114 PG 205
0
F:`.COUNTY ADMI"ARGARMAGENDAWLY 18 2000 AGENDA.DOC 0
•
INDEX TO MINUTES
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
MEETING OF JULY 189 2000
1. CALL TO ORDER ............................................... 1
11 2. INVOCATION .................................................. 1
3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ....................................... 1
4. ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA .................................... 1
5. PROCLAMATIONS AND PRESENTATIONS ......................... 2
6. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - JUNE 20, 2000 .......................... 2
7. CONSENT AGENDA
2
7.A.
............................................
Reports ..................................................
2
7.B.
Approval of Warrants .......................................
2
7.C.
Chairman Adams Out -of -County Travel to the 44th Annual Conference of
Florida Shore & Beach Preservation Association - Fine -Tuning Beach
Management in Florida - 9/13-15/00 ............................
9
7.D.
Commissioners Out -of -County Travel to Regional Commissioners Forum in
Volusia County - July 26, 2000 ................................
9
7.E.
Appointment of Beverly J. Raymond to Indian River County Extension
7.F.
Advisory Council ..........................................
Bid #2047 - Purchase of Emergency Generator for Public Health Unit
10
Building - R B. Grove Inc. of Miami ..........................
10
7.G.
Annual County Tax Deed Applications .........................
12
7.H.
Resolution No. 2000-076 Appointing Value Adjustment Board Members
and Rejecting Per Diem Compensation .........................
13
7.I.
Appointment of Frank Oberbeck to Utility Advisory Committee ......
16
1
BK 114 PG 206
•
9. PUBLIC HEARINGS - LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS (LDRS)
AMENDMENTS ............................................... 17
9A.1. PUBLIC HEARING - ORDINANCE NO. 2000-023 - LDR AMENDMENT -
CHAPTER 953, FAIR -SHARE ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS - TRAFFIC
IMPACT FEE - NEW GOLF COURSE DEVELOPMENT AND OTHER MINOR
CHANGES .................................................... 19
9.A.2. PUBLIC HEARING - ORDINANCE NO. 2000-024 - LDR AMENDMENT
CHAPTER 911, ZONING - CR 510 EAST ADDITIONAL CORRIDOR
REGULATIONS (WABASSO CORRIDOR PLAN) .................... 31
9.A.3. PUBLIC HEARING - ORDINANCE NO. 2000-025 - LDR AMENDMENT
CHAPTER 911, ZONING - SR 60 CORRIDOR WINDOW SIGN ALLOWANCE
............................................................. 39
9.A.4. PUBLIC HEARING - LDR AMENDMENT - CHAPTER 911, ZONING - SR 60
CORRIDOR I-95 AREA FREE-STANDING SIGN ALLOWANCE ........ 45
9.A.5. PUBLIC HEARING - ORDINANCE NO. 2000-026 - LDR AMENDMENT
CHAPTER 901, DEFINITIONS; CHAPTER 911, ZONING; CHAPTER 912,
SINGLE-FAMILY DEVELOPMENT - BUILDING HEIGHT REGULATIONS
............................................................. 53
9.B.1. PUBLIC DISCUSSION ITEM - REQUEST BY BIBBLE IRVIN TO SPEAK
REGARDING BEACH ISSUE ..................................... 76
9.B.2. PUBLIC DISCUSSION ITEM - HOMELESS REVIEW - INDIAN RIVER
HOMELESS SERVICES COUNCIL, INC. (LEASE AT 2525 ST. LUCIE
AVENUE, VERO BEACH -HUD GRANT APPLICATION - HIBISCUS
MANOR, 720 4TH STREET) ..................................... 77
10. SCHEDULE A JOINT WORKSHOP MEETING OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS AND THE CITY OF VERO BEACH COUNCIL
CONCERNING A MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING WITH THE
DODGERS.................................................... 87
BK 1 14 PG 207
•
•
11.A. TIMBER REMOVAL FROM THE NORTH SEBASTIAN
CONSERVATION AREA ACCORDING TO THE SEBASTIAN AREA -
WIDE SCRUB JAY HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN - GEORGIA -
PACIFIC CORP. CONTRACT APPROVAL ..................... 87
11.C.1. BID #2055 - PURCHASE OF TRUCKS FOR PARKS DIVISION, ROAD
& BRIDGE, EMERGENCY SERVICES AND BUILDINGS AND GROUNDS
....................................................... 90
11.C.2. MAIN LIBRARY ADDITION - ARCHITECTURAL SERVICES
AGREEMENT FOR DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION SERVICES -
DOW, HOWELL, GILMORE & ASSOCIATES, INC . ............. 92
11.G. ARTIFICIAL REEF PROJECT - FINAL PAYMENT FOR CONTRACT
#2040 - McCULLY MARINE SERVICES, INC ................... 94
11.H. CR 512 ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS (WATER/FORCE MAIN
REPLACEMENT) AND CR 510 WASTEWATER IMPROVEMENTS -
AUTHORIZATION TO PROCEED WITH PROFESSIONAL
ENGINEERING DESIGN SERVICES TO MASTELLER & MOLER
CONSULTING ENGINEERS - ADDENDUM #3 TO INDIAN RIVER
COUNTY PROJECT #9611 PHASES III & IV ................... 94
14.A. EMERGENCY SERVICES DISTRICT ......................... 96
14.B. SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL DISTRICT ........................ 96
14.C. ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL BOARD ...................... 96
3
•
July 18, 2000
The Board of County Commissioners ofIndianRiver County, Florida, met in Regular Session
at the County Commission Chambers, 1840 25d' Street, Vero Beach, Florida, on Tuesday, July 18,
2000. Present were Fran B. Adams, Chairman; Caroline D. Ginn, Vice Chairman; Kenneth R.
Macht; Ruth Stanbridge; and John W. Tippin. Also present were James E. Chandler, County
Administrator, Paul G. Bangel, County Attorney; and Patricia Ridgely, Deputy Clerk.
1. CALL TO ORDER
The Chairman called the meeting to order at 9:00 a.m.
2. INVOCATION
Public Works Director James W. Davis delivered the invocation.
3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Commissioner Macht led the Pledge to the Flag.
4. ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA
Administrator Chandler requested the addition of item 10, Schedule a Special Joint Meeting
with the City of Vero Beach Council Concerning the Proposed Memorandum ofUnderstanding with
the Dodgers. He also requested the deletion of item 11.G., Final Payment for Contract on Artificial
Reef Project.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Ginn, SECONDED BY
Commissioner Stanbridge, the Board unanimously made the requested
changes to the agenda.
July 189 2000
1
BX 114 PG 209
•
5. PROCLAMATIONS AND PRESENTATIONS
None.
6. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - JUNE 20, 2000
The Chairman asked if there were any corrections or additions to the Minutes of the Regular
Meeting of June 20, 2000. There were none.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Tippin, SECONDED BY
Commissioner Ginn, the Board unanimously approved the Minutes of
the Regular Meeting of June 20, 2000, as written and distributed.
7. CONSENT AGENDA
7.A. Reports
Received and placed on file in the office of the Clerk to the Board
Report of Convictions, June 2000
7.B. Approval of Warrants
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of July 6, 2000:
July 189 2000
To: HONORABLE BOARD OF COUNTY COMIVIISSIONERS
DATE: JULY 6, 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 July 3, 2000 to July 6, 2000.
2
BK 114PG210
ON MOTION by Commissioner Ginn, SECONDED BY
Commissioner Stanbridge, the Board unanimously approved the list
of warrants issued by the Clerk to the Board for the period July 3-6,
2000, as requested.
CHECK
NAME
CHECK
CHECK
NUMBER
DATE
AMOUNT
0020631
KRUCZKIEWICZ, LORIANE
2000-07-03
138.50
0020632
BUREAU FOR CHILD SUPPORT ENFOR
2000-07-03
92.31
0020633
VELASQUEZ, MERIDA
2000-07-03
200.00
0020634
INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE
2000-07-03
225.00
0020635
IRS - ACS
2000-07-03
50.00
0020636
CHAPTER 13 TRUSTEE
2000-07-03
521.88
0020637
VERO BEACH FIREFIGHTERS ASSOC.
2000-07-03
2,040.00
0020638
INDIAN RIVER FEDERAL CREDIT
2000-07-03
80,478.71
0020639
COLONIAL LIFE & ACCIDENT
2000-07-03
231.03
0020640
NACO/SOUTHEAST
2000-07-03
7,865.27
0020641
SALEM TRUST COMPANY
2000-07-03
421.98
0020642
WISCONSIN SUPPORT COLLECTIONS
2000-07-03
23.08
0020643
FL SDU
2000-07-03
6,418.50
0284675
BLUE CROSS/BLUE SHIELD OF
2000-06-22
.00
VOID
0284835
O'NEIL, LEE & WEST
2000-06-22
.00
VOID
0284911
UNIPSYCH BENEFITS OF FL,INC
2000-06-22
.00
VOID
0285405
ROYAL, THOMAS
2000-06-29
.00
VOID
0285489
A A FIRE EQUIPMENT, INC
2000-07-06
303.95
0285490
ACE PLUMBING, INC
2000-07-06
131.45
0285491
ACTION TRANSMISSION AND
2000-07-06
110.82
0285492
ADVANCED GARAGE DOORS, INC
2000-07-06
45.00
0285493
AIRBORNE E%PRESS
2000-07-06
46.61
0285494
ALBERTSONS SOUTHCO #4357
2000-07-06
280.86
0285495
ALPHA ACE HARDWARE
2000-07-06
17.66
0285496
ACTION ANSWERING SERVICE
2000-07-06
338.00
0285497
APPLE MACHINE & SUPPLY CO
2000-07-06
75.00
0285498
AUTO SUPPLY CO OF VERO BEACH,
2000-07-06
714.97
0285499
AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF SMALL
2000-07-06
465.90
0285500
ATLANTIC REPORTING
2000-07-06
206.05
0285501
ALL POWER SERVICES, INC
2000-07-06
685.00
0285502
ALL RITE WATER CONDITIONING
2000-07-06
101.50
0285503
A T & T
2000-07-06
543.94
0285504
AGENCY FOR HEALTH CARE
2000-07-06
36,882.53
0285505
ARROW MAGNOLIA INTERNATIONAL
2000-07-06
108.52
0285506
ALBERTSON'S
2000-07-06
95.00
.0285507
ALL COUNTY MOWER & EQUIP CO
2000-07-06
114.57
0285508
AUTO PARTS OF VERO, INC
2000-07-06
568.89
0285509
A T & T MEDIA SERVICES
2000-07-06
75.00
0285510
ARBITELLE, MICHAEL
2000-07-06
50.00
0285511
BAKER DISTRIBUTING CO
2000-07-06
560.29
0285512
BARTON, JEFFREY K -CLERK
2000-07-06
2,006.00
0285513
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
2000-07-06
5,779.89
0285514
BRUGNOLI, ROBERT J PHD
2000-07-06
500.00
0285515
BRAD SMITH ASSOCIATES, INC
2000-07-06
30,114.00
0285516
BAKER & TAYLOR INC
2000-07-06
27.74
0285517
BRODART CO
2000-07-06
1,694.89
July 18, 2000
3
BK 1 14 PG 21 1
July 18, 2000
4
BK 114 PG 212
CHECK
CHECK
CHECK NAME
DATE
AMOUNT
NUMBER
0285518 BOYNTON PUMP & IRRIGATION
_ _
569.38
250.00
0285519
BLAKESLEE MAINTENANCE
2000-07-06
95.27
0285520
BELLSOUTH MOBILITY
2000-07-06
2000-07-06
14,172.67
0285521
BELLSOUTH
2000-07-06
234.13
0285522
BETTER COPY CENTER, A
_06
35.86
0285523
BELLSOUTH PUBLIC COMMUNICATION
2
214.32
0285524
BELFORD, DENNIS
000 07-06
2000-07-06
56.00
0285525
BROWN, MARY
2000-07-06
113.30
0285526
BRINSON, CINDY
2000-07-06
240.00
0285527
BRYANT, JAMES 0 JR
2000-07-06
810.00
0285528
BRENDLE, ROBERT W AND
2000-07-06
118.70
0285529
0285530
BELLSOUTH
COASTLINE EQUIPMENT CO., INC
_
266.20
322.00
0285531
CITRUS MOTEL
2000-07-06
2000-07-06
24.40
0285532
COLD AIR DISTRIBUTORS
2000-07-06
2,088.95
0285533
COMMUNICATIONS INT L INC
2000-07-06
833.00
0265534
CORBIN, SHIRLEY E
2000-07-06
118.28
0285535
CONGRESSIONAL QUARTERLY INC
2000-07-06
797,00
0285536
CARSONITE INTERNATIONAL CORP
69,42
0285537
CYBERGUYS
2000-07-06
2000-07-06
164.97
0285538
CIT GROUP/COMMERCIAL SERVICES,
62.68
0285539
CENTRAL PUMP & SUPPLY INC
2000-07-06
171.00
0285540
CENTER FOR EMOTIONAL AND
2000-07-06
164.00
0285541
COUNTRY HEARTH INN
2000-07-06
1,663.60
0285542
CROSS, ESTHER
2000-07-06
2000-07-06
34.72
0285543
CENTRAL AIR CONDITIONING &
2000-07-06
1,214.71
0285544
DAVES SPORTING GOODS
2000-07-06
202.24
0285545
0285546
DELTA SUPPLY CO
FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS
2000-07-06
74.47
0285547
DON SMITH'S PAINT STORE, INC
2000-07-06
132.24
365.00
0285548
DOOLITTLE JAMES A & ASSOCIATES
2000-07-06
625.00
0285549
DEAF SERVICE CENTER OF THE
2000-07-06
356.40545.49
0285550
DELRAY STAKES & SHAVINGS INC
2000-07-06
0285551
DADE PAPER COMPANY
2000-07-06
42.30
0285552
DOWNTOWN PRODUCE INC
2000-07-06
635.30
3,415.00
0285553
DOLPHIN DATA PRODUCTS INC
2000-07-06
0285554
DIVINE SERVICE ENTERPRISES INC
2000-07-06
210.00
0285555
ERCILDOUNE BOWLING LANES
2000-07-06
245.802,915.50
0285556
ELPEX, INC
2000-07-06
2000-07-06
0285557
ECOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC
2000-07-06
40.96
0285558
0285559
FEDEX
FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF
2000-07-06
80.00
0285560
FLORIDA BAR, THE
2000-07-06
390.00
392.40
0285561
FLORIDA COCA-COLA BOTTLING CO
2000-07-06
5,793.28
0285562
FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY
2000-07-06
58.66
0285563
FOOT -JOY DRAWER
2000-07-06
91.20
0285564
FLOWERS BAKING COMPANY OF
2000-07-06
830.97
0285565
FLORIDA TIRE RECYCLING, INC
2000-07-06
120.00
0285566
F W P C O A
2000-07-06
2000-07-06
10.00
0285567
FLORIDA DEPT OF REVENUE
2000-07-06
1,060.22
0285568
FT PIERCE, CITY OF
2000-07-06
29.00
0285569
FLORIDA ANIMAL LEAGUE
2000-07-06
19.00
0285570
FLORIDA GARDENING
2000-07-06
109.50
0285571
FIRSTLAB
2000-07-06
1,272.92
0285572
FIRESTONE TIRE & SERVICE
2000-07-06
32.19
0285573
FULLER, APRIL L
2000-07-06
50.00
0285574
FORSBACH, DEBRA
2000-07-06
890.70
0285575
GALE GROUP, THE
2000-07-06
138.75
0285576
GENERAL GMC, TRUCK
July 18, 2000
4
BK 114 PG 212
•
July 18, 2000
5
0
CHECK
CHECK
CHECK
NAME
DATE
AMOUNT
NUMBER
0285577
GOODKNIGHT LAWN EQUIPMENT, INC
2000-07-06
243.48
0285578
GRAYBAR ELECTRIC CO INC
2000-07-06
132.08
0285579
GOLLNICK, PEGGY
2000-07-06
556.50
0285580
GORHAM, JONATHAN
2000-07-06
65.66
0285581
HAMMOND & SMITH, P A
2000-07-06
16,350.00
0285582
HECTOR TURF, INC
2000-07-06
12,869.45
0285583
HUNTER AUTO SUPPLIES
2000-07-06
129.96
0285584
HURLEY, BARRY L
2000-07-06
450.00
0285585
HARRIS SANITATION, INC
2000-07-06
60,595.50
0285586
HILL MANUFACTURING
2000-07-06
154.26
0285587
HORIZON NURSERY
2000-07-06
154.80
0285588
HANSEN, SUSAN
2000-07-06
122.67
0285589
HARRIS, BRYCE L
2000-07-06
43.78
0285590
HOLMES, EDWARD
2000-07-06
240.00
0285591
HYATT REGENCY SAN FRANCISCO
2000-07-06
830.00
0285592
HARRIS, KAREN
2000-07-06
43.78
0285593
HOMETOWN SPORTS, ENT
2000-07-06
99.50
0285594
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
2000-07-06
200.00
0285595
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
2000-07-06
185.00
0285596
INDIAN RIVER BATTERY, INC
2000-07-06
333.15
0285597
INDIAN RIVER BLUEPRINT CO INC
2000-07-06
127.73
0285598
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
2000-07-06
150.00
0285599
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY UTILITY
2000-07-06
118.50
0285600
INDIAN RIVER MEMORIAL HOSPITAL
2000-07-06
4,259.65
0285601
INGRAM LIBRARY SERVICES
2000-07-06
62.34
0285602
INTERSTATE BILLING SERVICE
2000-07-06
227.90
0285603
INSURANCE SERVICING &
2000-07-06
275.00
0285604
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
2000-07-06
170.00
0285605
IBM CORPORATION
2000-07-06
47.00
0285606
INDIAN RIVER ALL -FAB, INC
2000-07-06
174.00
0285607
IRON OFFICE SOLUTIONS
2000-07-06
226.80
0285608
INTERIM PERSONNEL
2000-07-06
326.40
0285609
INTERMEDIA COMMUNICATIONS
2000-07-06
65.48
0285610
IRRIGATION CONSULTANTS UNLIMIT
2000-07-06
45.31
0285611
JANIE DEAN CHEVROLET, INC
2000-07-06
67.25
0285612
CARLSON, JOYCE M JOHNSTON
2000-07-06
376.54
0285613
JUDAH, KAREN E
2000-07-06
48.93
0285614
J A A F
2000-07-06
50.00
0285615
JONES CHEMICALS, INC
2000-07-06
4,379.31
0285616_
KELLY-CRESWELL CO INC
2000-07-06
129.85
0285617
KIMLEY-HORN & ASSOCIATES, INC
2000-07-06
19,311.35
0285618
KELLY TRACTOR CO
2000-07-06
254.28
0285619
KEY, PATRICIA W
2000-07-06
147.00
0285620
K & M ELECTRIC SUPPLY INC
2000-07-06
93.03
0285621
THE KIPLINGER LETTER
2000-07-06
79.00
0285622
LONG, JAMES T ESQUIRE
2000-07-06
4,500.00
0285623
LEAHY INCORPORATED
2000-07-06
1,970.35
0285624
LOWE'S COMPANIES, INC.
2000-07-06
2,658.98
0285625
LESCO, INC
2000-07-06
175.36
0285626
LEXIS LAW PUBLISHING
2000-07-06
58.88
0285627
LINDSEY GARDEN'S APARTMENTS
2000-07-06
346.00
0285628
LUNDMARK, ALEX
2000-07-06
56.65
0285629
MAXWELL PLUMBING, INC
2000-07-06
614.60
0285630
MOSS, KATHY
2000-07-06
640.00
0285631
MUMFORD LIBRARY BOOKS, INC
2000-07-06
1,780.03
0285632
MARTIN'S LAMAR UNIFORMS
2000-07-06
3,895.92
0285633
MICRO WAREHOUSE
2000-07-06
1,931.30
0285634
MEDICAL RECORD SERVICES, INC
2000-07-06
117.50
July 18, 2000
5
0
CHECK
NAME
CHECK
CHECK
NUMBER
DATE
AMOUNT
0285635
MARDALE OF AMERICA, INC
2000-07-06
65.00
0285636
MR BOB PORTABLE TOILET
2000-07-06
34.60
0285637
MOSS, MARY
2000-07-06
43.78
0285638
MAXWELL, KIMBERLY
2000-07-06
23.18
0285639
MONTGOMERY TECHNOLOGY, INC
2000-07-06
920.00
0285640
MEDTRONIC PHYSIO -CONTROL
2000-07-06
19,030.31
0285641
MAXFLI GOLF DIVISION
2000-07-06
352.13
0285642
NOLTE, DAVID C
2000-07-06
170.00
0285643
NFSES
2000-07-06
40.00
0285644
ON IT'S WAY
2000-07-06
791.38
0285645
OFFICE DEPOT, INC
2000-07-06
780.27
0285646
OSCEOLA PHARMACY
2000-07-06
307.92
0285647
OFFICE OF ATTORNEY GENERAL
2000-07-06
10.58
0285648
OAKSTONE LEGAL & BUSINESS
2000-07-06
164.90
0285649
OHLER, MATTHEW
2000-07-06
97.00
0285650
PEPSI -COLA COMPANY
2000-07-06
295.50
0285651
PERKINS DRUG, INC
2000-07-06
332.66
0285652
PORT PETROLEUM, INC
2000-07-06
417.22
0285653
PAR -MAIL
2000-07-06
48.65
0285654
PRECISION CONTRACTING
2000-07-06
330.00
0285655
PRAXAIR DISTRIBUTION
2000-07-06
28.60
0285656
PUBLIX PHARMACY
2000-07-06
133.07
0285657
PARKER, DEBBIE
2000-07-06
95.28
0285658
PAYNE, JAMES
2000-07-06
123.60
0285659
PHOTIKON
2000-07-06
455.00
0285660
P C WEATHER PRODUCTS
2000-07-06
950.00
0285661
PERUGINI CONSTRUCTION
2000-07-06
1,000.00
0285662
QUALITY BOOKS, INC
2000-07-06
111.38
0285663
RADIOSHACK
2000-07-06
59.94
0285664
ROBERTS & REYNOLDS PA
2000-07-06
6,742.53
0285665
R & G SOD FARMS
2000-07-06
340.00
0285666
RANGELINE TAPPING SERVICE INC
2000-07-06
325.00
0285667
ROYAL CUP COFFEE
2000-07-06
64.00
0285668
ROMANO, CHRISTINA
2000-07-06
36.05
0285669
ROYCE INSTRUMENT CORP
2000-07-06
212.81
0285670
ROYAL, THOMAS
2000-07-06
55.68
0285671
RICHARD ORSINI &ASSOCIATES INC
2000-07-06
500.00
0285672
SCHOPP, BARBARA G
2000-07-06
126.00
0285673
SCOTTY'S, INC
2000-07-06
86.87
0285674
SEWELL HARDWARE CO, INC
2000-07-06
199.80
0285675
SMART CORPORATION
2000-07-06
7.01
0285676
SOUTHERN EAGLE DISTRIBUTING,
2000-07-06
108.40
0285677
ST LUCIE BATTERY & TIRE, INC
2000-07-06
129.95
0285678
STRUNK FUNERAL HOME
2000-07-06
800.00
0285679
SEXTON, HILDY
2000-07-06
80.00
0285680
SHERMAN, ROGER
2000-07-06
6,550.00
0285681
SYSCO FOOD SERVICES OF
2000-07-06
722.54
0285682
SIMS, MATTHEW
2000-07-06
132.82
0285683
SOUTHEAST LIBRARY BINDERY,INC
2000-07-06
153.07
0285684
STAMM MANUFACTURING
2000-07-06
55.00
0285685
SOUTHERN LOCK AND SUPPLY CO
2000-07-06
153.51
0285686
SOUTHERN SECURITY SYSTEMS OF
2000-07-06
180.00
0285687
SAFETY PRODUCTS INC
2000-07-06
206.85
0285688
SIMPSON, MEGAN
2000-07-06
242.05
0285689
SECURITY SERVICES OF AMERICA
2000-07-06
504.00
0285690
SEEMORE CO
2000-07-06
627.95
0285691
STEPANEK, JOHN
2000-07-06
224.00
0285692
SEBASTIAN POWER CENTER RENTAL
2000-07-06
97.39
0285693
STEWART, SARAH LYNN
2000-07-06
19.32
July 18, 2000
1.1
BK 114 PG 214
•
CHECK NAME
NUMBER
CHECK CHECK
DATE AMOUNT
0285694
TARMAC AMERICA INC
2000-07-06
2,660.61
0285695
TEEJAYS'
2000-07-06
300.00
0285696
TEN -8 FIRE EQUIPMENT, INC
2000-07-06
13,752.11
0285697
TITLEIST DRAWER
2000-07-06
796.23
0285698
TRANE PARTS CENTER OF SOUTH
2000-07-06
8,398.51
0285699
TRUGREEN CHEMLAWN
2000-07-06
294.00
0285700
THERMOGAS COMPANY
2000-07-06
32.67
0285701
TREASURE COAST REFUSE
2000-07-06
317.51
0285702
TREASURE COAST NEWSPAPERS
2000-07-06
676.89
0285703
TRADEWINDS SKATING CENTER
2000-07-06
1,917.00
0285704
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH FLORIDA
2000-07-06
49.00
0285705
UNIVERSITY OF CENTRAL FLORIDA
2000-07-06
5.00
0285706
US FILTER DISTRIBUTION GROUP
2000-07-06
17,272.81
0285707
UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA
2000-07-06
36.00
0285708
U S GOVT PRINTING OFFICE
2000-07-06
33.00
0285709
UNIVERSAL PUBLICATIONS
2000-07-06
120.00
0285710
VELDE FORD, INC
2000-07-06
608.54
0285711
VERO BEACH PRINTING INC
2000-07-06
257.50
0285712
VERO BEACH, CITY OF
2000-07-06
2,112.89
0285713
VERO CHEMICAL DISTRIBUTORS,INC
2000-07-06
29.00
0285714
VERO LAWNMOWER CENTER, INC
2000-07-06
254.90
0285715
VERO BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT
2000-07-06
50.00
0285716
VERO BOWL
2000-07-06
568.90
0285717
VERO BEARING & BOLT
2000-07-06
343.45
0285718
VOLUNTEER ACTION CENTER
2000-07-06
50.00
0285719
WAL-MART STORES, INC
2000-07-06
233.75
0285720
WALSH, LYNN
2000-07-06
98.22
0285721
W W GRAINGER, INC
2000-07-06
17.68
0285722
WAL-MART STORES, INC
2000-07-06
54.40
0285723
WINN DIXIE STORES INC
2000-07-06
699.94
0285724
WILLHOFF, PATSY
2000-07-06
130.00
0285725
WILLIAM THIES & SONS, INC
2000-07-06
118.80
0285726
WALGREENS PHARMACY #4642
2000-07-06
382.71
0285727
WAL*MART STORE 931
2000-07-06
751.91
0285728
WEST GROUP PAYMENT CTR
2000-07-06
212.00
0285729
WOLFE, ERIN
2000-07-06
16.74
0285730
WILSON, SUSAN BARNES
2000-07-06
293.55
0285731
WINN DIXIE PHARMACY #2366
2000-07-06
111.98
0285732
W W GRAINGER INC
2000-07-06
242.65
0285733
WILD, ANDREA
2000-07-06
30.90
0285734
WILSON, STEVEN
2000-07-06
100.43
0285735
WHITE, DEBRA
2000-07-06
235.00
0285736
WEINSIER, STEVE TREASURER
2000-07-06
20.00
0285737
XEROX CORPORATION
2000-07-06
1,619.60
0285738
MILLER, JOSEPH
2000-07-06
601.92
0285739
CAN7LON, PAULA
2000-07-06
165.76
0285740
SCHILL, LARRY
2000-07-06
242.17
0285741
MERCURI, DEBRA
2000-07-06
486.14
0285742
STEWART, LINDA AND
2000-07-06
212.86
0285743
ROYAL, THOMAS
2000-07-06
478.90
0285744
STALBA, CATHERINE
2000-07-06
30.41
0285745
TOZZOLO BROTHERS
2000-07-06
83.91
0285746
REXFORD BUILDERS
2000-07-06
238.19
0285747
BUDDE, GREGORY G
2000-07-06
37.78
0285748
CAL BUILDERS INC
2000-07-06
23.91
0285749
BURGOON BERGER CONST CO
2000-07-06
81.08
0285750
R ZORC & SONS BUILDERS INC
2000-07-06
77.11
0285751
OUTLAW, MICHELLE R
2000-07-06
50.25
0285752
MOXEY, KATIE
2000-07-06
17.36
July 18, 2000
7
BK 1 14 PG 215
•
CHECK
NAME
CHECK
CHECK
NUMBER
DATE
AMOUNT
0285753
HOLIDAY BUILDERS
2000-07-06
163.33
0285754
PARIS, RUTH A
2000-07-06
59.33
0285755
ARNOLD, DOROTHY & BRIAN
2000-07-06
45.80
0285756
ABERNATHY, STEVE
2000-07-06
42.43
0285757
HOPPE, FREDA
2000-07-06
42.88
0285758
MURPHY, MICHAEL
2000-07-06
10.64
0285759
DERRICO CONSTRUCTION CORP
2000-07-06
239.28
0285760
HOLMES, YVETTE Y
2000-07-06
70.18
0285761
HABITAT FOR HUMANITY
2000-07-06
6.66
0285762
WILLIAMS, EDITH
2000-07-06
27.55
0285763
MACKEY, HAROLD
2000-07-06
33.96
0285764
INTOCCIA, GUY & LAURA
2000-07-06
6.19
0285765
GHO VER BEACH INC
2000-07-06
53.33
0285766
POWLAS, EDITH
2000-07-06
47.74
0285767
LISENO, TERESA V
2000-07-06
42.54
0285768
STONE AGE FABRICATION INC
2000-07-06
151.96
0285769
CORNERSTONE SELECT HOMES INC
2000-07-06
87.00
0285770
BARTH, BONNI L
2000-07-06
91.90
0285771
ECKERD DRUGS #3431
2000-07-06
193.05
0285772
MAC DONALD, LISA
2000-07-06
75.96
0285773
ADKINS, RHONDA D
2000-07-06
12.75
0285774
ST LUCIE DEVELOPMENT CORP
2000-07-06
4.36
0285775
HEATH, DEREK E
2000-07-06
52.59
0285776
JONES, MONICA
2000-07-06
3.45
0285777
KOBECK, TAMMY
2000-07-06
17.64
0285778
GAPINSKI, GARY M
2000-07-06
33.85
0285779
MARTIN, DAWN
2000-07-06
52.65
0285780
JEFFERSON, JODY D
2000-07-06
33.44
0285781
RELOCATION INVESTMENTS L C
2000-07-06
16.57
0285782
PEEK, ALAN J
2000-07-06
78.18
0285783
KNOWLES, DORIS
2000-07-06
22.47
0285784
MARSHALL, RYAN W
2000-07-06
13.99
0285785
BUTTS, JAMES S
2000-07-06
23.74
0285786
KINGSLEY, GREGORY
2000-07-06
44.50
0285787
ALL FLORIDA REALTY SERVICES
2000-07-06
41.08
0285788
PASSAGE ISLAND HOMES
2000-07-06
74.50
0285789
HANSON, DORIS R
2000-07-06
46.63
0285790
MOORE, ELIZABETH V
2000-07-06
16.51
0285791
SMITH LAWRENCE
2000-07-06
45.72
0285792
BUNNELL, ELIZABETH
2000-07-06
20.15.
0285793
PERRY, THEODORE G
2000-07-06
67.45
0285794
STANSEL, TROY
2000-07-06
6.16
0285795
HENDRICKS, ANNE & PALMER
2000-07-06
29.15
0285796
JONES, DAN A
2000-07-06
35.52
0285797
HUGHES, SHANNON
2000-07-06
22.99
0285798
WAGER, PATRICIA D
2000-07-06
20.13
0285799
MANDEVILLE, RICHARD K
2000-07-06
81.84
0285800
FAIRWAYS AT GRAND HARBOR LTD
2000-07-06
345.43
0285801
POSEY, KENNETH W
2000-07-06
85.58
0285802
HOWARD, PATRICIA
2000-07-06
18.89
0285803
TRAMEL JR, WILLIAM
2000-07-06
28,20
0285804
PHILLIPS, CAREY
2000-07-06
64.00
0285805
DUGUAY, CHANTALE
2000-07-06
58.61
0285806
CLARIDY, NANCY
2000-07-06
35.44
0285807
STROUT, KENNETH E
2000-07-06
18.10
0285808
UCHMAN, STEPHEN N
2000-07-06
80.68
0285809
WASHINGTON, TALAYNA L
2000-07-06
1,82
0285810
PRO JR, JOSEPH
2000-07-06
14.38
0285811
LANDA, GABRIELA
2000-07-06
36.71
July 18, 2000
8
NR
1 f
•
CHECK
NAME
CHECK
CHECK
DATE
AMOUNT
NUMBER
0285812
NATEMAN, BARRY A
2000-07-06
34.53
0285813
LEGENDARY CONSTRUCTION, INC
2000-07-06
166.72
0285814
COMPHEALTH MEDICAL STAFFING
2000-07-06
89.88
0285815
ACCURTI, LOUIS
2000-07-06
31.16
0285816
AUTON, SANTORO & ASSOC INC
2000-07-06
62.65
0285817
MAYO CONTRACTING INC
2000-07-06
333.49
0285818
LUVIANO, PATRICIA L
2000-07-06
71.45
0285819
CODY, APRIL L
2000-07-06
4.86
0285820
NASH, JAMES
2000-07-06
31.17
0285821
GILLIS, JUDY & JASON
2000-07-06
12.04
0285822
SCHLITT, LOUIS L
2000-07-06
38.03
0285823
MAC LAUGHLIN, ANN K
2000-07-06
30.85
0285824
SALINAS, REBECCA
2000-07-06
44.43
481,355.03
Z.C. Chairman Adams Out -of -County Travel to the 44th Annual
Conference of Florida Shore dig Beach Preservation Associadon -
Fine -Tuning Beach Management in Florida - 9/13-I5/00
The Board reviewed the materials provided in the backup.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Ginn, SECONDED BY
Commissioner Stanbridge, the Board unanimously approved for out -
of -county travel for Chairman Adams to attend the 44'h Annual
Conference of the Florida Shore & Beach Preservation Association in
Captive Island, September 13-15, 2000, as requested.
7A Commissioners Out of County Travel to Regional
Commissioners Forum in Volusia County -..Jul
v 26, 2000
The Board reviewed the materials provided in the backup.
July 18, 2000
BK 1 14 or 217
ON MOTION by Commissioner Ginn, SECONDED BY
Commissioner Stanbridge, the Board unanimously approved out -of -
county travel for the Commissioners to attend the Regional
Commissioners Forum in Volusia County on July 26, 2000, as
requested.
7.E. Appointment of BeverlIyIRRaymond to Indian River Count
Extension Advisory Council
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of July 7, 2000:
TO: Board of County Commissioneerrs�
FROM: Fran B. Adams, Chairman (�—
DATE: July 7, 2000
SUBJECT: Indian River County Extension Advisory Council
Attached is the resume of Beverly J. "Scooter" Raymond, who is my designee to the
Extension Advisory Council.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Ginn, SECONDED BY
Commissioner Stanbridge, the Board unanimously acknowledged the
appointment ofBeverly J. Raymond as Chairman Adams' designee to
the Extension Advisory Council.
7.F. Bid #2047 - Purchase of Emer- e Generator for Public
Health Unit Building - R. B. Grove Ina of Miami
July 18, 2000
10
BK 114 PG 218
DATE: July 3, 2000
TO: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
THRU: James E. Chandler, County Administrator
Thomas Frame, General Services Director aJ q,, c
FROM: Fran Powell, Purchasing Manager j��
SUBJECT: Award Bid #2047 Purchase of Emergency /Generator for HRS Building
Building & Grounds Division
BACKGROUND:
The current generator is undersized to support the current emergency power needs of the Health Department
building. When the power goes down and the generator kicks in, it sheds power usage to be able to
accommodate various elements with electrical needs in the building. Unfortunately, it does not provide
sufficient voltage to carry the data processing equipment located within the facility. The up -grading of the
generator will allow more electrical uses to be carried and allow the building to be used for other emergency
uses such as potential shelter needs.
Bid Opening Date: June 22,2000 at 2:00 P.M.
Advertising Dates: June 9 & 14, 2000
Specifications Mailed to: Forty Three (43) Vendors
Replies: Ten (10) Vendors and Seven (7) Vendors "No Bid"
BID TABULATION:
VENDOR
CITY & STATE
BID TOTAL
MAKE & MODEL
DELIVERY
R.B. GROVE
CJ SALES & SERV
MIAMI, FL
I OCALA. FL
$18.400.00
$18.407.93
GENERAC SDO-80
PERKINS TP 90
70 - 90 DAYS
30 DAYS
ZABATT INC
I JACKSONVILLE, FL
$18,995.00
GENERAL SDO-80
75 DAYS
NEWMANS POWER
FT PIERCE FL
$19.( 000)
CUMMINS/ONAN 80DGDA
156 DAYS
CITY ELECTRIC
I VERO BEACH. FL
$19.618.00
ELLIOTT MAGNATEK 80RD
42 DAYS
FLORIDA DETROIT
FT. LAUDERDALE FL I
$20.339.00
SPECTRUM 8DSEJ
98 DAYS
PANTROPIC
CITY ELECTRIC
CUMMINS S.E.
DIETZ.
MIAMI. FL I
VERO BEACH, FL
ORLANDO. FL
STUART. FL
$22.378.00
$22.800.2)
$23,345.94
$24.000.00
CATEPILLAR D90PI
CUMMINS/ONAN DGDA
1 CUMMINS/ONAN 80DGDA
I CUMMINS/ONAN 80DGDA
110 DAYS
42 DAYS
45 - 65 DAYS
60 DAYS
ESTIMATED BUDGET:
TOTAL AMOUNT OF BID:
July 18, 2000
$30,000.00
$18,400.00
11
8K 1 14 PG 219
•
SOURCE OF FUNDS: Building & Grounds
001-220-519-041-24
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the bid be awarded to RR Grove Inc Of rami, as the lowest most
responsive and responsible bidder meeting specifications as set forth in the Invitation to Bid.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Ginn, SECONDED BY
Commissioner Stanbridge, the Boardunanimously awarded Bid #2047
to R B. Grove, Inc. of Miami, for an emergency generator for the
Indian River County Public Health Unit building, for a total of
$18,400, as recommended in the memorandum.
7. C. Annual County Tax Deed Annlications
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of July 6, 2000:
TO: Board of //County Commissioners
FROM: Lea R. Keller, CLA
THRU: William G. Collins 11, Deputy County Attorney
DATE: July 6, 2000
RE: Annual County Tax Deed Applications
The Tax Collector has notified us that there are 69 parcels that are now
eligible for tax deed applications (as shown on the attached itemized list).
In connection with this process, there are title search fees of $59 per
parcel.
According to Florida Statutes Section 197.503(2), the County shall make
application for tax deed and pay for any fees and costs on any property
valued over $5,000. There are eleven parcels over this value; therefore,
July 18, 2000
12
BK 1 1 4 PG 220
r
0 0
•
the total cost for title searches is $649.00. Any fees and costs the County
pays will be reimbursed, plus interest, when a tax certificate is redeemed.
Requested Action: Staff requests that the Board approve the payment of
$640.00 to the Tax collector and authorize the Chairman to sign the
attached "Notices to Tax Co/%tor" for the eleven varve/s on which the
County IS Jff&*ing an app/ication.
Attachments: Notices
ON MOTION by Commissioner Ginn, SECONDED BY
Commissioner Stanbridge, the Board unanimously approved payment
of $649 to the Tax Collector and authorized the Chairman to sign the
"Notices to Tax Collector" for the eleven parcels on which the County
is making an application, as requested in the Memorandum.
COPIES OF SIGNED NOTICES ARE ON FILE
IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD
7.H. Resolution No. 2000-076 Appointing Value Adiustment Board
Members and Re'eng .Per Diem Compensation
The.Board reviewed a Memorandum of July 12, 2000:
TO: The Board of County Commissioners
FROM: tom' William G. Collins If - Deputy County Attorney
DATE: July 12, 2000
SUBJECT: Resolution Appointing Value Adjustment Board Members and
Rejecting Statutory Per Diem Compensation for Value Adjustment
Board Members
The attached Resolution reflects the Board's consensus at its July 11, 2000
meeting, however no vote was ever taken.
July 18, 2000
13
BK 114 PG 22 1
•
RECOMMENDATION
Ratify the Board's consensus and adopt the attached Resolution rejecting
statutory per diem compensation, and appointing Commissioners Fran B. Adam,
Ruth M. Stanbridge, and Kenneth R. Macht to the 2000 Value Adjustment Board
with Commissioners Caroline D. Ginn and John W. Tippin as alternates.
WGC/nhm
/docs/mem/vab
Attachment: Resolution
ON MOTION by Commissioner Ginn, SECONDED BY
Commissioner Stanbridge, the Board unanimously ratified the Board's
previous consensus and adopted Resolution No. 2000-076 appointing
the 2000 Value Adjustment Board members and rejecting statutory
per diem compensation. (Commissioners Adams, Stanbridge, and
Macht appointed; Commissioners Ginn and Tippin will serve as -
alternates.)
7100REs0)LEoALNuocinW
RESOLUTION NO. 2000-. 076
A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY,
FLORIDA, APPOINTING THE 2000 VALUE
ADJUSTMENT BOARD MEMBERS, AND REJECTING
STATUTORY PER DIEM COMPENSATION.
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners Is required to
appoint three members to the Value Adjustment Board by Florida Statutes, Section
194.015; and
WHEREAS, the School Board of Indian River County has appointed
its membership to the Board with allowance of per diem compensation for such
members in accordance with Florida Statutes, Section 194.015 (1997); and
WHEREAS, the cited statute requires a specific election from both the
County Commission and the School Board in order to allow such compensation; and
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River
County elects to waive the statutory per diem compensation,
July 18, 2000
14
-I
•
RESOLUTION NO. 2000- 076
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of County
Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, that:
1. The foregoing recitals are hereby ratified and acknowledged;
2. Commissioners Adams, Stanbridge, and Macht are appointed
to the 2000 Value Adjustment Board with Commissioners Ginn and Tippin as
alternates; and
3. The above-named members of the 2000 Value Adjustment
Board, or their duly authorized replacement, may not receive per diem compensation
for services provided on the board as allowed by law for State employees, pursuant
to the above cited statute.
The foregoing resolution was offered by Commissioner
G i nn and seconded by Commissioner S t a n b r i d gp , and, upon
being put to a vote, the vote was as follows:
Fran B. Adams, Chairman
A v e
Caroline D. Ginn, Vice Chairman
Aye—
Kenneth R. Macht
A v e
Ruth M. Stanbridge
eve
John W. Tippin
AM
The Chairman thereupon declared the resolution duly passed and
adopted this 18th day of July, 2000.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
Fran B. Adams, Chairman
ATTEST: Jeffrey K. Barton, Clerk
By.
Deputy Clerk
July 18, 2000
15
APPROVED AS TO FOR*
AND LEGAL SUFFICIENCY
BY (,'
WILLIAM G. COLLINS It
DEPUTY COUNTY ATTORNEY
BK164PG223
•
U. A ,pointment of Frank Oberbeck to Utility Advisory Committee
The Board reviewed a letter of July 10, 2000:
7/10/00
I.R.C. Commission
1840 25th St.
Vero Beach, F1., 32960
ATTN: Commissioner Fran Adams
Dear Commissioner Adams,
I appreciate you considering me for a position to serve
on the Indian River County Utility Advisory Committee, and
hereby accept the position.
I have been a resident and contractor in Indian River
County for the past 23 years, and have in excess of 35 years
in business management experience. Having been elected five
times to the Sebastian City Council, serving as Councilman
and Vice -Mayor, I am familiar with the inner workings of
government as well as fiscal responsibility.
While serving as Vice -Mayor, part of my duty was to review
the G.D.U. Water System for purchase by the City of Sebastian,
and later for sale to Indian River County.
I also had the pleasure of serving as a member of the
Indian River county M.P.O. for two years.
I feel with the experience of having served as an elected
official, dealing with the public as well as other government
agencies, that I may be able to be a benefit to this committee.
Once again, thank you for your consideration.
Respectfully,
Frank Oberbeck
601 Layport Dr.
Sebastian, Fl., 32958
(561)589-7194- home
(561)589-2223- work
July 18, 2000
0
16
BX 1 14 PG 224
0
_I
•
ON MOTION by Commissioner Ginn, SECONDED BY
Commissioner Stanbridge, the Board unanimously approved the
appointment of Frank Oberbeck to the Utility Advisory Committee,
as presented.
9. PUBLIC HEARINGS - LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS
(LDRS) AMENDMENTS
Planning Director Stan Boling reviewed an introductory Memorandum of July 12, 2000:
TO: James E. Chandler
County Administrator
DTVI N HEAD CONCURRENCE:
l �r
Robert M. Keating, AICP
Community Development Direct
FROM: Stan Boling AICP
Planning Director
DATE: July 12, 2000
SUBJECT: LDR Amendments
It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal consideration by the Board of County
Commissioners at its regular meeting of July 18, 2000.
BACKGROUND:
Staff has prepared a separate report and ordinance for each of the 5 LDR (Land Development
Regulation) amendments to be considered by the Board of County Commissioners. These reports
and ordinances are attached, in order, for these proposed amendments, which are: -
1. Traffic impact fee ordinance measure for assessing new golf course development and other
minor changes.
2. CR 510 East additional corridor regulations (regulations applicable to a sub -area of the
Wabasso Corridor Plan area).
3. SR 60 Corridor window sign allowance.
July 18, 2000
17
•
4. SR 60 Corridor I-95 area free-standing sign allowance.
5. Building height regulations.
The Board is to hold a public hearing and take action on each proposed amendment.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. LDR Amendments Affordable Housing Impacts Chart
2. LDR Amendment Proposals (1-5)
LDR AMENDMENTS AFFORDABLE HOUSING IMPACTS
AMENDMENT IlOACT ON HOUSING AFFORDABII.ITY
1. Traffic impact fee ordinance None. Does not apply to residential developments
measure for assessing new
golf course development
2. CR 510 east additional Insignificant. Applies to a small area characterized by
corridor requirements high land values. Only regulation affecting residential
development costs involves increased CR 510 land-
scaping for multi -family and planned development
projects.
3. SR 60 Corridor window sign
allowance
4. SR 60 Corridor I-95 area free-
standing sign allowance
5. Building height regulations
July 18, 2000
None. Does not apply to residential development
None. Does not apply to residential development
None. Affects only single-family designs for certain
large and tall single family homes (eg• certain 3 story
designs) which would not be affordable house size.
18
BK 114 PG 226
_I
9A.1. PUBLIC HEARING - ORDINANCE NO. 2000-023 - LDR
AMENDMENT - CHAPTER 953, FAIR -SHARE ROADWAY
IMPROVEMENTS - TRAFFIC IMPACT FEE - NEW GOLF COURSE
DEVELOPMENT AND OTHER MINOR CHANGES
PROOF OF PUBLICATION OF ADVERTISEMENT FOR HEARING
IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD
Planning Director Stan Boling reviewed a Memorandum of July 6, 2000:
TO: James E. Chandler
County Administrator
D AR HEAD CONCURRENCE:
obert M. Keating, AI
Community De�v+elopment Direc or
THRU: Stan Boling, AICP
Planning Director
FROM: Sasan Rohani, AICP
Chief, Long -Range Planning
DATE: July 6, 2000
SUBJECT: AMENDMENT OF CHAPTER 953, FAIRSHARE ROADWAY
IMPROVEMENTS ORDINANCE, OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT
REGULATIONS TO CHANGE THE METHOD OF TRAFFIC IMPACT FEE
ASSESSMENT FOR GOLF COURSE PROJECTS
It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal consideration by the Board of County
Commissioners at its regular meeting of July 18, 2000.
In 1986, Indian River County adopted its Fair Share Roadway Improvements (Traffic Impact Fee)
Ordinance. That ordinance was subsequently incorporated in the county's land development
regulations (LDRs).
Last year, a restudy of the County's traffic impact fee ordinance was completed. That study resulted
in various proposed changes to the original ordinance. Proposed changes included:
July 18, 2000
19
BK 114 PG 227
Reducing the number of benefit districts from 9 districts to 3 districts
Applying one countywide TIF rate for each use, instead of a different rate for each use for
each of the 9 districts
Updating values for the trip rate, trip length, and percent new trips variables
Adding or deleting some TIF use categories
Changing some TIF assessment variables; for example, the independent variable for
assessing golf course TIFs was changed from parking spaces to acreage
Those chances were reviewed by the PSAC and the Planning and Zoning Commission. Both the
PSAC andthePlanning and Zoning Commission recommended that the Board of County
Commissioners adopt those changes. On May 11, 1999, the Board of County Commissioners
approved the revised Fairshare Roadway Improvement Ordinance. The revised ordinance became
effective on October 1, 1999.
In the existing ordinance, the Traffic Impact Fee (TTF) for golf courses is now assessed based on the
acreage of each proposed golf course project. Prior to last year's revision of the traffic impact fee
ordinance, golf course project TIFs were assessed based upon number of required parking spaces.
Staff has now determined that acreage is not the best independent variable to use in assessing TIF's
for a golf course.
Besides changing the TIF assessment criteria for golf courses, it is also necessary to revise Chapter
953 of the LDRs to ensure that TIF districts and payment schedules are listed under separate sub-
sections. Both the golf course TIF unit of measurement and TIF district/payment schedule items are
addressed in the proposed LDR amendment. Besides new golf course developments, no other types
of development would be affected by the proposed changes.
PSAC and PZC Recommendations
The PSAC considered the proposed amendment at its regular meeting of June 15, 2000 and voted
unanimously to recommend that the Board adopt the proposal. Similarly, at its June 22. 2000
meeting, the Planning and Zoning Commission voted 6-0 to recommend that the Board adopt the
proposed ordinance.
The Board of County Commissioners is now to consider the amendment and adopt, adopt with
modifications, or deny the proposed amendment.
ANALIS
The purpose of a traffic impact fee ordinance is to generate revenue from new development projects
to pay for their fair share of the cost of needed roadway capacity improvements. Implementation of
that ordinance involves charging each new development an amount of money that corresponds to the
cost to construct the number of miles of roadway needed to accommodate the amount of traffic
generated by that development project. Simplified, the traffic impact fee ordinance requires new
development to pay for its fair share of roadway improvements.
As structured, the TIF ordinance includes a rate schedule with a specific TIF rate established for each
use. The rate for each use is based on a formula having number of components. While most
components have a fixed value, there are independent variables in the formula which are the primary
determinant of a use's rate. Those variables are: trip rate, trip length, and percentage new trips.
For each use, the value of these variables is determined based on individual studies or data provided
by the Institute of Transportation Engineers Manual. The Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE)
Manual provides trip rates for golf courses based on one of the following:
July 18, 2000
20
Number of employees,
Number of acres, or
Number of holes
Since ITE does not provide trip rates for golf courses using the independent variable of parking
spaces, the county's TIF consultant recommended that the county use acres as the independent
variable for golf courses. Subsequent to ordinance adoption with the golf course rate based on
acreage, staff encountered problems in assessing golf course TIF's.
The principal problem with using acreage to assess golf course TIF's is that there is significant
variation in acreage for golf courses with the same number of holes. Since many golf course
projects in Indian River County have substantial acreage that is being used for conservation rather
than golf course operation purposes, the acreage TIF approach often results in a TIF rate that over-
charges golf courses. Staffs position is that a better unit of measure is needed that more closely
corresponds to actual trip generation and attraction.
In regard to the appropriate unit of measure for golf course TIFs, staff coordinated with the
consultant who prepared the traffic impact fee ordinance study. As indicated in the attached letter
dated March 17, 2000, the consultant recommends that the county revise its ordinance to use number
of holes to determine the TIF for golf courses. It is the consultant's opinion that the number of golf
holes is the most accurate measure of the traffic impact of a golf course project.
The purpose of amending the county's traffic impact fee ordinance is to ensure that persons affected
by the ordinance are assessed a fair fee and receive a proportional benefit from that fee. Staffs
position is that number of holes is a better representation of the impact of a golf course development
on the county roadways than is acreage. For that reason, staff supports an amendment to the
ordinance to assess golf course projects based on $3.801/hole instead of $702/acre.
ALTERNATIVES
With respect to this amendment to the traffic impact fee ordinance, the Board has two basic
alternatives. These are:
To deny the proposal and maintain the existing traffic impact fee ordinance method of
assessing new golf course developments; or
To adopt the proposed amendment to assess new golf course development based upon the
number of course holes.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners amend the Indian River County traffic
impact fee payment schedule for golf courses and amend Chapter 953 to create a separate subsection
for the TIF benefit districts and payment schedule.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Letter dated March 17, 2000 from consultant Robert P. Wallace
'_. Proposed LDR Amendment Ordinance
3. PSAC Minutes (DRAFT)
4. PZC Minutes (DRAFT)
July 189 2000
21
matter.
The Chairman opened the public hearing and asked if anyone wished to be heard in this
Bruce Barkett, attorney representing Red Stick Golf Course, believed Red Stick to be the
only golf course affected by the impact fee since October 1, 1999 when the fees became effective.
Red Stick was approved for preliminary planned development last April. When they applied for a
building permit, they were informed that the impact fee had changed to be based the acreage. Mr.
Barkett had sent a letter to each of the Commissioners outlining Red Stick's position: that acreage
has no relevance to the amount oftraffic generated by a golf course. The County's consultant agreed
that the number of holes is a much fairer and better way to determine the impact of a golf course on
traffic. Red Stick has 316 acres but only 140 acres is playable. The difference in acreage does not
have a bearing on how many players will be generated. Based on acreage, Red Stick; had to pay a
$98,000 impact fee. Under this proposed ordinance, Red Stick's impact fee would be $68,000, a
substantial savings of $30,000. In his research, he found that legislation which is intended to be
curative or remedial in nature should be retroactive. He reiterated that he believed Red Stick to be
the only golf course which had to pay the impact fee during the time it was in effect. He urged the
Board to adopt the ordinance and to make it retroactive to October 1, 1999.
In response to Chairman Adams' inquiry, Director Boling advised that the ordinance would
become effective when filed with the State of Florida unless the Board specified that it should be
retroactive in its motion.
It was determined that no one else wished to be heard and the Chairman closed the public
hearing.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Macht, SECONDED BY
Commissioner Stanbridge, the Board unanimously adopted Ordinance r
No. 2000-023 amending certain sections of the Land Development
Regulations (LDRs) in Chapter 953, Fairshare Roadway
Improvements, and directed that the same shall be retroactive to
October 1, 1999.
July 18, 2000
22
BK 114 PG 230
ORDINANCE NO. 2000- 0 2 3
AN ORDINANCE OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, AMENDING
THE FOLLOWING CHAPTER OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT
REGULATIONS (Ll)RS): CHAPTER 953, FAIRSHARE ROADWAY
IMPROVEMENTS; AND PROVIDING FOR REPEAL OF CONFLICTING
PROVISIONS, CODIFICATION, SEVERABILITY AND EFFECTIVE DATE.
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER
COUNTY, FLORIDA THAT THE INDIAN RIVER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT
REGULATIONS (LDRS) BE AMENDED AS FOLLOWS:
1. Table of contents in LDR Chapter Section 953, is amended as follows:
CHAPTER 953. FAIR SHARE ROADWAY RAPROVEMEN'TS
Sec. 953.01.
Short title.
Sec. 953.02.
Authority to enact chapter.
Sec. 953.03.
Applicability.
Sec. 953.04.
Purpose.
Sec.ea;953.05.
Legislative finding.
Sec. 953.06.
Definitions.
Sec. 953.07.
Fee.
Sec. 953.08.
Time of payment.
Sec. 953.09.
Interpretation of the chapter and fee schedule.
Sec. 953.10.
Credit against payment of traffic impact fees.
Coding: Words in SW;ke &EMO type are deletions from existing law. Words underlined are additions.
uldlordltif ldr amend ord Page 1 of 8
July 18, 2000
23
BK 1 1 4 PG 23 1
ORDINANCE NO. 2000- 0 2 3
Sec. 953.11.
Review of fee schedule.
Sec. 953.12.
Use of funds collected and trust funds.
Sec. 953.13.
Liberal construction and severability.
Sec. 953.14.
Penalty.
Sec. 953.15.
TIF Districts and payment schedule.
2. Establishment of a section heading for LDR Chapter Section 953.15 and amendment of
the payment schedule table, are as follows:
Section 953.15. TIF Districts and payment schedule
(1) Indian River County Traffic Impact Fee Benefit Districts
EDITORS NOTE: No changes to the map [please insert map here]
(2) Indian River County Traffic Impact Fees payment schedule
Indian River County Traffic Impact Fees Payment Schedule
Land Use
Unit
Rate
Residential:
Single-family
du
$i.523 $1,523
Accessory Single -Family
du
$830
Multi -Family
du
$830
Coding: Words in strike ditatigh type are deletions from existing law. Words underlined are additions.
u\d\ord\tif ldr amend ord Page 2 of 8
July 18, 2000
0
24
BK 114 ?G 232
•
ORDINANCE NO. 2000- 023
Mobile Home
du
$568
Hotel
room
$960
Motel
room
$512
Nursing Home
bed
$159
ACLF
bed
$129
Office and Financial:
Medical Office
1,000 gsf
$4,542
Bank
1,000 gsf
$4,603
Bank w/Drive-In
1,000 gsf
$7,801
Office under 10,000 GSF
1,000 gsf
$2,644
Office over 10,000 GSF
1,000 gsf
$1,550
Industrial:
Manufacturing
1,000 gsf
$446
Warehouse
1,000 gsf
$570
Mini -Warehouse
1,000 gsf
$292
Coding: Words in strike-dxemgh type are deletions from existing law. Words underlined are additions.
uWorduif ldr amend ord Page 3 of 8
July 18, 2000
25
BK 1 14 PG 233
•
ORDINANCE NO. 2000- 023
General Industrial
1,000 gsf
$814
Concrete Plant
acre
$1,822
Sand Mining
acre
$234
Retail:
Retail under 10,000 GSF
1,000 gsf
$3,387
Retail 10,001 to 50,000 GSF
1,000 gsf
$2,436
Retail 50,001 to 100,000
GSF
1,000 gsf
$2,170
Retail 100,001 to 200,000
GSF
1,000 gsf
$1,913
Retail over 200,000 GSF
1,000 gsf
$1,971
Gas Station
fueling pos.
$1,859
New and Used Auto Sales
1,000 gsf
$3,847
Quality Restaurant
1,000 gsf
$5,753
Restaurant
1,000 gsf
$7,625
Fast Food Restaurant
1,000 gsf
$11,468
Supermarket
1,000 gsf
$3,720
Coding: Words in mike-daengh type are deletions from existing law. Words underlined are additions.
u\d\ord\tif ldr amend ord Page 4 of 8
July 18, 2000
26
K114PG24
I
ORDINANCE NO. 2000- 0 2 3
Auto Repair
1,000 gsf
$2,645
Car Wash
stall
$4,882
Convenience Store
1,000 gsf
$7,230
Convenience Store with Gas
and Fast Food
fueling pos.
$6,289
Furniture Store
1,000 gsf
$467
Recreational:
Golf Course
acre Hole
5%2$3,801
Racquet Club
1,000 gsf
$1,904
County Park
acres
$223
Tennis Court
court
$3,301
Marina
berth
$329
Governmental:
Post Office
1,000 gsf
$4,807
Library
1,000 gsf
$5,827
Government Office
1,000 gsf
$8,047
Coding: Words in spike-dxetigh type are deletions from existing law. Words underlined are additions.
u\d\ord\tif ldr amend ord Page 5 of 8
July 18, 2000
27
BK 1 14 PG 2 3 5
ORDINANCE NO. 2000- 0 2 3
Jail
bed
$131
Miscellaneous:
Day Care Center
1,000 gsf
$2,944
Hospital
1,000 gsf
$1,829
Veterinary Clinic
1,000 gsf
$1,168
Church
1,000 gsf
$873
Movie Theater w/Matinee
screens
$7,568
School (Elementary)
student
$39
School (High)
student
$149
School (College)
student
$297
Fire Station (w/o beds)
1,000 gsf
$329
Note: gsf = gross square feet
3. REPEAL OF CONFLICTING PROVISIONS
All previous ordinances, resolutions, or motions of the Board of County Commissioners of
Indian River County, Florida which conflict with the provisions of this ordinance are hereby repealed
to the extent of such conflict. All Special Acts of the legislature applying only to the unincorporated
portion of Indian River County which conflict with the provisions of this ordinance are hereby
repealed to the extent of such conflict.
Coling: Words in spike-dneugk type are deletions from existing law. Words underlined are additions.
uld\ord\tif ldr amend ord Page 6 of 8
July 18, 2000
28
BK 114 PG 236
•
ORDINANCE NO. 2000- 0 2 3
4. CODIFICATION
The provisions of this ordinance shall be incorporated into the County Code and the word
"Ordinance" may be changed to "section", "article", or other appropriate word, and the sections of
this ordinance may be renumbered or relettered to accomplish such intentions.
5. SEVERABILITY
If any section, part of a sentence, paragraph, phrase or word of this ordinance is for any
reason held to be unconstitutional, inoperative or void, such holdings shall not affect the remaining
portions hereof and it shall be construed to have been the legislative intent to pass this ordinance
without such unconstitutional, invalid or inoperative part.
6. EFFECTIVE DATE
This ordinance shall take effect upon filing with the Florida Secretary of State.
This ordinance was advertised in the Vero Beach Press-Joumal on the 5th day of
July , 2000, for a public hearing to be held on the 18 t h day of J u 1 y
2000, at which time it was moved for adoption by Commissioner Mach t
seconded by Commissioner Stanbridge , and adopted by the following vote;
The ordinance was adopted by a vote of :
Chairman Fran B. Adams
'Vice Chairman Caroline D. Ginn
Commissioner Kenneth R. Macht
Commissioner John W. Tippin
Aye
Aye
Ave
Ave
Commissioner Ruth M. Stanbridge A y e
The Chairman thereupon declared the ordinance duly passed and adopted this
18th day of J u 1 v , 2000.
Coding: Words in striae -fin It type are deletions from existing law. Words underlined are additions.
uWorftf ldr amend ord
July 18, 2000
29
Page 7 of 8
BK 1 14 PG 237
•
ORDINANCE NO. 2000- 0 2 3
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
Att .Barton, CleteJJ
Bic cc�'`\`J� Fran B. Adams �•tn��
Deputy Clerk Chairman
Filed with the Florida Department of State on the aC ' day of 912000.
APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM
William G. Collins
Deputy County Attorney
APPR D AS TO PLANNING MATTERS
Obert M. Keating, AICP /
Community Development Director
Coding: Words in strike-Oncag}r type are deletions from existing law. Words underlined are additions.
u\d\ord\tif ldr amend ord Page 8 of 8
July 18, 2000
30
0 0
•
9.A.2. PUBLIC HEARING - ORDINANCE NO. 2000-024 - LDR
AMENDMENT CHAPTER 911, ZONING- CR 510 EAST ADDITIONAL
CORRIDOR REGULATIONS (WABASSO CORRIDOR PLAN
PROOF OF PUBLICATION IS ON FILE
IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD
Planning Director Stan Boling reviewed a Memorandum of July 6, 2000:
TO: James E. Chandler
County Administrator
9PRS—ION HEAD CONCURRENCE:
Robert M. Keating, AICP r
Community Development D ctor
FROM: Stan Boling, AICP
Planning Director
DATE: July 6, 2000
SUBJECT: Formal LDR Amendment for CR 510 East Corridor Special Regulations
It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal consideration by the Board of County
Commissioners at its regular meeting of July 18, 2000.
BACKGROUND•
At its April 4, 2000 meeting, the Board of County Commissioners directed staff to initiate an LDR
amendment to add special regulations to the portion of the Wabasso Corridor that adjoins CR 510
east of US #1 (see attachment #1). The Board's direction was based on its review of conceptual
additional regulations. Specific wording for the special regulations has now been incorporated into
a formal LDR amendment proposal (see attachment #2). In addition, the Board considered a
suggestion to establish a north barrier island task force to cover the CR 510 east corridor and
SR A-1 -A north of Indian River Shores, and indicated that this issue would be addressed when the
formal LDR amendment is considered.
PSAC and PZC Consideration
The PSAC, Wabasso Task Force, and CR 510 East Corridor Committee considered the proposed
amendment at a May 18, 2000 special joint meeting. Although there was no quorum present, there
was a joint consensus to recommend that the Board of County Commissioners adopt the proposed
amendment with some modifications (see attachment #7). At the May 18t° meeting, PSAC members
suggested that the proposed regulations on project entry features be modified to allow guardhouse
structures similar to Orchid's existing beachside entrance. Such modifications are addressed in the
July 18, 2000
31
•
analysis section of this report. The Planning and Zoning Commission considered the modified
proposal at its June 22, 2000 meeting and voted 6-0 to recommend that the Board adopt the proposed
change.
The Board is now to review the formal amendment and is to adopt, adopt with modifications, or deny
the proposed LDR amendment. In addition to the LDR amendment, the Board needs to decide
whether or not to establish and appoint a north barrier island CR 510 & SR A -1-A corridor task
force.
ANALYSIS
The proposed special regulations were formulated through meetings with the CR 510 East Corridor
Committee and the Wabasso Corridor Task Force, and have already been reviewed in concept by the
Board of County Commissioners. Five of the seven special regulations are aspects of the adopted
SR 60 Corridor regulations that have not been incorporated into the overall Wabasso Corridor
requirements. The committee and task force have expressed support for the proposed amendments,
and the Board has conceptually expressed support.
The proposed LDR amendment would establish additional special corridor regulations to a sub -area
of the existing Wabasso Corridor Plan area. The overall corridor covers an area running north/south
along both sides of US #1 from 95* Street to 771h Street and along both sides of CR 510 from 66'ti
Avenue to the ocean (see attachment #3). The proposed amendment would affect only sites or
portions of sites lying within 300' of the center line of CR 510, east of US #1 (see attachment #4).
The 300' from centerline depth of the sub -area was determined to be the area of primary visual
impact from CR 510, within which most new free-standing signs, front buffers, new buildings, and
development out parcels would be located. Therefore, the committee and task force determined that
special regulations within this sub -area would have a significant positive impact on the appearance
of the CR 510 corridor east of US 1.
Within the CR 510 east corridor, the following special regulations would apply if the proposed LDR
amendment is adopted.
a. Real Estate Signs would continue to be allowed under the countywide real estate sign
maximum size, number, and height restrictions (see attachment W. However, the
amendment proposes to place a 15 day limitation on the duration of real estate sign display
after the closing. Originally, staff proposed a 30 day timeframe. However, at the May 18'"
meeting there was a consensus from development and real estate professionals that a 15 day
timeframe would be appropriate and adequate. Therefore, based upon input from the May
18m joint meeting, the LDR amendment now contains a 15 day timeframe. See attachment
#5 for a similar (30 day) provision in the Port Orange land development code.
b. Special CR 510 buffer for multi -family and planned development projects would require
landscaping and an opaque feature 6'- 8' tall (adapted from SR 60 Corridor regulations).
C. Log cabins would be prohibited east of the west shore of the Indian River Lagoon. This
prohibition item is adapted from SR 60 Corridor regulations.
d. Gas station, drive-through, and car wash canopy fascia restrictions would be applied to
limit the fascia height of canopies that are located closer than 75' to CR 510. These
restrictions are adapted from SR 60 Corridor regulations.
July 18, 2000
32
I
•
e. Fiberglass or asphalt shingles in non-residential projects would be prohibited. This
prohibition item is adapted from SR 60 Corridor regulations.
E Non -conforming freestanding signs would be required to be made conforming within 5
years or landscaped within 5 years if the cost of retrofitting exceeds 50% of sign replacement
cost. This requirement is adapted from SR 60 Corridor regulations.
g. Height of project entrance features (e.g. walls and archways) would generally be limited
to a maximum of 8' above project grade and would require foundation plantings in front of
the wall/entrance feature. The quantity of foundation planting material required and the
width of the foundation planting strip would be the same as required for buildings up to 12'
tall, as specified in the existing Wabasso Corridor regulations.
As a follow-up to discussion at the May 18" joint meeting, staff has coordinated with the
Town of Orchid and the head of the CR 510 East Committee (Bill Glynn) regarding an
allowance for guardhouses at entrances. Based upon the characteristics of the existing
Orchid beachside entrance, which was considered to be acceptable to the May 18* meeting
participants, the proposed IDR amendment now contains an allowance for guardhouses and
other similar entry features that have sloped roofs, that are located no closer than 125 feet
from the centerline of CR 510, and that are no taller than 20' above grade at the peak of the
sloped roof.
If the proposed LDR amendment is adopted, special regulations a through g, as well as the existing
special regulations that apply to the overall Wabasso Corridor, would apply to the CR 510 east
corridor area. Also, the Wabasso Corridor Plan document will need to be updated to reflect the new
requirement. In addition, the Board needs to decide whether or not it wants to establish a north
barrier island corridor task force to create a corridor plan for the CR 510 east area and SR A 1-A
north of Indian River Shores. Staffs assumption is that such a corridor plan would include all of the
Wabasso Corridor Plan and CR 510 East requirements with little or no modification, and that the
north barrier island task force would operate as a committee that co -reviews development proposals
just lute the Wabasso and SR 60 task forces. If the Board directs staff to initiate establishment and
appointment of a north barrier island task force, then staff will coordinate with the CR 510 East
Committee, the Wabasso Task Force, and the North Beach Civic Association and come back to the
Board with a recommended slate of members to appoint.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners adopt the proposed LDR amendment
ordinance, and decide whether or not to direct staff to initiate the establishment and appointment of
members for a north barrier island corridor plan task force.
TTACHMENTS
1. Excerpt from BCC Minutes: April 4, 2000 Meeting
2. Proposed LDR Amendment
3. Wabasso Corridor Map
4. CR 510 East Corridor Map
5. Excerpt from Port Orange Development Code
6. Excerpt of County Real Estate Sign Regulations
7. Minutes from the May 18, 2000 Joint Meeting of the PSAC/Wabasso Task Force/CR 510
East Committee (DRAFT)
8. PZC Minutes (DRAFT)
July 18, 2000
33
6K 1 14 PG 2 41
•
matter.
The Chairman opened the public hearing and asked if anyone wished to be heard in this
William G. Glynn, 1802 Barefoot Place, advised that he had acted as Chairman on the CR
510 East Committee that worked on the changes with staff. He thanked Directors Keating and
Boling and staff for all their help. He felt the finished product came out quite well and the committee
was happy with it in spite of not getting all they wanted. He stated the Commission has done a
wonderful job in cleaning up the north beach corridor. He was proud of the new Fire Station #11
there which brings a service to the area which was badly needed. He mentioned an arch at the
entrance of one development in the corridor and hoped it would be corrected in the future. He spoke
of the continued development in that area and urged passage of the ordinance.
It was determined that no one else wished to be heard and the Chairman closed the public
hearing.
MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Ginn, SECONDED BY
Commissioner Stanbridge, to approve staffs recommendation
including the establishment of a North Barrier Island Corridor Plan
Task Force.
Chairman Adams clarified that the motion included the establishment of the task force.
Under discussion, Commissioner Tippin thought this ordinance was going beyond what local
government should legislate and someday they would have to draw the line. He quoted Director
Boling from the PZC minutes when he said, concerning log cabins, "This type of architecture is `out
of style. "' He felt that it was not the role of government to determine what is in style and what is not. r
He stated he would support the motion but was not happy with it.
July 18, 2000
34
•
J
Commissioner Stanbridge interjected that Director Boling had assured her that the I1istorical
Element would take care of any log cabins that are located in the corridors.
Director Boling added that he should not be characterized as a "style expert," and
Commissioner Tippin indicated in the minutes where it was written.
THE CHAIRMAN CALLED THE QUESTION and the motion
carried unanimously. (Ordinance No. 2000-024 adopted amending
the Land Development Regulations [LDRS] Chapter 911, Zoning, as
set out in the amendment, and directed staff to initiate establishment
and appointment of members for a North Barrier Island Corridor Plan
Task Force.)
ORDINANCE NO. 2000- 024
AN ORDINANCE OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, AMENDING THE
FOLLOWING CHAPTER OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS
(LDRS): CHAPTER 911, ZONING; AND PROVIDING FOR REPEAL OF
CONFLICTING PROVISIONS, CODIFICATION, SEVERABILITY AND
EFFECTIVE DATE.
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER
COUNTY, FLORIDA THAT THE INDIAN RIVER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT
REGULATIONS (LDRS) BE AMENDED AS FOLLOWS:
1. Special Regulations in the CR 510 East Corridor
A. Wabasso Corridor regulations LDR Chapter Section 911.18(3), first paragraph, is
amended as follows:
(3) Speck development regulations within the Wabasso Corridor: In the Wabasso
Corridor, the following special regulations shall apply to new non-residential and
mixed use (combination of residential/commercial) development that requires major
site plan approval_ Special regulations as specified herein shall @@ply to all new
development within the CR 510 East Corridor sub -area as defined herein
B. Wabasso Corridor regulations LDR Chapter Section 911.18(3)(b) is amended as
follows:
(b) Restricted uses and CR 510 East Corridorspecial regulations
1. Within the plan area, vehicle bays or stalls such as those associated
with vehicle repair and car wash uses are allowed IF such bays or
stalls are oriented and screened from view of US 1 and CR 510 by
provision of a Type `B" buffer with four foot opaque feature.
Coding. Words in su ike•t100tig, type are deletions from existing law. Wordsonderli are additions. 11ldVdrMr5l0 Idr change 2 Page 1 of 5
July 18, 2000
35
BK 1 14 PG 243
ORDINANCE NO. 2000-0 2 4
2. The CR 510 East Corridor is a sub -area of the Wabasso Corridor area,
and covers the area within 300 feet 4f the centerline of CR 510 from
US I to the Atlantic Ocean In addition to any applicable overall
Wabasso Corridor regulations the following special regulations shall
apply in the CR 510 East Corridor:
as Real estate signs: Real estate signs are allowed as authorized
in the county sign ordinance (Chapter_ 956)However, no real
estate sign shall remain on display for more than 15 days after
the date of closine.
b. Special buffer for multi -family and planned development
projects: Multi -family and planned development projects
shall provide the US 1 and CR 510 landscape buffer (a8
specified herein) with a six-foot opaque feature Where a wall
or fence is used such wall or fence shall be located within the
middle one third of the buffer strips's width (measured
perpendicular to CR 510) and landscaping material Shall be
planted on each -side of the wall or fence
C. Log Cabins: Log cabins shall be prohibited east of the west-
shore
e tshore of the Indian River Lagoon
d. Canopy Fascia restriction • Any canopy such as for a gas
station car wash or drive through facility) that is wholly or
partially within seventy --five (75) feet of the CR 510 road
richt-of-way shall meet the following requirentPn+c
sir cerning maximus, facia height (this pertains to all facia on
the above described canopy including any canopy facia that
continues beyond the seventy -five-foot limit) -
ROOF SLOPE
DISTANCE
MAXIMUM FACIA HEIGHT
less than 10 feet
8 inches
10 to 20 feet
12 inches
greater than 20 feet
16 inches
e Fiberglass and asphalt shingles: Fiberglass and asphalt
shingles (except in residentially designated areas)are
prohibited on any roof which is visible from any roadway
and/or residentially designated area
Coding: Words in on ke He augl type are deletions from existing law. Words under . are additions. uW%ldr�cr510 ldr change 2 Page 2 of 5
July 18, 2000
36 11.4
ll
0 0
kA
S.
ORDINANCE NO. 2000-024
f Non -conforming signs N n Confnrmin
$ Clpns ch 11 I.
subject to �e non -conforming c,srn r-o„larinnc ..-._,i __, ,
the over 11 W asso orridor r lation and t f 11 wl
Excgp c^Acifled b low nnnconfnrminn
1 r aht mto onformrtv with rh+• r „ 1411 to 1
"comrzatl le r P nts of a
,.
2005 If a nrn r lp
=tembe ,
Deny owner I c men t the nmm
v 1 ent director thatmtv
the c nPt„werino
�nformlty c,an to a coniormin- heightw exceed fifty
50 r n f he ocr ro renlaCe the cion anti
official v rlfiec r the b „I m
he aooronrlai
replacement cocr then th len chall nnr need to b_ e mad�a
omna 1 r tan Howe Wh �7 urh an
exemptihe e _,
landscaoine around hbacP .. t II nrnvirlP
-—__ r sun,,,,+ �.�
sign to vlsualI screen thlnole• sub, t to i-hQ t di tan
e l me r ve h mmuni dev I
•r t r en
Project entry feature • Proi c ntry f a r h as w l
n r hw al be limited rn a m L
�bovth+tt ne ht r rs t �e� rol + Qrade In addition wh r a w 11 rchw
is orond. foundation plantl> hs s all brovided on t_r�R
510 side of ci,rh wall or archway a
PCifiAd 1< ,vin for
c21c61 nu .1 buildings n to 12 feet high eairi F a
lap 1 g all be redit�d toward car,ci;,,nb ""�atlon
510 Ian cra a buff r rean,rP.t ry
Proi t nrry foa+ , c h a
rh wl hve 1 r f
no clocPr rh a 1 N' 1 c
an 125 feet frnm tl,e e_._
, rline
of rP � 10 nd r
taller than 20 feet above erad a th 1 ed r of ea_k_
REPEAL OF CONFLICTING PROVISIONS
All previous ordinances, resolutions, or motions of the Board of County Commissioners of
Indian River County, Florida which conflict with the provisions of this ordinance are hereby repealed
to the extent of such conflict. All Special Acts of the legislature applying only to the unincorporated
Portion of Indian River County which conflict with the provisions of this ordinance are hereby
repealed to the extent of such conflict.
3. CODIFICATION
The provisions of this ordinance shall be incorporated into the County Code and the word
"Ordinance" may be changed to "section", article', or other appropriate word, and the sections of
this ordinance may be renumbered or relettered to accomplish such intentions.
4. SEVERABILITY
If any section, part of a sentence, paragraph, phrase or word of this ordinance is for any
reason held to be unconstitutional, inoperative or void, such holdings shall not affect the remaining
Coding: Words in shikegi reap type aro deletions from existing law. Words der i ed are additions, utdUdncrS 101dr
geZ Page 3 of 5
July 18, 2000
8K 114 PG 245
ORDINANCE NO. 2000- 0 2 4
portions hereof and it shall be construed to have been the legislative intent to pass this ordinance
without such unconstitutional, invalid or inoperative part.
5. EFFECTIVE DATE
This ordinance shall take effect upon filing with the Florida Secretary of State.
This ordinance was advertised in the Vero Beach Press-Joumal on the 5th day of
Jul v , 2000, for a public hearing to be held on the 118 t ht h day of ► u 1 y ,
2000, at which time it was moved for adoption by Commissioner G i n n
seconded by Commissioner S t a n b r i d g e , and adopted by the following vote;
The ordinance was adopted by a vote of :
Chairman Fran B. Adams
A y e
Vice Chairman Caroline D. Ginn
Aye
Commissioner Kenneth R. Macht
A v e
Commissioner John W. Tippin
Aye
Commissioner Ruth M. Stanbridge A v e
The Chairman thereupon declared the ordinance duly passed and adopted this
18 t h day of J u l y , 2000.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
Att�-Bar�erk�r`�By: „e Fran B. Adams
Deputy Clerk Chairman
-
Filed with the Florida Department of State on then
' day of , 2000•
Coding: Words in suiin+deeagk type are deletions from existing law. Words underlined are additions. uld\ldr1cr510 Idr change 2 Page 4 of 5
July 18, 2000
[11
BK Q 14 PG 246
0 •
.7
J -d 4V
ORDINANCE NO. 2000 --
APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM
William G. Collins
Deputy County Attorney
AS TO PLANNING MATTERS
Robert M. Keating, AICD
Community Development
Coding: Words in saikedeeegk type are deletions from existing law. Words underlined are additions. uWldr1cr510 Idr change 2 Page 5 of 5
9.A.3. PUBLIC HEARING - ORDINANCE NO. 2000-025 - LDR
AMENDMENT CHAPTER 911. ZONING - SR 60 CORRIDOR
WINDOW SIGN ALLOWANCE
PROOF OF PUBLICATION OF ADVERTISEMENT FOR HEARING
IS ON FILE IN TBE OFFICE OF TBE CLERK TO TBE BOARD
Planning Director Stan Boling reviewed a Memorandum of July 6, 2000 and used the
overhead projector to show photographs of examples of businesses indicating what would be
acceptable if the Board adopted the proposed ordinance as recommended by staff:
TO: James E. Chandler
County Administrator
1-: rSIO HEAD CONCURRENCE:
�5 /Y I
Obert M. eating, AICP
Community Development rector
FROM: Stan Boling CP
Planning Director
DATE: July 6, 2000
SUBJECT: Proposed LDR Amendment: SR 60 Corridor Window Sign Regulations
July 18, 2000
39
BK 1 14 PG 247
•
It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal consideration by the Board of County
Commissioners at its meeting of July 18. 20W.
BACKGROUND:
On May 4, 1998, the Board of County Commissioners adopted the SR 60 Corridor Plan regulations
as part of the county's LDRs (section 911.19). Those regulations apply within the SR 60 Corridor,
which is defined as the area between 26' Street on the north and 16`h Street on the south, and 102'
Avenue on the west and 43rd Avenue on the east. Special regulations within the corridor affect
various development aspects including architecture, color, landscaping, and signage.
In regard to the amount of sign area allowed under the corridor regulations, free-standing and facade
signs are restricted to half the size allowed county -wide under the sign ordinance (Chapter 956).
Thus, where the Chapter 956 standards would allow an 80 sq. ft. free-standing or facade sign, the
corridor special regulations reduce such sign area allowance to 40 sq. ft. However, the corridor
regulations treat window signs differently. Rather than relate the corridor window sign area
regulation to the countywide Chapter 956 allowance (20% of window area), the corridor regulations
limit window signs to 6 sq. ft. per business.
When the corridor window sign regulations were adopted in May 1998, code enforcement staff
focused on the most egregious violations only, due to staffing constraints. At the end of 1999. when
a new code enforcement position was filled, code enforcement staff began to strictly enforce the 6
sq. ft. limitation on existing businesses. This enforcement action led to discussions between staff.
the SR 60 Task Force, business owners, and the Chamber of Commerce regarding the
appropriateness of the 6 sq. ft. restriction. The SR 60 Task Force has now held 4 meetings with
interested business owners and the chamber and has reached a compromise agreement to recommend
a change to the current SR 60 Corridor window sign restriction. The recommended changes are
embodied in the proposed LDR amendment ordinance (see attachment #4).
PSAC and PZC Consideration
The PSAC reviewed the proposed amendment at its May 18, 2000 meeting. Although there was no
quorum at that meeting, it was the consensus of the PSAC that the Board of County Commissioners
adopt the proposed amendment (see attachment #5). At its regular meeting of June 22, 2000, the
Planning and Zoning Commission voted 6-0 to recommend that the Board adopt the proposed
ordinance.
The Board is now to review the proposed LDR amendment and is to adopt, adopt with modifications,
or deny this amendment. If the LDR amendment is adopted, then the SR 60 Corridor Plan document
section on window sign requirements will need to be modified accordingly.
ANALYSIS:
There are many ways to regulate and restrict window signs. As evidenced from the attached chart
(see attachment #1), there are at least 6 approaches taken by various local governments surveyed.
Currently, Indian River County's countywide 20% window sign area allowance appears to be more
restrictive than the window sign regulations of the other local governments surveyed. The current
SR 60 corridor 6 sq. ft. limitation also appears to be the most restrictive, even when compared to the
Port Orange code which contains certain window sign exemptions (see attachment #1).
July 18, 2000
40
BK 114 PG 248
matter.
Through the SR 60 Task Force's process of working with affected business owners, the concern of
eroding and lowering the corridor's aesthetic standards was balanced against the advertizing needs
of business owners, particularly small businesses. After two field meetings and two workshop -style
meetings, a compromise was reached that should protect the corridor's aesthetics and allow a
reasonable amount of window sign advertising.
The proposed amendment follows the approach established in the SR 60 corridor free-standing sign
and facade sign area restrictions, whereby the countywide allowance would be halved. Therefore,
the proposed amendment would allow 10% window sign area coverage, not to exceed 50 sq. ft.,
within the corridor. This is half of the county -wide 20% allowance. Also, especially as a help to
small storefront businesses, a 4 sq. ft. exemption for "open", "closed", hours of operation, and
identification signs would be allowed in addition to the 10% coverage allowance. No increase in
facade sign or free-standing sign area is proposed with this amendment.
The Chamber of Commerce, participating business owners, and the SR 60 Task Force support the
proposed amendment.
RECOMMENDATION•
Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners adopt the proposed LDR amendment
and authorize staff to update the SR 60 Corridor Plan document to correspond with the LDR
amendment.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Window Sign Regulations Comparison Chart
2. Existing SR 60 Window Sign Regulations
3. Correspondence
4. Proposed LDR Amendment Ordinance
5. Minutes from May 18, 2000 PSAC Meeting
6. Minutes from the June 22, 2000 PZC meeting (DRAFT)
The Chairman opened the public hearing and asked if anyone wished to be heard in this
Penny Chandler, representing the Chamber of Commerce, thanked Director Boling, the
chairman and members of the Task Force for allowing the business community an opportunity to
work with them to develop this compromise. She reported that the business community agreed that
some standards are necessary, however, when the regulations were developed there was still some
need to determine what would work and what would not work when the businesses opened. She
July 18, 2000
41
BK 1 14 PG 249
urged the Commissioners to vote their approval of this amendment.
Gene Waddell, Chairman of the SR 60 Task Force, reported that this truly was a
compromise. When the committee looked at the difference between the 6 square feet (currently
allowed) and the 20% that was requested, there was a big difference; it took 4-5 meetings to work
the compromise down to 10%. He cautioned, on this item and the next one, that retailers, left to their
own accord, will always attempt to outdo the next guy. He frequently receives unsolicited
compliments on the SR 60 corridor and cautioned that without regulations, the SR 60 corridor will
not continue to look like it looks now. He urged the Commissioners that, in firture tweaking of the
ordinance in the coming years, they not allow the SR 60 corridor regulations to be nibbled back to
mediocrity.
It was determined that no one else wished to be heard and the Chairman closed the public
hearing.
MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Macht, to adopt the
ordinance.
Commissioner Macht recounted that 15 years ago the City of Vero Beach addressed a similar
issue from a slightly different viewpoint. The City Council passed an ordinance limiting the number
and placement of window signs so they would not obscure the cash register and checkout area in
order to allow law enforcement good visibility. He knows merchants need sufficient signage space
to indicate a sale or other information. He agreed with Mr. Waddell and hoped the Commission
would not water down the corridor plan any more because law enforcement does need a clear view
of what is occurring in a store.
The Chairman asked for a second.
MOTION WAS SECONDED by Commissioner Stanbridge.
July 18, 2000
42
EK 114 PG 250
•
Vice Chairman Ginn felt Indian River County had to be very careful or the SR 60 corridor will
look like the 192 corridor in Melbourne. She was opposed to weakening the window sign ordinance
and would not support the proposed amendment.
THE CHAIRMAN CALLED THE QUESTION and the motion
carried 4-1 (Vice Chairman Ginn opposed). (Ordinance No. 2000-
025 adopted amending the Land Development Regulations (LDRS)
Chapter 911, Zoning, as set out in the amendment.)
ORDINANCE NO. 2000- 0 2 5
AN ORDINANCE OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, AMENDING THE
FOLLOWING CHAPTER OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS
(LDRS): CHAPTER 911, ZONING; AND PROVIDING FOR REPEAL OF
CONFLICTING PROVISIONS, CODIFICATION, SEVERABILITY AND
EFFECTIVE DATE.
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER
COUNTY, FLORIDA THAT THE INDIAN RIVER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT
REGULATIONS (LDRS) BE AMENDED AS FOLLOWS:
1. SR 60 Window Sign Regulations
SR 60 Corridor window sign regulations of LDR Chapter Section 911.19(10)(h)6, is
amended as follows:
6. Window signs. "Window signs" shall include permanently affixed window
Signs, temporary window signs, and any signs or displays located within three
(3) feet of the window, door, or storefront. Window signs shall not exceed
ten (10) percent of the window storefront area (windowpanes and framing)
per store or business, and in no case shall exceed 50 sq ft per store or
busnless. Street address numbers and lettering and flyers or posters related
to not for profit events and organizations, shall not count as window signage.
"Open". "closed". hours of operation and identification window signage
totaling up to 4 square feet shall not count as window signage we
i = fit or—gaa4 iem and speoig evennr
Coding: wady in ettiim.tfraMb type aro deledow from ezL tmg law. Wa mb undidumd am additia m uam reo.aau Page 1 of 3
July 18, 2000
43
BK 1 14 PG 2 5 1
•
ORDINANCE NO. 2000- 0 2 5
2. REPEAL OF CONFLICTING PROVISIONS
All previous ordinances, resolutions, or motions of the Board of County Commissioners of
Indian River County, Florida which conflict with the provisions of this ordinance are hereby repealed
to the extent of such conflict All Special Acts of the legislature applying only to the unincorporated
portion of Indian River County which conflict with the provisions of this ordinance are hereby
repealed to the extent of such conflict.
3. CODIFICATION
The provisions of this ordinance shall be incorporated into the County Code and the word
"Ordinance" may be changed to "section", "article", or other appropriate word, and the sections of
this ordinance may be renumbered or relettered to accomplish such intentions.
4. SEVERABII,ITY
If any section, part of a sentence, paragraph, phrase or word of this ordinance is for any
reason held to be unconstitutional, inoperative or void, such holdings shall not affect the remaining
Portions hereof and it shall be construed to have been the legislative intent to pass this ordinance
without such unconstitutional, invalid or inoperative part.
7. EFFECTIVE DATE
This ordinance shall take effect upon filing with the Florida Secretary of State.
This ordinance was advertised in the Vero Beach Press -Journal on the 5th
Jul v , 2000, for a public hearing to be held on the 18 t h day of ,1 day �f
2000, at which time it was moved for adoption by Commissioner
seconded by CommissionerM h t
S t a n b r i d a P , and adopted by the following vote;
The ordinance was adopted by a vote of :
Chairman Fran B. Adams A v e
Vice Chairman Caroline D. Ginn N a V
Commissioner Kenneth R. Macht Ay e
Commissioner John W. Tippin A e
Commissioner Ruth M. Stanbridge A LP -
Coding: Words in tAm are deletions from existing law. Words underlined are �w.pd
Page 2 of 3
July 18, 2000
BK 1 1 4 PG 252
I
•
ORDINANCE NO. 2000- 0 2 5
The Chairman thereupon declared the ordinance duly passed and adopted this
1$j.h _.day of l 111 y , 2000.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
A Barton.
B
Fran B. Adams
Deputy Clerk Chairman
Filed with the Florida Department of State on the a±t day of4u-�-'
2000.
APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM
William G. Collins
Deputy County Attorney
AS TO PLANNING MATTERS
Ko-bert M. Keating, AICF
Community Development
Coding; Words in strike dnengh type are deletions from existing law. Words underlined are additions. >v dwwo p.4 Page 3 of 3
9.A.4. PUBLIC HEARING - LDR AMENDMENT - CHAPTER 911.
ZONING - SR 60 CORRIDOR I-95 AREA FREE-STANDING SIGN
ALLOWANCE
PROOF OF PUBLICATION IS ON FILE
IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD
Planning Director Stan Boling reviewed aMemorandum ofJuly 6, 2000, using rough sketches
provided in the backup displayed for clarification on the overhead projector:
July 18, 2000
45
BK 1 14 PG 253
•
-I
TO: James E. Chandler
County Administrator
D ION HEAD CONCURRENCE:
r
y
Robert M. Keating, AICP
Community Development Director
146
FROM: Stan Boling, AICP
Planning Director
DATE: July 6, 2000
SUBJECT: Proposed LDR Amendment: SR 60 Corridor Freestanding Sign Regulations for
Areas Near I-95
It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal consideration by the Board of County
Commissioners, at the meeting of July 18, 2000.
BACKGROUND
On May 4, 1998, the Board of County Commissioners adopted the SR 60 Corridor Plan regulations
as part of the county's land development regulations (LDRs) (section 911.19). Those regulations
apply within the SR 60 Corridor, which is defined as the area between 26'e Street on the north and
16's Street on the south, and 102' Avenue on the west and 43rd Avenue on the east. Special
regulations within the corridor affect various development aspects including architecture, color,
landscaping, and signage.
The existing SR 60 Corridor regulations for freestanding commercial signs divide the corridor into
two areas: properties within 1,000 feet of I-95 entrance and exit ramps (east and west sides of I-95),
and all other properties within the corridor. Under the existing regulations, properties within the
1,000 foot areas are allowed freestanding signs that are significantly taller and larger than the
freestanding signs allowed in the remainder of the corridor.
Dan Bryant of Paradise Petroleum owns the existing gas station at the northeast comer of 90t6
Avenue and SR 60. That site is located just east of the 1,000 foot I-95 area. Mr. Bryant has obtained
conditional site plan approval to redevelop and expand the existing gasoline station, subject to
compliance with all SR 60 Corridor Plan standards, including the current freestanding sign
limitations. Under the existing SR 60 Corridor regulations, redevelopment of the site requires
replacing the site's existing freestanding sign (perhaps as tall as 20', and perhaps as large as 150 sq.
ft.) with a conforming sign (10' monument -style, 50 sq. ft.). Mr. Bryant, through his attorney, Bruce
Barkett, is now requesting a change to the SR 60 Corridor regulations to establish a sign regulation
transition area between the 1,000 foot area and the remainder of the corridor. Under Mr. Bryant's
proposal, freestanding signs on sites located between 1,000 feet and 2,000 feet of I-95 ramps would
std be shorter and smaller than those located within 1,000 feet of the ramps but could be taller and
larger than those signs allowed on sites more than 2,000 feet from the ramps within the remainder
of the corridor (see attachment #1). Staff's proposed LDR amendment ordinance (see attachment
#3) differs from the applicant's proposal, as described in the analysis and alternatives section of this
report.
July 18, 2000
46
BK 1 14 PG 254
0 0
PSAC, SR 60 Task Force and PZC Consideration
The Professional Services Advisory Committee considered this proposal at its June 15, 2000 meeting
and voted 6-2 to recommend that the Board of County Commissioners adopt the applicant's request.
The SR 60 Task Force considered the proposed amendment at its June 20, 2000 special meeting and
voted to recommend that the Board adopt a modified version of staff's proposed ordinance wording,
to provide a more gradual transition from the tall and large I-95 signs to the 10' tall smaller
monument style signs in the rest of the SR 60 corridor. Those modifications are described in the
analysis and alternatives section of this report.
The Planning and Zoning Commission considered Mr. Bryant's LDR amendment proposal and voted
6-0 to recommend that the Board adopt staff's recommended IDR amendment wording (see
attachment #4).
ANALYSIS & ALTERNATIVES:
The proposed amendment would provide a step-down or transition area within the corridor at a
location along SR 60 where there is currently a significant difference between sites that are 1,000'
away from I-95 ramps and sites that are 1,001' away from the ramps. That current difference is a
maximum sign height of 50' vs 10', and maximum sign area of 300 sq. ft. vs 24 sq. ft. - 100 sq. ft.
(varies based upon site frontage, speed limit, and stand alone business vs shopping complex). Mr.
Bryant's proposal would allow freestanding signs up to 20' tall and 150 sq. ft. in size between the
area of the corridor where 50' tan 300 sq. ft. signs are allowed and the area where 10' tall 24 sq. ft. -
100 sq. ft. signs are allowed.
The reason for the SR 60 Corridor's allowance for tall and large signs near I-95 is to accommodate
the many highway oriented businesses that located near I-95 prior to establishment of the Corridor
Plan. Several of these pre-existing businesses had used and relied upon the taller, larger signs
oriented toward I-95. Such a corridor plan allowance is generally not reflected in other surveyed
corridor plans that include interstate areas (see attachment #2), primarily because those corridor
plans were established prior to the existence of highway oriented businesses with taller signs along
those corridors.
Although none of the four non -SR 60 corridor plans surveyed allow signs as tall or large as the SR
60 Plan's current allowance for sites near I-95, two of the surveyed corridor plans allow 15' tall
monument -style signs corridor -wide. Thus, it appears that landscaped monument -style designs are
feasible for signs that are 15' tall and could be feasible for signs that are even taller, including 20' tall
signs. Therefore, there is a reasonable basis for requiring 15'- 20' tall freestanding signs to be either
monument -style or landscaped.
Within the SR 60 Corridor, there are two existing highway -oriented businesses that existed prior to
the adoption of the SR 60 Corridor Plan and are located just east of the 1,000 foot area around the
I-95 ramps. Those businesses are the gas -station owned by Mr. Bryant and the truck stop owned by
Travel America. Prior to the 1998 adoption of the SR 60 Plan, countywide requirements applicable
to each site would have allowed freestanding signs having a maximum height of 30' and a maximum
area of 100 sq. & Under the current SR 60 sign regulations adopted in 1998, such replacement signs
are now restricted to a maximum height of 10' and a maximum size of 50 sq. ft. Within the last 2
years, staff has worked with the owners of each of these sites in regard to redevelopment plans that
would upgrade each site to conform with SR 60 Corridor requirements in regard to landscaping,
color, architectural requirements, and signage standards. In each case, the owners have been willing
July 18, 2000
47
BK8i4PG255
•
to comply with all other SR 60 requirements (landscaping, architectural requirements, colors, facade
signs) but have indicated to staff that reducing their existing freestanding signs from their current
height of 20' - 25' to 10' would result in too much of a decrease in visibility compared to other
highway oriented businesses located immediately west of where 50' tall signs are allowed.
Staff has general concerns about reducing the corridor's aesthetic standards by increasing the
allowances for freestanding signs. However, staff recognizes that accommodating redevelopment
efforts that will conform with all other SR 60 standards will improve the aesthetics of the corridor.
Staff also recognizes that providing for some signage above the 10' height for highway oriented
businesses between 1,000 feet and 2,000 feet of the I-95 ramps is justifiable (see attachment #1).
In staffs opinion, allowing 20 foot tall freestanding signs in the proposed transition area can be
considered consistent with the intent of the Corridor Plan if such signs are monument -style or
landscaped (as currently worded in attachment #3) and if such signs are limited in area to the
maximum allowed for such sites in 1998 prior to the adoption of the SR 60 Corridor Plan. Such a
100 sq. ft. limitation is not reflected in the applicant's proposal (see attachment #3). Therefore, in
staff's opinion, Mr. Bryant's LDR amendment is supportable if the amendment is modified to allow
a maximum of 100 sq. ft. rather than the proposed 150 sq. ft.
ALTERNATIVES
There are 3 alternative ways to change the existing SR 60 Corridor sign regulations for the Board
to consider. These are as follows:
Applicant/PSAC recommended proposal:
Create a transition area from 1,000 ft. to 2,000 ft. from I-95 ramps
Within the transition area allow 20' tall signs that are up to 150 sq. ft. in area
2. Staff/PZC recommended proposal:
Create a transition area from 1,000 ft. to 2,000 ft. from I-95 ramps
Within the transition area, allow 20' tall signs that are up to 100 sq. ft. in area
Require the signs to be either monument style or have a landscaped base
3. SR 60 Task Force recommended proposal:
Create 2 transition areas
• One transition area would be from 1,000 ft. to 1,500 ft. from I-95
ramps and would allow 20' tall monument style/landscaped base signs
no larger than 100 sq. ft. in size
• A second transition area would be from 1,500 sq. ft. to 2,000 sq. ft.
from I-95 ramps and would allow 15' tall monument style/landscaped
base signs no larger than 75 sq. ft. in size.
The proposed ordinance (see attachment #3) incorporates alternative 2 which is recommended by
staff and the PZC.
July 18, 2000
48
is 0
•
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners adopt the LDR amendment ordinance,
as proposed by staff and the Planning and Zoning Commission and authorize staff to update the S.R.
60 Corridor Pian document to correspond with the LDR amendment.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Application
2. Comparison Chart of Corridor Freestanding Sign Regulations
3. Proposed LDR Amendment Ordinance
4. PSAC & PZC Minutes (DRAFT)
50' Tall
300
Sq. Ft.
20' Tau
100 Sq.
Ft 10' Tall
. 50
0-19000 19000-29000 2,000+ (Rest
feet feet of corridor)
July 18, 2000
49
REDEIVED
JUL 18 2000
CLERK TO THE BOARD
BX 1 14 PG 257
•
50' Tall
300
Sq. Ft.
20' Tall
100 Sq. 15' Tall
Ft. 75' Sq. 10' Tall
Ft. 50' q.
0-19000 19000-19500 19500-29000 2,000+ (Rest
feet feet feet of corridor)
RECEIVED
JUL- 2 12000
CLERK TO THE BOARD
Chairman Adams wanted to see an enhanced landscape requirement to soften or hide the bases
of the signs whether they be pole or monument styles.
In response to Commissioner Macht, Director Boling advised that the Boot Outlet sign
consists of 300 square feet and is located at 50 feet above the crown of I-95.
The Chairman opened the public hearing and asked if anyone wished to be heard in this
matter.
P
Bruce Barkett represents the applicant, Dan Bryant, whose Mobil station property lies 1002
feet from I-95. His client's concern is that a potential patron, exiting I-95 and looking for a Mobil
station, would not be able to see the sign which he may have under the current regulations. Originally
he had asked for a 150 square foot sign placed 20 feet above ground. Staff recommended 100 square
July 18, 2000
50
I
•
feet and 20 feet tall. His client was willing to accept that compromise. I -is client is also willing to
do the extra landscaping shown on the drawings presented by Director Boling. He recounted that
the truck stop owner has been waiting for years for a change so he can replace the big outdated sign
with a sign which is tall enough to attract customers. In making this change, Mr. Barkett predicted
that we would see a reduction in some signage near I-95 which will make the area more attractive.
He urged the Board to adopt either staffs or the Task Force's proposal.
Chairman Adams asked the size of the lettering, and after checking his materials Mr. Barkett
reported that the letters had to be 30 inches in order to be read from 1,250 feet.
There was a brief discussion, during which Vice Chairman Ginn indicated she liked the SR
60 Task Force alternative with added landscaping.
Gene Waddell advised that the SR 60 Task Force recommended two transitions in order to
avoid another meeting like this next year. He liked the additional landscaping requirement if it can
be included. He asked the Board to heed his caution and avoid another hearing on this next year, or
adopt staffs recommendation in the interim, so there is not that disparity between one side of the
road and the other as you move closer into town.
Commissioner Stanbridge suggested the Task Force start on the overhead wires next.
It was determined that no one else wished to be heard and the Chairman closed the public
hearing.
MOTION WAS MADE by Vice Chairman Ginn, SECONDED BY
Commissioner Tippin, to approve Alternative 3 (SR 60 Task Force
recommendation - 4 signs) with the inclusion of additional enhanced
landscaping as recommended by Chairman Adams.
Commissioner Stanbridge liked staffs recommendation and was definitely in favor of the
landscaping at the base.
July 18, 2000
51
•
Chairman Adams also preferred stags recommendation. She felt it would be easier for
planning purposes to have only the three possibilities with the additional landscaping. She felt that
10 square feet per foot of height would be good. The choice of plants could be left to the owner's
discretion, but there should be some understory plants that would work.
County Attorney Bangel understood the motion on the floor to be approval of the third
alternative. His concern was the exact language that would be in the ordinance for Alternative 3.
He would be more comfortable if the new draft came back to them for adoption so the exact language
would be before them.
Vice Chairman Ginn thought that was a good point, then asked if there was time to bring it
back in July.
Director Boling responded that in the past the Board has voted their approval of an ordinance
and staff has been authorized to make the revision and have the Chairman sign it. If staff has to
come back with a revision, it probably would not be possible until the middle of August.
Chairman Adams believed it was just a matter of whether the Board decided to go with the
large or the small transition and landscape language needed to be added.
County Attorney Bangel said that was the problem he had, unless they determine now what
that language would be.
Chairman Adams thought that could be done, and Vice Chairman Ginn thought staff's input
on landscaping was needed.
THE CHAIRMAN CALLED THE QUESTION and the motion
carried 4-1, with Commissioner Stanbridge opposed. (Alternative 3
with enhanced landscaping)
Director Boling asked for a clarification of the motion, he understood that the Commissioners
wanted included some specifications on the enhanced landscaping around the base of the signs.
Chairman Adams concurred and added that was where County Attorney Bangel had some
reservations.
July 18, 2000
52
4 PG 260
n
County Attorney Bangel asked if they could bring it back for ratification, and Chairman
Adams suggested it could be a pending ordinance and that it would be brought back for ratification
(adoption).
In response to Vice Chairman Ginn's inquiry, Mr. Barkett indicated that would be satisfactory
for his client.
9.A.5. PUBLIC HEARING - ORDINANCE NO. 2000-026 - LDR
AMENDMENT CHAPTER 901, DEFINITIONS; CHAPTER 911,
ZONING; CHAPTER 912, SINGLE-FAMILY DEVELOPMENT -
BUILDING HEIGHT REGULATIONS
PROOF OF PUBLICATION WILL BE ON FILE
IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD
Planning Director Stan Boling reviewed a Memorandum of July 6, 2000, and used the
sketches provided in the backup to illustrate his presentation. He advised that there was a minor
correction to the sketch on page 133 (20' should have been 10').
TO: James E. Chandler
County Administrator
D SI N HEAD CONCURRENCE:
7
Robert . Keating, AICP -7
Community Development Zor
Ij
FROM: Stan Boling, AICP
Planning Director
DATE: July 6, 2000
SUBJECT: Proposed LDR Amendment: Building Height Regulations
It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal consideration by the Board of County
Commissioners at its regular meeting of July 18, 2000.
July 18, 2000
53
BK 114 PG 261
•
BACKGROUND
At the direction of the Board of County Commissioners, staff held a workshop on May 18, 2000 for
input and discussion of a proposed amendment of the county's building height regulations. The
workshop was attended by members of the Planning and Zoning Commission (PZC), the Board of
County Commissioners (BCC), the Professional Services Advisory Committee (PSAC) Chairman,
and interested citizens. At the conchision of the workshop, a consensus was reached on specific
changes to the existing land development regulations (LDRs). Those changes restructure the
county's building height definition as a modified version of the City of Vero Beach's building height
definition, in addition to other specific building height regulations.
PSAC and PZC Consideration
The PSAC considered this amendment at its June 15, 2000 meeting and voted to recommend that
the Board adopt the amendment with certain modifications. The modifications recommended by
the PSAC are detailed in the analysis section of this report. The Planning and Zoning Commission
considered the "Post -workshop" building height LDR amendments and recommended that the Board
adopt the LDR amendments as proposed by staff. Based upon discussion at the PZC meeting, staff
has revised the proposed ordinance to define "building height" with the modification recommended
by the PSAC.
The Need to Revisit Building Height Regulations
For many years, the county's current definition of `Building, height of has been used to apply the
county's height limitations (which are specified in the Chapter 911 Zoning Regulations) to all
proposed buildings. The definition adequately specifies the beginning (low) and ending (high) points
for measuring the height of a flat roof building and a budding with a single sloped roof. This
definition has served the county well by drawing a simple height threshold for "flat-topped", box -bike
buildings and by allowing portions of a sloped roof budding to project above the height limit if a
compensating amount of the roof mass is glow the height limit (see attachment #2). This
compensating balance is allowed via the existing definition's use of the mean height (eave to ridge)
of a sloped roof building to meet the height limit. Such an allowance is necessary to allow 3 -story
(35) buildings with sloped roofs as well as 3 -story "flat-topped", box -like buildings. The provision
for sloped roofs has allowed architectural variety and aesthetic improvements beyond box -like
buildings while at the same time ensuring that the overall mass of a 3 -story sloped roof building is
similar to the mass of a 3 -story box-hke building.
Under the current budding height definition, however, dealing with the roof height for a single
building with multiple sloped roof structures involves some interpretation. Over the years, staff has
applied an interpretation to proposed buildings with multiple sloped roof structures that has allowed
use of a weighted roof height average of sloped roof structures. According to former county
planning staff, the county's Planning and Zoning Commission approved the use of such a formula
for a multiple roof building in the early 1980s. Over the years, staff has applied that interpretation
to about a dozen buildings, including buildings in Windsor and Grand harbor, some single-family
residences, the Indian River Mall, and Disney's Inn. Because there seems to be a greater interest
in using multiple roof structures and because of the importance of building height regulations, staff
initiated an amendment to the LDRs to clarify and specify the county's treatment of multiple roof
structures.
July 18, 2000
54
•
History of the Building Height LDR Change Proposal
In the fall of 1998, county staff revisited the county's building height requirements by proposing to
codify into LDRs a 15+ year old policy regarding the maximum allowable height of buildings that
have multiple sloped roof structures. As a result, a building height LDR amendment was proposed
that has been modified several times over a period of many months through the LDR amendment
process. Modifications to the proposed building height LDR amendment have occurred as follows:
1. 10/15/98 Version: presented to the Professional Services Advisory Committee (PSAC)
proposed to:
► Add wording to the existing `building height" definition that specifically allows the
height of a building with multiple roof structures to be determined by calculating the
weighted average of the various roof structure heights. This proposal represented the
15+ year old policy.
2. 3/11/99 Version: presented to the Planning and Zoning Commission (PZC) and modified
based upon PSAC discussions, proposed to:
Retain specific wording to allow use of the roof height weighted average.
Specify a limit of 3 habitable floors for buildings subject to the 35' building height.
Specify a limit of 4 habitable floors for buildings subject to the 45' building height
(applies only to commercial sites east of SR A -1-A)
3. 3/25/99 Version: presented to the PZC and modified based upon discussion at the 3/11/99
PZC meeting (see attachment #3) proposed to:
Retain specific wording to allow use of the roof height weighted average.
Replace the previously proposed habitable floor limitations with an absolute height
limit on peaks of sloped roofs. Roof peaks not to exceed 15' above the applicable
height limit, to be specified in the "Height Limitations" section of zoning Chapter
911.
4. 4/19/99 Version: presented to the Board of County Commissioners (BCC) and modified
based on discussions at the 3/25/99 PZC meeting (see attachment #4) proposed to:
Retain specific wording to allow use of the roof height weighted average.
Specify an absolute height limit on roof peaks as follows:
50' where the 35' building height limit applies, or
65' where the 45' building height limit applies.
S. 5/4/99 Version: presented to the BCC and not modified from the 4/19/99 version since no
changes were recommended by the BCC at its 4/19/99 meeting (see attachment #5).
At its 5/4/99 meeting, the BCC decided not to adopt the proposed budding height LDR amendment
and referred it to staff for further revision (see attachment #6). Since that time, follow-up to other
July 18, 2000
55
8K 1 14 PG 263
0
LDR amendments and development -related issues have been handled and workshopped ahead of the
revised, staff -initiated building height LDR amendment. These other issues included: docks/piers,
Wabasso Corridor Plan requirements, CR 510 East Corridor requirements, SR 60 Corridor Plan
requirements for manufacturing businesses, pot-bellied pig policy, PDs (workshop), and agricultural
PDs (workshops).
6. 5/18/00 Workshop Version: TWO ALTERNATIVES
Based upon discussion at the BCC's 5/4/99 LDR hearing, staff revised the proposed building height
LDR amendment to delete all reference to a roof height weighted average, and provided the
following 2 alternative amendments:
ALTERNA77VE 1: Amend the county's building height definition to be similar to the
City of Vero Beach's, whereby the building height is measured to the inside ceiling
of the highest useable space.
ALTERN477VE 2: Revise wording for the absolute height limitations as follows:
(a) In areas subject to the 35' building height limit, the maximum height to the
highest eave of any roof structure would be 35' and no portion of the building
(including any roof structure) would be allowed to exceed 50'.
(b) In areas subject to the 45' building height limit, the maximum height to the
highest eave of any roof structure would be 45' and no portion of the building
(including any roof structure) would be allowed to exceed 60'.
The consensus of the May 18th workshop participants was to pursue ALTERNATIVE 1, with
some modifications.
7. 6/15/00 (PSAC) Version: Based upon the May 18, 2000 workshop, the current LDR
amendment version:
• Uses a modified version of the City of Vero Beach budding height definition.
• Limits parapet walls at roof -top edge to a maximum height of 5' above the building
height maximum
• Requires a roof -top, edge setback for roof -top enclosures and screen walls.
• Establishes in single-family areas an additional setback for buildings over 25' in
height.
8. 7/18/00 (BCC) Version: Based upon discussion at the PSAC and PZC meetings, this version
is the same as above with the exception of a change to the building height definition as
recommended by the PSAC.
PSAC and PZC Consideration
At its June 15, 2000 meeting the PSAC voted to recommend that the BCC adopt the
proposed building height regulations with the following modifications:
A. The building height should be measured to the intersection of the highest inside
finished face of the exterior vertical wall and the highest ceiling. This change was
meant to allow atriums and clerestory features (such as exist over the Indian River
Mall food court) while keeping standard building designs as low as the City of Vero
Beach definition. (NOTE: This recommended change has been incorporated into the
proposed ordinance, as shown in attachment #8).
July 18, 2000
56
BI(114 PG 2 6 4
B. The proposed additional setback for buildings over 25' in height (in single family
areas) should be lessened for lots 60' or less in width. (NOTE: this recommended
change is NOT included in the proposed ordinance).
At its June 22, 2000 meeting, the PZC voted 6-0 to recommend that the Board adopt the
ordinance proposed by staff, with a minor wording change regarding parapet walls (see attachment
#9). The proposed ordinance contains that recommended wording change.
ANALYSIS & ALTERNATIVES
There are numerous ways to apply height limitations (see attachment #2). For example, the county's
existing regulations allow portions of sloped roofs and certain architectural embellishments and roof-
top structures to project above the county's 35' and 45' building height limitations. Such projections
accommodate good architectural designs, and building articulation and can be allowed in a manner
that does not compromise the intent of the building height limitation. It should be noted that some
absolute height limitation for sloped roofs should be specified in the county's regulations since the
current county budding height regulations could potentially allow for an "A -frame" building that has
a roof peak 70' above ground level that technically meets the 35' height limitation.
For comparison purposes, the City of Vero Beach's height definition is attached (see attachment #1).
The city and county definitions are the same in regard to the starting (low) point of where to measure
building height from. These starting points (average natural grade or required minimum flood
elevation, whichever is higher) are fair and rational, are site specific, and should not be changed.
Unlike the existing county regulations, the city's definition establishes the high point of the building
height measurement at the "...inside ceiling of the highest useable space...", and establishes an
absolute roof peak limit by allowing sloped roof and roof -top structures to project up to 15' beyond
the city's building height limitations. The city's definition has proved workable by providing
absolute limits while allowing more flexibility for three story designs and some flexibility for sloped
roofs and roof -top architectural embellishments such as dormers and cupolas (see attachment #2).
■ Proposed Building Height Definition
County staff has incorporated a modified version of the city's definition into the proposed LDR
amendment. Certain types of roof -top structures not referenced in the city's definition (roof -top
enclosures for equipment and stairways) have been incorporated into the proposed LDR amendment.
Although no local architects were able to attend the May 181° workshop, staff again coordinated with
the local American Institute of Architects (AIA) chapter via its president Peter Jones. The AIA has
discussed the proposed building height regulations and is in agreement with the use of the city's
definition and has affirmed the need for the definition's 15' allowance for roof -top equipment and
enclosures such as is still needed for elevator equipment and enclosures (see attachment #7).
At the June 15, 2000 PSAC meeting, there was considerable discussion regarding the proposed
definition's requirement to measure building height to the "...inside ceiling of the highest useable
space...". Specifically, questions were raised about the term "useable space" and if attic storage
would be considered `wseable space". Questions were also raised about applying the proposed
definition to structures such as atriums and skylights that do not seem to have finished ceilings. In
an attempt to address these issues, the PSAC voted 7-1 to recommend that the Board adopt the
proposed definition but change the term "...inside ceiling of the highest useable space..." to "...inside
intersection of the vertical wall and highest finished ceiling...". The proposed amendment (see
attachment #8) does not incorporate the PSAC's suggested modifications.
July 18, 2000
FA
■ Parapet Wall Limits and Roof -top Structure Setbacks
The proposed LDR amendments address a major concern expressed at the May 18' workshop. That
concern was that the 15' a lowance for roofs and roof -top structures located above the building height
limitation could be "abused" in such a manner that a tall parapet wall or wall of a roof -top enclosure
could extend the vertical face of a "35' building" to a height of 50'. Thus, the LDR amendment
would need to limit the height of parapet walls located at roof -top edges. and roof -top enclosures
would need be set back from roof -top edges to avoid the appearance of towering vertical building
faces. Based upon input from the May 18' workshop and the local AIA chapter, the revised LDR
amendment proposes a maximum parapet wall height of Yat the roof -top edge and a setback from
the roof -top edge of 1 foot horizontal for every 1 foot vertical rise above the budding height
limitation.
Staffs analysis indicates that a roof -top edge parapet wall at 5 feet above the building limitation
would be of sufficient height to visually screen typical air-conditioning and venting roof -top
structures while adding little vertical mass to the building face. It is also staffs analysis that the
requirement for a 1 foot horizontal setback from roof -top edge for every 1 foot vertical rise of a
stairway enclosure (or similar structure) would relieve the visual effect of a tall vertical building face
and would be workable in regard to architectural designs.
■ Additional Setback for Taller Buildings in Single-family Districts
At the May 18'" workshop it was determined that, outside of higher density areas in the City of Vero
Beach, there are few examples in the county at this time where maximum height buildings were built
to the minimum setback lines. Staff noted that, in the unincorporated area of the county, such
situations are already addressed for commercial and multi -family buildings. For commercial
buildings in the unincorporated county, front yard setbacks are at least 25' (as opposed to Win the
City of Vero Beach at SR A 1-A and Beachland Blvd.). Also, where commercial development abuts
residential areas, buffer yards are required that have widths exceeding minimum zoning district
setbacks. In regard to multi -family buildings in the unincorporated county, the Wits require an
additional I foot setback from property lines for every 2 feet in height over 25'. Thus, the existing
LDRs require an additional setback for multi -family buildings over 25' in height. However, there
are currently no additional setbacks for taller buildings in single-family districts, where taller
residences could become more prevalent. It should be noted that although 3 story single-family
residences can also be built in agricultural districts, such homes would be constructed on large
parcels of land controlled by existing 30 foot minimum setbacks. Therefore, no changes to
agricultural district setbacks for tall homes are proposed.
To ensure that 3 story homes are not built up against minimum setback lines in the a single-family
districts, the proposed LDR amendments contain provisions whereby buildings and portions of
buildings constructed in single-family districts must be set back 1 additional foot for every 1 foot
over a building height of 25'. For example, in the RS -3 district, the following setbacks would apply
under the proposed IDR amendments:
Residence with a 25' building height: Front: 25% Sides: 15% Rear: 25'
Residence with a 35' building height: Front: 35; Sides: 25% Rear. 35'
These additional setbacks would apply only to the portion of a building that exceeds the 25' building
height. Thus, under the proposed regulations, shorter portions of buildings could be constructed at
minimum setback lines.
In staffs opinion, this LDR change would provide some reasonable scale and relationship between
horizontal setbacks and vertical mass, while allowing reasonable use and design flexibility on
agricultural and residential properties. Recently, staff reviewed building plans for some existing 2
July 18, 2000
58
V
i/s and 3 story residences and determined that the proposed additional setback would be satisfied by
the surveyed residences.
At the June 15' PSAC meeting, there was much discussion about the proposal to increase setbacks
for buildings or portions of buildings that have building heights of more than 25 feet. Concerns were
expressed regarding the impact of increased setbacks on narrow, non -conforming lots such as the
55' wide lots at Ambersand Beach, where taller homes seem to be the norm To address tall (3 story)
homes on narrow, non -conforming lots, the PSAC voted 6-0 to recommend that, for lots 60' wide
or less, setbacks shall be increased 1' (horizontal) for every 2' vertical rise over a building height of
25 feet. The proposed LDR amendment (see attachment 8) does not incorporate the PSAC's
suggested modification.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners adopt the proposed building height
regulation LDR amendments.
ATTACHMENTS
1. City of Vero Beach Height Limitation Definition
2. Building Height Graphics
3. Minutes from 3/11/99 PZC Meeting
4. Minutes from 3/25/99 PZC Meeting
5. Minutes from 4/19/99 BCC Meeting
6. Minutes from 5/4/99 BCC Meeting
7. Letter from Local Chapter of American Institute of Architects
8. Proposed Building Height LDR Amendment Ordinance (7/18/00 Version)
9. PSAC and PZC Minutes (DRAFT')
July 18, 2000
Figure (a)
Current County Definition for Single Roof
0
cCnl--------
Figure (b):
Current City of Vero Beach Definition for Single Roof
59
6K 114 PG 267
July 18, 2000
Figure (c):
Originally Proposed County Multiple Slope Roof Definition
( Weighted Roof Height Average)
15' to peak
35' to eave
IntwwwUm of highest vrUcal
wall and highest ea0ing
15' to peak
35' to eave
Figure (d):
Revised LDR Amendment Proposed
(7118100 Version)
e
•
A
n
Vr
0-
A A
V
In
W
44
u
July 18, 2000
Parapet wall at roof -top
Max. 5' above 35' building height.
Roof -top enclosure setback
1' horizontal for every 1' vertical rise.
10'
0
M
1 Story -15' Normal Setback
:; 15 F 50, -�
80' RS -3 LOT
2 Story -15' Normal Setback
N
15'
E—
500-4
80' RS -3 LOT
61
RECEIVFE)
JUL 18 1000
CLERK TO THE BOARD
BK 114 PG 269
0
Example A - 3 Story
Increased Setback (15'+ 10')
OV 1%.J -J LV 1
Example B - 3 Story
Normal Setback (25' for
3rd Story Portion)
OV 1�►7�J LV 1
July 18, 2000
62
BK 114 PG 270
V.
In response to Vice Chairman Ginn's and Commissioner Stanbridge's questions, Director
Boling further explained what would be allowed on a 60' lot and elaborated on the differences
between the PSAC and the PZC recommendations.
matter.
The Chairman opened the public hearing and asked if anyone wished to be heard in this
William G. Glynn, 1802 Barefoot Place, appeared as President of the North Beach Civic
Association. He believed the reason some ofthe architectural monstrosities are being built is because
they are allowed credit for the negative part of the roof that goes below the 35' height. He thought
a simpler solution would be to not allow the credit and continue to average the roof above the 35'.
If that credit is removed and the 3 5' height is just averaged, we will not see high peaks as we do now.
Director Boling made a very pertinent observation during his presentation concerning the U. S. Trust
Building. Mr. Glynn predicted the City will regret that building for years to come and he hoped they
were moving to cure it. He recalled Sea Oaks got their Dune House 7 approval last year, it is sitting
out on a dune, 81' above sea level and it was all within the regulations. He believed the 35' height is
fine, and urged that they not allow 15' more.
Peter Jones, as President ofthe Indian River Chapter ofthe American Institute of Architects,
thanked staff for allowing their participation in some ofthe preliminary discussions. Director Boling
had given a presentation to the members and they had an opportunity to respond. The Chapter
members discussed the proposals and felt they could work within those parameters. As a rule,
professional architects ask only that they be given the opportunity to be creative within the framework
of the regulations provided by policy -makers. Second, he requested the Board consider the `B"
version of the residential height proposal because it provides an opportunity for flexibility in design
and does not simply create a tall tower in the middle of a lot. He thought one of the problems that
has given rise to these so-called "architectural monstrosities" at the beach is a simple function of
current economics. There aren't that many lots on the ocean in the areas where these kinds of houses
are desired. The lots are expensive and the people who purchase the lots want to build large homes.
July 18, 2000
63
BK 114 PG 27 1
He predicted the U.S. Trust Building issue would go away after a while. The `B" version allows
flexibility and an opportunity to develop a smart house with some character rather than a "tower"
in the center of a lot.
It was determined that no one else wished to be heard and the Chairman closed the public
hearing.
Commissioner Stanbridge knew that the "mega -buildings" have caused a lot of concern. She
had no problem with the 35' height limitation, but understood the styling that the architects wanted.
She was not sure that we would want to live with that, she felt that after a number of years it would
clutter our skyline.
Vice Chairman Ginn thought there was a need for an absolute height limitation.
Director Boling reviewed the PZC and the PSAC recommendations and spoke concerning
vaulted ceilings. He reviewed the recommendation and indicated the sketch representing that
recommendation. He also addressed questions concerning parapet walls. He gave assurance that the
"mega -buildings" heights would also be covered by this ordinance.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Ginn, SECONDED BY
Commissioner Macht, the Board unanimously approved staffs
recommendation. (Ordinance No. 2000-026 adopted amending Land
Development Regulations [LDRS], Chapter 901, Definitions, Chapter
911, Zoning, and Chapter 912, Single -Family Development.)
July 18, 2000
64
BK I I�q PG 272
e
ORDINANCE NO. 2000--U-6
AN ORDINANCE OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, AMENDING LAND
DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS (LDRS): CHAPTER 901, DEFINITIONS;
CHAPTER 911, ZONING; CHAPTER 912, SINGLE-FAMILY DEVELOPMENT;
AND PROVIDING FOR REPEAL OF CONFLICTING PROVISIONS,
CODIFICATION, SEVERABILITY AND EFFECTIVE DATE.
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER
COUNTY, FLORIDA THAT THE INDIAN RIVER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT
REGULATIONS (LDRS) BE AMENDED AS FOLLOWS:
1. BUILDING HEIGHT DEFINITION
LDR definitions Chapter Section 901.03 is hereby amended as follows:
Building, height of the vertical distance to the intersection of the highest inside finished face
of the exterior vertical wall and the highest ceiling, ferfntIcefs
measured from the average
natural grade or the minimum flood elevation, whichever is higher. The- BNR FDEP
Design Breakaway Wave Crest Elevation (DBWCE) shall constitute minimum flood
elevation where applicable. However, architectural embellishments, including but not limited
to mansard, gable hip, gambrel roofs; parapets and parapet walls, except as limited in LDR
section 911 15(1)(b)• mechanical equipment and enclosures for such equipment; elevator
shafts and stairway enclosures-, and similar structures, shall be allowed to exceed the
maximum building height limitation by not more than 15 feet where the 35 foot height
limitation applies, and by not more than 20 feet where the 45 foot height limitation applies,
subiect to the regulations of LDR section 911.15(1).
2. BUILDING HEIGHT EXCEPTIONS AND REGULATIONS
A. LDR zoning Chapter Section 911.15(1)(a) and (b), are hereby amended as follows:
(a) Height exceptions. The height limitations stipulated in the applicable districts
shall not apply to the following, provided that no such structure exceeds the height
limits for airport approach areas, as established in paragraph (b), below:
Church steeples and spires;
Chimneys;
Flag poles;
Silos;
Windmills;
Aircraft control towers and navigational aids;
Utility transmission towers;
Coding: Words in strilee-dtretrSh type are deletions from existing law. Words underlined are additions.
u\dbrd\building height ord Page 1 of 11
July 18, 2000
65
0" 114 PG 273
•
ORDINANCE NO. 2000-12-6
Solar energy collectors; and
Similar structures.
Notwithstanding, any radio, television or microwave transmission or receiving tower
which is greater than seventy (70) feet in height shall be allowed only subject to the
criteria established for such towers in Chapter 971, Specific Land Use Criteria.
Additional information about towers may be found in Chapter 917, Accessory Uses
and Structures.
(b) Height Limitations.
L No structure shall be erected which would conflict with the airport
zoning_ ordinance height regulations of section 911.17(4)(a).
2. Parapet walls located at the building rooftop edge mU extend no
more than 5 feet above the budding height limitation (35' or 45'. as
App_ligable).
3. Other than the V apet wall provision referenced in 911.15(1)(b)2.
above roof top structures such as screen walls elevator shafts and
enclosures stairways and enclosures and similar structures shall be
set back from the buildingroof-top o� of top edge 1 foot horizontal distance for
every 1 foot of vertical rise above the applicable building height
tation.
B. LDR single family development Chapter Section 912.07(1)(b.)7. is hereby amended
as follows:
The thirty-five foot height limitation stipulated in the single-family zoning
districts shall not apply to the following provided that no such structure
exceeds the height limits for airport approach areas, as established in
paragraph (a.) Below:
Church steeples and spires;
Chimneys;
Flag poles;
Silos;
Filevmer- fewem,
Windmills;
Aircraft control towers and navigational aids;
Utility transmission towers;
Solar energy collectors;
Transmission and receiving towers; and
Similar structures.
Coding: Words in swike aweso type are deletions from existing law. wads underlined are additions.
uWWd%Wding hdgM ad Page 2 of I 1
July 18, 2000
66
Bi{ i i PG 2 7 4
•
ORDINANCE NO. 2000-j26
Any radio, television or microwave transmission or receiving tower which is
greater than seventy (70) feet in height shall only be allowed subject to the
criteria established for such towers in Chapter 971, Specific Land Use
Criteria. Note: Special height limitations and setback criteria for towers are
addressed in section 912.15.
a. Height Hmiwiens- Airport approach areas. No structure shall be
erected which would encroach into or through any established public
or private airport approach plan, prepared in accordance with the
criteria established by the Federal Aviation Administration, including
the approach and zoning plan for any airport or airstrip which may
currently exist or be created in the future.
(bh Height Limitations.
1 No structure shall be erected which would conflict with the
airport zoning ordinance height regulations of section
911.17(4)(a).
2. P,argpet walls located at the building roof -top edge may
extend no more than 5 feet above the building height
limitation (35' or 45'. as applicable).
3. Other than the parapet wall provision referenced in
911.15(1)(b)2. above, roof -top structures such as screen walls.
elevator shafts and enclosures: stairways and enclosures, and
similar structures shall be set back from the building rooftop
edge 2 feet horizontal distance for every 1 foot of vertical mise
above the applicable building height limitation.
3. INCREASED SETBACKS FOR TALLER BUILDINGS IN SINGLE-FAMII.Y
DISTRICTS
A. LDR zoning Chapter Section criteria table 911.06(6), for the RFD, and RS -1 is
hereby amended as follows:
(6) Size and dimension criteria:
Regulation
Unit
A-3
A-2
A-1
RFD
RS -1'
Maximum
density
du/gr.ac.
0.05
0.1
0.2
0.4
1
Coding: Words in swAa thfaso type are deletions from existing law. Words underlined are additions.
uldlordl Iding M& ad Page 3 of 11
July 18, 2000
67
BK 1 14 PG 275
ORDINANCE NO. 2000- 0 2 6
Mwidth
sq. feet 870,000 430,000 200,000 85,000 40,000
feet 150 150 150 150 125
feet
30 30 30 30* 30*_
Side
30 30 30 301 201
Rear 30 30 30 30* 30*
Maximum feet 35 35 35 35 35
budding
height
Maximum % of lot 10 10 20 30 30
building
covers e
Minimum % of lot 802 802 602 50 50
open space
'Nonconforming lots of record lawfully created prior to April 11, 1985 shall meet the RS -6 yard
requirements
Legally created lots of record existing prior to June 18, 1991, in the A-1, A2, and A-3 districts
may be developed for one single-family dwelling each, regardless of density, provided all other
regulations and codes are satisfied. These lots must meet requirements of the RS -1 district for the
size and dimension criteria.
'For properties containing manmade bodies of water, the open water area may be excluded
entirely from the open space calculation (e.g. excluded from gross area and from open space area
credit).
*NOTE A 1 foot additional setback is M uired for every 1 foot in building height over 25 feet in
butldtng, height re lea buildino—or nortion of a bu-'dmg that has a 35 foot butldtne hetgtn
m
as defined the land development regglatio must have an additional 10 foot setback from any
Coding: Words in smoke Ehfeegh type are deletions from existing law. Wordslin are additions.
„ a;ng heigh ora Page 4 of 11
July 182 2000
68
BK 114 PG 276
•
ORDINANCE NO. 2000- 0 2 6
adjacent front side or rear property line to that portion of the building that exceeds 25 feet in
building height.
B. LDR zoning Chapter Section criteria table 911.07(7) for the RS -2, RS -3, RS -6, and
RT -6 districts is hereby amended as follows:
(7) Size and dimension criteria:
Regulation
Unit
RS -2
RS -3'
RS -6
RT -6
Maximum
d.uJgr.ac.
2
3
6
6
density
Minimum lot
sq. feet
size
SF
16,000
12,000
7,000
7,000
Duplex
12,000
Minimum lot
feet
100
80
70
70
width
Minimum
yard
feet
Front*
25
25
20
20
Side*
15
15
10
10
Rear*
25
25
20
20
Maximum
feet
35
35
35
35
building
h6i ht
Maximum
percent of lot
25
30
30
35
building
covers e
Minimum
percent of lot
40
40
40
40
open space
Coding: Words in she-thmeo type are deletions from existing law. Words underlined are additions.
4W\- building tit and Page 5 of 11
July 18, 2000
Wej
BK 1 14 PG 277
•
ORDINANCE NO. 2000-L2_6
' Nonconforming lots of record lawfully created prior to June 18, 1991 shall meet the RS -6
yard requirements.
2 In no case shall the density exceed the maximum permitted gross density.
*NOTE: A 1 foot additional setback is reauired for every 1_fbo m buildine heieht over 25 feet i
building height. For gxamnle, a building or portion of a building that has a 35 foot building, height.
as defined in the land development regul_ationc must have an additional 10 foot setback from any
adjacent front side or rear property line to that portion of the building that exceeds 25 feet in
building height.
C. LDR zoning Chapter Section criteria table 911.12(6) for the CON -1, CON -2, and
CON -3 districts is hereby amended as follows:
(6) Size and dimension criteria:
Coding: Words in oa*e lhfauo type are deletions from existing law. Words underlined are additions.
uWbrdWailding height art Page 6 of 11
July 18, 2000
0
70
BIS 114, PG 2 7 8
District
Regulation
Unit of Measure
Con -1
Con -2
Con -3
Maximum
Density
d.uJgr. acre
.025
0.4
Minimum Lot
Size
acres
40
2 V2
Minimum Lot
Width
feet
500
150
Minimum Yards
feet
Front*
50
50
50
Rear*
50
50
50
Side*_
50
20
20
Maximum
Building height
feet
35
35
35
Coding: Words in oa*e lhfauo type are deletions from existing law. Words underlined are additions.
uWbrdWailding height art Page 6 of 11
July 18, 2000
0
70
BIS 114, PG 2 7 8
•
ORDINANCE NO. 2000- 0 2 6
Maximum Lot
percent
Unit of Measure
10
20
Coverage
I
10,000
180
170
Minimum Open
percent
-
Space
20
Side*
10
Legally created lots of record existing prior to June 18, 1991, in the Con -2 and Con -3
districts, may be developed for one (1) single-family dwelling each, regardless of density, provided
all other land development regulation provisions are satisfied. Single-family dwelling construction
on these lots must meet the size and dimension requirements of the RS -I district.
*NOTE: A 1 foot additional setback is required for every 1 foot in building height over 25 feet in
building height For example a building or portion of a building that has a 35 foot building height,
as defined in the land development reegulations must have an additional 10 foot setback from any
adjacent front. side. or rear property line to that portion of the building that exceeds 25 feet in
building height.
D. LOR zoning Chapter Section criteria table 911.13(3)(h) for the ROSE -4 district is
hereby amended as follows:
(h) Size and dimension criteria:
ROSE -4 DISTRICT
Regulation
Size
Unit of Measure
Maximum density
4.0
d.u. per gross acre
Minimum lot size
10,000
square feet
Minimum lot width
70
feet
Minimum yard
Front*
20
Side*
10
feet
Rear*
20
Coding: Words in 9WAw thfouO type are deletions from existing law. Words underlined are additions.
July 18, 2000
71
UWWd1 d1ding height and Page 7 of 11
rK 114 PG 279
•
ORDINANCE NO. 2000--12-6
Maximum building height
35
feet
Maximum lot coverage
30
percent of lot
Minimum open space area
35
percent of gross
Minimum district size
20
gross acres
*NOTE: A 1 foot additional_ setback is reauired for every 1 foot in buddinF–heiaht av�fi
building height. For example, a building or portion of a building that has a 35 foot building height.
as defined in the land development regulations, must have an additional 10 foot setback from go
adiacent_front`side._ or rear nronertv line to that portion of the buildine_ that exceeds 25 fee m
building height.
E. LDR zoning Chapter Section criteria table 911.13(4)(8) for the AIR -1 district is
hereby amended as follows:
(g) Size and dimension criteria:
Regulation
Unit of
Land Use
Measure
AG -1
AG -2i
R
L-12
Maximum
du acre
1:5
1:10
1:1
3:1
density
Minimum lot
sq. ft.
200,000
430,000
40,000
20,000
size
Minimum lot
feet
150
150
125
120
width
Maximum
feet
35
35
35
35
building
height
Minimum
yard I
feet
Coding: Words in sw;W dwmgh type are deletions from existing law. Words underlined are additions.
uWa &hU ldWg hdgM ad Page 8 of 11
July 18, 2000
72
ORDINANCE NO.2000- 02 6
Front*
30
30
30
25
Side*
Residence*_
30
30
20
15
Hangar/
Garnet
10
10
10
10
Rear*
Residence*
30
30
30
25
Hangar/
Gars e*
10
10
10
10
Maximum
lot coverage
% of lot
20
10
30
30
Minimum
open space
% of lot
80
80
50
40
'Size and Dimension Criteria for AG -3 are the same as AG -2; the only difference is in the
maximum density and minimum lot size. Maximum density for AG -3 is 1 unit/20 acres, and
minimum lot size is 870,000 sq. ft.
'Air -1 is allowed only within areas where airstrips existed prior to February 13, 1990.
*NOTE: A 1 foot additional setback is required for every 1 foot in budding height over 25 feet in
building height. For example, a building or portion of a building that has a 35 foot building height.
as defined in the land develo mp ent regulations must have an additional 10 foot setback from any
adiacent front, side, or rear property line to that portion of the building that exceeds 25 feet in
building heii
4. REPEAL OF CONFLICTING PROVISIONS
All previous ordinances, resolutions, or motions of the Board of County Commissioners of
Indian River County, Florida which conflict with the provisions of this ordinance are hereby repealed
to the extent of such conflict. All Special Acts of the legislature applying only to the unincorporated
portion of Indian River County which conflict with the provisions of this ordinance are hereby
repealed to the extent of such conflict.
Coding: Words in spike-thfmgh type are deletions from existing law. Words underlined are additions.
July 18, 2000
73
aldio MuU int hci& -d Page 9 of 11
BK 114 PG 281
ORDINANCE NO. 2000-026
5. CODIFICATION
The provisions of this ordinance shall be incorporated into the County Code and the word
"Ordinance" may be changed to "section", "article", or other appropriate word, and the sections of
this ordinance may be renumbered or relettered to accomplish such intentions.
6. SEVERABILITY
If any section, part of a sentence, paragraph, phrase or word of this ordinance is for any
reason held to be unconstitutional, inoperative or void, such holdings shall not affect the remaining
portions hereof and it shall be construed to have been the legislative intent to pass this ordinance
without such unconstitutional, invalid or inoperative part.
7. EFFECTIVE DATE
This ordinance shall take effect upon filing with the Florida Secretary of State.
This ordinance was advertised in the Vero Beach Press -Journal on the 51h day of
Jul Y 2000, for a public hearing to be held on the -4 a t h day
2000, at which time it was moved for adoption by Commissioner Gin n
seconded by Commissioner M a c h t _, and adopted by the following vote;
The ordinance was adopted by a vote of :
Chairman Fran B. Adams Aye
Vice Chairman Caroline D. Ginn A y e
Commissioner Kenneth R. Macht Aye
Commissioner John W. Tippin Aye
Commissioner Ruth M. Stanbridge A y e
Coding: Words in suMce-thFmgh type are deletions from existing law. Words underlined are additions.
uW\a~dinB hoigbt wd Page 10 of 11
July 18, 2000
74
•
ORDINANCE NO. 2000- 0 2 6
The Chairman thereupon declared the ordinance duly passed and adopted this
18th day of J u 1 y , 2000.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
Attest: J.K. Barton, Cler By t'z9µ16Q-
7 • Fran B. Adams
Deputy Clerk Chairman
Filed with the Florida Department of State on the , day of0, 2000.
APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM
William G. Collins
Deputy County Attorney
APPROVED AS TO PLANNING MATTERS
Robert M. Keating, AICP
Community Development Direct r
Coding: Words in stjike dizenglr type are deletions from existing law. Words underlined are additions.
M"rditiiding height ord Page 11 of 11
July 18, 2000
75
on 114 PG 283
•
AT APPROXIMATELY 10:24 AM, THE CHAIRMAN CALLED A
SHORT RECESS. THE MEETING WAS RECONVENED AT
APPROXIMATELY 10:32 AM WITH ALL MEMBERS PRESENT.
9.B.1. PUBLIC DISCUSSION ITEM - REQUEST BY BIBBLE
IRVIN TO SPEAK REGARDING BEACH ISSUE
Bibble Irvin displayed numerous photographs of the county's coastline to show how it has
been functioning and performing over the years. He showed an aerial photograph of Wabasso Beach
taken in 1957; there were no homes built there at the time. The photo taken in 1968 of the same
coastal area showed homes built close to the bluff line along the ocean. Then a 1998 photo showed
a seawall had been built in the same area. He had done a lot of research concerning the beach.
Concerning the Ft. Pierce dredging, he had heard that the sand lightens up with the sun. Therefore,
one of his projects was putting two baggies of sand (one Vero Beach sand and one of the dredged
sand from Ft. Pierce beach) on the dashboard of his car to see if the sand would be bleached by the
sun. There was some bleaching but the sand colors of the two were still noticeably different. He
called Pensacola to inquire about their 16 -mile sand dredging project. He was told they had more
beach, the sand quality was a lot different, they have not had over 4 foot escarpments (have not had
any really rough weather), and there was no impact to their reefs because they never had any reefs.
The Army Corps of Engineers had told him that we could expect up to 14 foot high escarpments and
anything over 4 feet would have to be bulldozed which could not be done during the tourist season.
He had concern about the safety factor, felt it should be considered and other alternatives looked into.
He showed photographs of the Driftwood Motel taken in 1938, 1951, and present, which to him
indicated that the beach area was pretty much a constant. He concluded that the sand at the beach
is remarkably stable and was concerned that sand dredging could cover and damage all the reefs on
our 27 -mile coastline. He requested that Chairman Adams, as chairperson of the Beach & Shore "
Preservation Advisory Committee, call another meeting of the committee next month.
Chairman Adams advised that she would get in touch with him.
July 189 2000
76
BK 1 14 PG 284
9.B.2. PUBLIC DISCUSSION ITEM - HOMELESS REVIEW -
INDIAN RIVER HOMELESS SERVICES COUNCIL. INC. (LEASE AT
2525 ST. LUCIE AVENUE, VERO BEACH - HUD GRANT
APPLICATION - HIBISCUS MANOR, 720 4TH STREET)
The Board reviewed the backup provided.
Dick Van Mele, 781 George Street, Sebastian, advised that he is the current board president
of the Homeless Assistance Center, formerly referred to as the Coalition for the Homeless of Indian
' River County. He was asked by Richard A. Stark, vice chairman of the County's Homeless Task
Force, to read his letter because he could not be present in person. The letter refers to the approval
of a lease of 2525 St. Lucie Avenue to the Homeless Assistance Center. He had edited the letter with
the permission of the writer and proceeded to read it into the record. (CLERK'S NOTE: Mr. Stark's
letter is on file with the backup in the office of the Clerk to the Board.)
Mr. Van Mele stated that his purpose in reading Mr. Stark's letter was to ask for a motion
for adoption of the lease for the County's building at 2525 St. Lucie Avenue.
Commissioner Stanbridge advised that discussion of the lease went back to May 23"' and she
understood the pending lease was to be used as leverage in the HUD application. The Commissioners
did not have a copy of the application, only summaries, and when they indicated that they were not
comfortable with that lease being signed on that date, it was determined that a "pending lease" could
be added to the HUD application. The application was due to be submitted on May 31` and the
summaries were approved so the application process could begin with "pending" in the application.
The Board received a copy of the application on May 31' and it does not refer at all to a lease,
"pending" or otherwise, and makes no mention of leasing the building at 2525 St. Lucie Avenue.
Mr. Van Mele agreed she was correct. The whole concept of leasing that facility (at that
time) was to use it for transitional housing and supportive services. (Clerk's Note: The City of Vero
Beach Council met on May 2, 2000, and, from testimony, it appeared the proposed use of the
building would not be approved without extraordinary efforts.) Mr. Van Mele stated that the
application referred to the facility at 720 4d` Street (Hibiscus Manor) and since that time they have
July 18, 2000
77
signed a contract to purchase that property.
Commissioner Stanbridge stated she only wanted to address the lease now, because there are
two parts to this issue. She felt that since the lease was not in the application, it is no longer pending.
Mr. Van Mele pointed out that according to the minutes of May 23', Commissioner Macht
asked whether or not the lease had to be approved and whether it was tied to the application. They
had replied that it was not and could wait until sometime in the future.
Commissioner Stanbridge felt the lease should be brought back to them along with backup
stating the reasons why they need the property at 2525 St. Lucie Avenue.
Mr. Van Mele stated that the building would be a one-stop intake or assessment center. This
has been the recommendation of the Task Force for many, many months and is reflected in their (Task
Force for the Homeless) minutes as well as the summary which was distributed on May 23d after the
City of Vero Beach determined the zoning was not appropriate for a shelter.
Commissioner Macht interjected that the building is needed for the reasons just presented.
A lot of other organizations will find their home there and he hoped it would expand into "one-stop
shopping" for much more than the homeless. The County Administrator has indicated in the past that
the building is under and improperly utilized. The County can obtain the advantage of the building
being improved without cost to the County and a public service would be provided.
MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Macht, SECONDED BY
Commissioner Tippin, to have the organization immediately contact
the County Administrator and General Services Director in order to
put this lease together and bring it back quickly so the Board can act
on it.
Under discussion, Commissioner Macht asked to hear from Administrator Chandler.
Administrator Chandler stated he was comfortable with the motion. A lease was drafted by
our Attorney's Office in late April or early May but had not been finalized because there were still
numerous unanswered issues, one of which was making other arrangements for the storage now
July 18, 2000
78
BK 114 PG 286
located in that building. When the grant application came through, there were also questions on a
time frame for occupancy of the building and the relationship of the lease to the grant. It appeared
occupancy might occur sometime in October and the storage question could be worked out. From
staffi s perspective, if the County were to lease the facility to the Coalition or anyone else, the County
would want them to be totally responsible, not only for maintenance, but also the grounds. Those
questions were cleared up when Director Frame met with Mr. Van Mele. Staff has not taken any
further action since that point, but can bring something back to the table.
Vice Chairman Ginn thought the 50 -year term was too long; she agreed that the landscaping
and its maintenance needed to be spelled out, as well as provisions for outside loitering, trash, and
no alteration of the exterior appearance of the building without prior permission. She wanted a nice
neighbor for the rest of the businesses in the area.
Commissioner Stanbridge agreed that 50 years was too long but understood the 50 -year term
was to have been used as leverage in the grant application. She found it hard to believe that small
organizations would want to divide themselves between this facility and their central location. It
sounds good, but it might be fiscally or physically difficult to achieve. She felt that would play a big
role in this lease and, therefore, felt it necessary to have written commitments from the other
organizations that would be using this facility. She was also concerned that Vice Chairman Ginn's
County Administration Building committee may find a need for the square footage of the 2525 St.
Lucie Avenue building to relocate County workers or have a stand-alone department.
THE CHAIRMAN CALLED THE QUESTION and
the motion carried unanimously.
Chairman Adams clarified that approval of the motion was just to bring back a lease for their
consideration.
Vice Chairman Ginn then inquired about the $25,000 grant. She understood it was meant to
be used for any facility. She recalled that the Board had not acted on that yet but was required to do
July 18, 2000
01
so because the County was the applicant, and non -profits must first have their proposals approved
by the governing body. The funds would pass through the County for which the County would
receive a small stipend of about $6,000. She had given this a lot of thought and was going to support
it because HUD needs to know that the County recognizes them as an on-going entity. Secondly,
they are now incorporated. The reason for the County's oversight is because they have no prior track
record. She also was concerned whether this could be handled by the County without additional
employees.
Assistant Administrator Baird was unsure whether it could be done without additional help
until he had an opportunity to know what paperwork is involved after it is approved.
Vice Chairman Ginn wanted it understood the County would not monitor any ofthe programs
nor oversee any of the construction. The contractor's bills would come to the County and be paid
by the County out of the Coalition's funds.
Mr. Van Mele agreed that he understood and added that they will be following the normal
County bidding and warrant procedures. In response to Vice Chairman Ginn's inquiry, Mr. Van Mele
stated that the corporation has applied for a 501(3)(c). The corporation became effective July 10,
2000; it will be representing the whole concept of the Continuum of Care plan. The corporation is
set up, and they have a verbal approval pending through a Mr. Keyes of the Internal Revenue Service
who said it normally takes about 60 days to get the actual certificate. He anticipated it would take
about a year to get the actual 501(3)c) status.
Administrator Chandler wanted clarification, for the record, that the County would not be
involved in any of the RFP or bidding process, and Mr. Van Mele confirmed that the County would
not be involved in any of the bidding procedures.
Mr. Van Mele pointed out an error in a written document that the new corporation was
effective as of July 10`h, not July 20d`.
Mr. Baird recounted a letter he had written on June 29d' with a few questions. Itis main
concern with the Continuum of Care, at the time, was whether it existed as a legal non-profit
organization. On July 146, Mr. Van Mele responded and, to satisfy the concern, they created an
July 189 2000
0
:i
140
CJ
entity on July 10' known as the Indian River Homeless Services Council, Inc. He thought they
needed to make only one change on the application which is to name the corporation as the entity.
Vice Chairman Ginn inquired if there would be a relationship between the corporation and
the Human Services Department.
Joyce Johnston -Carlson, Human Services Department Director, advised that she has served
on the Task Force and has agreed to serve on the Board of Directors for the new corporation as a
private individual.
Administrator Chandler interjected that when he clarified earlier on the RFP procedures, by
"County" he also understood that meant the Human Services Department would not be involved, and
Mr. Van Mele stated that the corporation would only be following the County's procedures.
Administrator Chandler also wanted to clarify on the second grant document, he understood
the "employees" would not be County employees.
Vice Chairman Ginn advised that she also wanted that assurance.
Commissioner Stanbridge had concerns about the HUD application which the Board received
on May 3?; the County is the applicant and the project sponsor is the County's Department of
Human Services, Joyce Johnston -Carlson. Today is the first time the Board has officially revisited
this primary document. She thought the Board needed to look very carefully at the application
because the. County's name is on it. She had many concerns and was not comfortable with the
document. One of her concerns was the project sponsor was indicated as "our homeless assistance
center". She believed that might be another name for the Coalition for the Homeless. But, she
pointed out, the Coalition for the Homeless, or the Homeless Assistance Center, is only a member
of the Continuum Task Force that is on the HUD application. That is not the project sponsor and
that was #7 on Mr. Van Mele's letter. The Continuum Task Force, the writer of this grant
application, is an extension of the original official Task Force that was set up by the Board of County
Commissioners. This Continuum Task Force, which is on every page of the HUD application,
includes St. Lucie County, Ft. Pierce, and Port St. Lucie. She did not know how it was authorized
July 18, 2000
81
•
nor how it was expanded; it had never been confirmed by the Board of County Commissioners. We
have to be very careful in dealing with Federal grants. As the applicant, our credibility as a grant
recipient is exposed. The majority of the match is the County's and the project sponsor is a County
department. So, in essence, it is the County's HUD application. She continued that while everyone
has a passion for the cause and is bending over backwards to help, care must be exercised in anything
that might negatively affect the credibility of the County, whether in grants or financial or bond
ratings. All of them are linked to our credibility. She felt the Board had the responsibility to correct
some of the mistakes, and offered three options: 1) to do nothing, which she felt was not the right
thing to do; 2) to withdraw the application, which is probably the wisest and quickest action; or 3)
to amend the present applications, which she felt would "red flag" the application because the
discrepancies were so numerous. Whatever they decided to do, the document had to be reviewed
by the County's legal and financial staff and then come back to the Board. She favored a withdrawal
of this year's application and a re -write for next year's cycle. Next year, the HUD application could
be for a phase 2 for Hibiscus Manor and they could build on this emergency shelter grant. She was
very willing to help them with the new application and set it up so it rolls over; it would be an
opportunity for the corporation to be on its own. She was concerned that if they did not do as she
suggested, they would be back in the same predicament next year. For these many reasons, she could
not support the application as submitted.
Vice Chairman Ginn asked if a one year period would be to sufficient to establish a "track
record" for them to apply on their own for a grant of $250,000.
Commissioner Stanbridge thought it would because they have closed on a building and they
have an emergency shelter grant in line. Ifthey proceed with that, they already have their own match,
plus what the Board of County Commissioners can bring to the table. Then they would have a
legitimate HUD application that might be approved. They also would be able to begin to work with
the Continuum of Care plan as it is now only a concept.
Next Vice Chairman Ginn asked if the application had been submitted, and Mr. Van Mele
advised that the application which he was speaking of was the Emergency Shelter Grant.
July 18, 2000
82
BK 1 14 PG 290
I
•
Mr. Van Mele believed that the Continuum Task Force, with members from Indian River
County and St. Lucie County, was explained in detail. St. Lucie County had to be mentioned because
12 of the original Task Force members are from St. Lucie County; they have dual roles between
Indian River and St. Lucie County. That was included and made official at the April 20`h meeting
when Louise Hubbard made a presentation about how many more needs score points could be
obtained in order to increase the probability of getting the grant next year. If it is delayed, it would
be two years before the grant funds are received. The needs score was increased at that time by
including Pt. St. Lucie, Ft. Pierce, and St. Lucie County but, at the same time, there is no
responsibility for any of the grant funds to be spent in any way at all on any property within or to any
advantage to St. Lucie County.
Vice Chairman Ginn understood then that homeless from St. Lucie County would not be
brought to Indian River County, and Mr. Van Mele stated an emphatic "no". It is a transitional
housing facility and a supportive services program for our county.
Mr. Van Mele advised that this grant was cleared through the Florida Coalition for the
Homeless as well as the HUD office in Jacksonville. He respectfully thought that the errors
mentioned did not exist; every one of the entities mentioned therein do exist and every individual is
part of the Task Force.
Commissioner Stanbridge interjected that the expansion was neither confirmed nor authorized
by the Board of County Commissioners. If the County was not the applicant, she would not be
concerned.
Commissioner Macht addressed the Board on the issue by stating that the Commission had
authorized the Task Force to explore the problem, make recommendations, and set forth the
possibilities for programatic help and that is what was done. The discretion of the membership was
left to the Task Force and they assembled a "blue ribbon group" which included representatives of
most of the care provider organizations who would logically operate on behalf of the people to be
helped. Also included were representatives of the hospital, United Way, the faith -based community
in the persons of Rabbi Raskin, Father Reardon, and Reverend Nigh, and others who have worked
July 18, 2000
83
a
in the community, such as Richard Stark, Jacelyn Brock, Harry Walker, and another dozen or so.
They used their experience and dedication, contributed their own personal cash, and obtained pledges
from various organizations and foundations. The Coalition has not yet closed on the building on 4'
Street (I ibiscus Manor); they have a contract on it and it will be purchased entirely with private
money. They have gone more than the first step; they have taken several steps and made personal
commitments. He felt the concerns which have been pointed out were not really significant. The
HUD office in Jacksonville has already seen the application and they have no problems. The State
Coalition for the Homeless has hired the grant writer to make presentations all over the state. The
quality of her work and the comprehensive nature of the grant application she has written is
considered outstanding.
Chairman Adams believed that no one was questioning the heart and soul and reasons behind
the HUD application. She felt the effort and money put forth was, without question, very
commendable. The Task Force they set up was charged with looking at the problem, finding
solutions, and bringing those back to the Commission. The Task Force, in their exuberance, has
gotten started on things they wanted to see done, i.e. the numerous grant requests and other things.
Last year, during the budget process concerning the Coalition for the Homeless and the Task Force,
the Commissioners wanted Commissioner Macht to get everyone together, use his judgement on the
membership, look at the problem, and bring back to the Commission a program to fix the problem.
Part of it lies before the Board today, but we have not seen anything to show how it all fits together
and that is where the confusion lies with all the different entities playing into it. It has become
extremely complicated. She felt Commissioner Stanbridge's concern, based on her grant application
experience, was looking for a continuity in the HUD application. Seeking the non-profit status was
timely and it was necessary to have an entity, without question. The Board needs to make sure that
everyone understands because it is moving very quickly. There are a lot of things being said, there r
are a lot of players, and everyone needs to understand what will be expected.
Commissioner Tippin thought the intent was important and sometimes we have to trust folks.
It may not be perfect and mistakes might be made, but he thought an awful lot has been done and
July 18, 2000
84
Assistant Administrator Baird was satisfied with the responses to his questions.
Mr. Van Mele stated that the next phase, the technical amendment period on the HUD grant,
is in September and possibly even in October. He would be very happy to work with staff during that
time in making any changes that are appropriate and acceptable. They have in excess of $220,000
in commitments for matching funds; they have been working very hard and they cannot go backwards
on this HUD grant. The first (ESG) grant is to rehabilitate the existing facility at 720 4" Street
(Hibiscus Manor) after it is purchased. The HUD grant has over 400,000 other applicants. The
probability that we're going to get it is not very great, but the attitude is "Let's try." The
amendments that are necessary can be made in September/October; if it is delayed, the next
application and funding might come through in 2002. If the HUD grant is approved for this current
period, the 4' Street facility could be expanded. The present facility has only 12 beds, but over 1,500
homeless in Indian River County can be documented for the past year. Nearly 1,000 have been
turned away by the Coalition and Samaritan Center. They have already worked with Planning
Director Stan Boling concerning what would be needed for an expansion.
Adele Zabrasky, Temporary Assistance forNeedyFamilies (TANF), a grant program, works
with children and families that are homeless living in tents, cars, trailers and wherever else, and assists
them in finding and staying in housing. She appreciated what Commissioner Macht said. She worked
at Samaritan Center for 8 years and agreed it was time to move on with it because people are still
living without housing and children are still hungry.
Commissioner Macht commented there should never have been any doubt about names
because the Commissioners were told from the beginning that the Coalition for the Homeless was
transitioning into a revised name. The Continuum of Care is a program. HUD requires more than
just providing housing. The Continuum of Care must be included so that the reasons for
homelessness are eliminated or at least mitigated.
Assistant Administrator Baird appreciated everyone's faith in him. In his 12 questions he was
only trying to protect the County. He thought we should try to move ahead, but suggested the
County Attorney's Office should review the documentation.
July 18, 2000
85
BK 1 14 PG 293
•
MOTION WAS MADE by Vice -Chairman Ginn, SECONDED BY
Commissioner Tippin, to move forward with this application and have
the County Attorney and financial staff review it as quickly as
possible, and bring it back to the Board with their recommendations.
Under discussion, Commissioner Stanbridge assured her colleagues that she does have a
passion for this cause. Her concern was for the procedure without it having been looked at by the
County's financial and legal departments and the County's name is on it. She thought this should
never happen again with any other organization, any other grant, no matter what the cause. She
pointed out that the Florida Association of Counties has placed her as Vice Chair of the Health and
Human Services Policy Committee, so she is very familiar with what goes on and what needs to be
done for our children and families. She hoped this procedure would work. She could not support
it unless the financial and legal staff can look at it and come back with their recommendations.
THE CHAIRMAN CALLED THE QUESTION and the motion
carried unanimously.
Vice Chairman Ginn assured Commissioner Stanbridge that she knew how experienced and
meticulous she is in writing grants.
July 18, 2000
86
BK 114 PG 294
is 0
•
10. SCHEDULE A JOINT WORKSHOP MEETING OF THE BOARD
OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AND THE CITY OF VERO BEACH
COUNCIL CONCERNING A MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING
WITH THE DODGERS
Administrator Chandler advised that a Memorandum of Understanding had been drafted
following the recent intense negotiations with the Dodgers organization and asked the Board to
schedule a joint workshop meeting with the City of Vero Beach Council.
Following discussion of the personal schedules and other commitments, the Commissioners
A
decided to hold the workshop meeting in the Commission Chambers on Monday, July 24, 2000, at
12 Noon. They further decided that they could take action at that meeting, even though the City
Council would not, since the Commissioners would have found it very difficult to get together as a
complete body in days and weeks following due to vacation schedules and other commitments.
Commissioner Macht recognized Administrator Chandler for his strenuous work on these
serious negotiations.
11.A. TIMBER REMOVAL FROM THE NORTH SEBASTIAN
CONSERVATION AREA ACCORDING TO THE SEBASTIAN AREA -
WIDE SCRUB JAY HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN - GEORGIA -
PACIFIC CORP. CONTRACT APPROVAL
The -Board reviewed a Memorandum of July 10, 2000:
TO: James E. Chandler
County Administrator
DE MENT HEAD CONCURRENCE:
4L lid,
e M. Keating, AICP
Community Development D or
FROM: Roland M. DeBlois AI P
Chief, Environmental Planning
DATE: July 10, 2000
SUBJECT: Approval of Contract with Georgia-Pacific Corporation for Timber Removal
from the North Sebastian Conservation Area, in Accordance with the Sebastian
Area -Wide Scrub -Jay Habitat Conservation Plan
July 18, 2000
87
8K 114 PG 295
•
I
It is requested that the information herein presented be given formal consideration by the Board of County
Commissioners at its regular meeting of July 18, 2000.
On November 16, 1999, the Board of County Commissioners approved the Sebastian Area -Wide Scrub -Jay
Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP). Subsequently, the HCP was endorsed, with minor revisions, by the City
of Sebastian and the Indian River County School Board. On March 24, 2000, the HCP was formally
submitted to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), as part of an Incidental Take Permit application to
release --317 platted scrub lots in the Sebastian Highlands for development. Issuance of that permit by the
FWS is expected to occur in the next month.
A main component of the HCP is the removal of sand pines (and some slash pines) from publicly owned
scrub conservation areas identified in the plan, including the -407 acre North Sebastian Conservation Area
(NSCA), in order to "open up" the tree canopy to allow establishment of low -growing oak scrub, which is
the prime habitat of scrub -jays. Subsequently, periodic prescribed burns will be conducted as part of habitat
maintenance.
County staff has investigated the most cost-effective means to thin the sand pine canopy on the scrub
conservation areas identified in the HCP to fulfill management commitments. As a result, county staff has
negotiated a contract with Georgia-Pacific Corporation for selective removal of pines from the NSCA which
contract is hereby presented to the Board for approval consideration.
There are basically two alternatives regarding the removal of pine trees from scrub conservation areas. The
first alternative is for the County, using either county staff or a private contractor, to cut the trees and dispose
of the debris at the county landfill (or burn the debris with a debris burning permit). This first alternative
would require an expenditure of county funds for such costs as staff time and equipment, or private
contractor fees, as well as landfill tipping fees.
The second alternative is for the County to seek a timber company that sees the timber as a commodity such
that the company would remove the trees at no cost to the County, and in fact would pay the County some
amount for the timber. Since the second alternative is more cost-effective and environmentally sound than
the first alternative, county staff sought out a timber company for the task.
In seeking timber companies that might be interested in the pine thinning project, staff's finding was that
the NSCA, even though it is the largest of the County's scrub conservation areas (--407 acres), is considered
a small project from the timber harvesting perspective. Therefore, it was difficult to find a company
interested in the job, particularly since the property is remote from other timber removal projects. However,
Georgia-Pacific Corporation, which in 1998 contracted with the County to remove timber from the Wabasso
Scrub Conservation Area, is willing to work again with the County and remove timber from the NSCA.
Based on the circumstance that Georgia-Pacific is the only timber company found willing to enter into a
contract with the County, coupled with Georgia -Pacific's demonstrated competence in carrying out the
Wabasso Scrub timber removal project, plus the fact that the County incurs no cost under the proposed
contract, staff's position is that it is justified for the County to contract with Georgia-Pacific without going
through a formal bidding process.
Contract
The proposed contract is modeled after, and virtually the same as, the previous Wabasso Scrub timber
contract between Georgia-Pacific and the County. Under the proposed contract, Georgia-Pacific will
coordinate closely with county environmental planning staff to ensure that the selective timber removal will
July 18, 2000
88
be compatible with the conservation management objectives of the subject property. Term # 5 of the
contract (page 2) summarizes a price per unit (ton) that Georgia-Pacific will pay the County on a weekly
basis, depending on the type and amount of timber removed the previous week. As proposed, timber cutting
will be completed no later than August 1, 2001. Staff's position is that any County revenue from the timber
removal project should be earmarked for use for ongoing management of the County's scrub conservation
areas.
Other Scrub Conservation Areas
Under the HCP, thinning of pine trees to allow establishment of low -growing scrub is a management need
not only at the NSCA, but also at other scrub conservation areas identified in the HCP (the Sebastian
Highlands Scrub Conservation Area, the Pelican Island Elementary School scrub, and portions of the
Sebastian Airport). Georgia-Pacific is willing to contract for thinning of pines at the Sebastian Airport in
conjunction with the NSCA timber removal project, and staff is coordinating with the City to approve a
comparable City contract for that work. Regarding the Sebastian Highlands Scrub Conservation Area (-10
acres) and the Pelican Island Elementary School scrub (-12 acres), staff are investigating use of a small-scale
timber removal operator, since those areas are too small for Georgia-Pacific mobilization.
Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners approve the attached contract with Georgia-
Pacific Corporation for the selective removal of pine trees from the North Sebastian Conservation Area, and
authorize the Board Chairman to execute said contract.
General map of the North Sebastian Conservation Area
Proposed timber contract with Georgia-Pacific
ON MOTION by Commissioner Macht, SECONDED BY
Commissioner Ginn, the Board unanimously approved the contract
with Georgia-Pacific Corporation for the selective removal of pine
trees from the North Sebastian Conservation Area, and authorized the
Chairman to execute said contract, as recommended in the
memorandum.
July 18, 2000
CONTRACT IS ON FILE
IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD
89
MERaffim
•
11.C.1. BID #2055 - PURCHASE OF TRUCKS FOR PARKS
DIVISION, ROAD & BRIDGE, EMERGENCY SERVICES AND
BUILDINGS AND GROUNDS
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of July 10, 2000:
DATE: July 10, 2000
TO: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
THRU: James E. Chandler, County Administrator
Thomas Frame, General Service ire ctor -i4"�•
Jason Brown, Budget ManageN,
FROM: Fran Powell, Purchasing Manager
SUBJECT: Award Bid #2055 Purrhase of Trucks for the Parks Division,
Road & Bridge, Emergency Services and Building & Grounds
BACKGROUND:
The Office of Management and Budget requested that the following trucks be advertised for bid in an effort
to purchase these units out of the current year budget and receive delivery on or before September 30, 2000.
These trucks can not be bought off the Sheriffs and State Contract Annual because these contracts have
expired for the current year.
Bid Opening Date:
Advertising Dates:
Specifications Mailed to
Replies:
BID TABULATION
FUNDING
July 7, 2000 at 2:00 P.M.
June 23, & 28, 2000
Seventy -Two (72) Vendors
Seven (7) Vendors
fSee Attached)
DEPARTMENT
I SOURCE OF FUNDS
ESTIMATED BUDGET
PURCHASE PRICE
Road & Bridge Division
Capital Outlay Automotive
$47.400.00
$42,624.00
111-214-514-066.42
( Total for t«o trucks)
Parks Division
Capital Outlay Automotive
$39.600.00
$40.436.00 • Additional
001-210-572-066.42
funds are available in this
account from earlier vehicle
purchase bought for less than
the budgeted amount.
Emergency Services
Capital Outlay Automotive
$50.000.00
$42,582.00
114-120-522-066.42 (Fire)
(Total for two trucks)
Unit Cost is $21,291.00
114-253-526-066.42 (EMS)
Budgeted $25.000.00 each
Building & Grounds
Capital Outlay Automotive
$19,000.00
$21,996.00 * Additional
001-220-519-066.42
funds are available in this
account from earlier vehicle
purchase bought for less than
the budgeted amount.
July 18, 2000
0
M
BK 114 PG 298
I
•
BID TABULATION
" Denotes recommended award.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that this bid be awarded to the following vendors as the lowest most responsive and
responsible bidder meeting specifications as set forth in the Invitation to Bid.
July 18, 2000
91
C
Parks Division
Parks Division
Road & Bridge
Road &Bridge
�B®cy Semm
Bw�g &
VENDOR
Quantity (1)
Quantity (1)
Quantity (I)
Quantity (1)
Quantity (2)
Quantity (1)
% Ton Pickup
I Ton Crew Cab
I Ton Crew Cab
%: Ton Pickup
%2 Ton Quad Cab
1 Ton Trick with
Trick
Truck
Truck
Trick
Trucks
9ft Flat Bed
Gator Ford
S19,984.00
$23,565.00
• S25,849.00
$17,483.00
522,666.00
$22,262.00
Tampa, Fl
2000 Ford F250
2001 Ford F350
2001 Ford F350
2001 Ford F150
2001 Ford FI50
2001 Ford F350
Del: 6U days
Del: 60 Jays
Del: 6U days
Del: 60 days
Del: 60 days
Del: 60 days
9 ft Flat Bed
Heintzelman
$19.890.00
•523,500.00
$26,160.00
$17,150.00
• S21,291.00
$22,219.00
Trick
2000 Ford
2001 Ford F350
2001 Ford F350
2000 Ford F150
2001 Ford F150
I
2001 Ford F330
Orlando, Fl
F250
Del: 60-75 days
Del: 60-75 days
Del: 60-75 days
Del: 60-75 days
Del: 3 days
Bid # 11
Del: 60-75 days
I
I
Oft Flat Bed
Heintzelman
$27,795.00
526,670.00
$16,980.00
•S21,9%.00
Truck
2000 Ford F350
2001 Ford F350
2001 Ford F150
2001 Ford F350
Orlando, F1
Del: 3 days
Del: 60-75 days
Del: 60-75 days
Del: 60-75 days
Bid #2
( 9 ft Flat Bed)
Velde Ford
S17,400.00
526,250.00
(Bid #1)
(V8 Engine)
2001 Ford F150
Vero Beach, Fl
2001 Ford F150
Del: 75 days
Del: 75 days
Velde Ford
- S16,775.00
(Bid #2)
(Mngine)
Vero Beach, Fl
2001 Ford FI50
Del: 75 days
Don Reid Ford
•S16,936.00
424,949.00
Maitland, Fl
2000 Ford
2000 Ford F350
F1S0 HD
Del: 20 days
Del: In Stock
9 ft Flat Bed
Maroon Chevrolet
$18,213.00
521,094.00
$23,323.00
522,742.00
Pembroke Pines,
Chevrolet
Chevrolet
Chevrolet
1999 Chev 3500
Fl
1999 2500
I
2000 Silverado
1999 Silverado
Del: 40 days
Del: 10 days
Del: 10 days
Del: 10 days
(9 ft Flat Bed
Maroon Chevrolet
523,642.00 Chev
Pembroke Pines.
1999 Silverado
F1
Del: 10 days
MulhnaxFord
520,347.00
527,935.00
518.095.00
$22.685.00
Apopka. FI
2000 Ford F250
2000 Ford F350
2000 Ford F150
2000 Ford 350
Del: 10 days
Del: 10 days
Del: 10 days
Del: 10 days
(12 ft Flat Bed
Orville Becker
517,016.00
$22,727.00
$21,722.00
Milton, Fl
2000 Ford F150
2000 Ford F150
2000 Ford F350
Del: 45.60 days
Del: 45.60 days
Del: 30-45 days
(12 ft Flat Bed
" Denotes recommended award.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that this bid be awarded to the following vendors as the lowest most responsive and
responsible bidder meeting specifications as set forth in the Invitation to Bid.
July 18, 2000
91
C
RECOMMENDATION (Cont'd)
• Heintzelman Truck, Orlando, Fl One (1) Ton Crew Cab for Parks Division $23,500.00
Two (2) '/2 Ton Quad Cab Trucks for
Emergency Services (Fire & EMS) $42,582.00
One (1) Ton Truck with 9ft Flat Bed $21,996.00
For Building & Grounds
SUB -TOTAL $88.078.00
• Velde Ford, Vero Beach, Fl One (1)'/2 Ton Truck for Road & Bridge $16,775.00
• Gator Ford, Tampa, Fl One (1) 1 Ton Crew Cab for Rd . &Brid . $25,849.00
• Don Reid Ford, Maitland, Fl One (1) 3/4 Ton Truck for Parks $16,936.00
GRAND TOTAL $147,638.00
ON MOTION by Commissioner Ginn, SECONDED BY
Commissioner Stanbridge, the Board unanimously awarded Bid #2055
to Heintzelman Truck, Velde Ford, Gator Ford, and Don Reid Ford
for a total of $147,63 8, and as set out more fully in the memorandum.
11.C.2. MAIN LIBRARY ADDITION - ARCHITECTURAL
SERVICES AGREEMENT FOR DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION
SERVICES - DOW. HOWELL, GILMORE & ASSOCIATES. INC.
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of July 3, 2000:
Date: July 3, 2000
To: The Honorable Board of County Commissioners
Thru: James E. Chandler, County Administrator L
From: Thomas W. Frame, General Services Director "
Subject: Architectural Services Agreement with Dow, Howell, Gilmore & Associates,
Inc. for Design and Constructions Services for an Addition to Main Library
EXHIBIT:. Proposed Negotiated Architectural Agreement
BACKGROUND:
On October 19,1999, the Board approved the architectural firm of Dow, Howell, Gilmore & Associates as
the first choice of three firms for the design of the remodeling and expansion of the Main Library. At that
July 18, 2000
92
BK 1 14 PG 300
time, the project had an estimated construction cost of $850,000. Based on preliminary program planning
and schematic design, the project changed significantly in cost estimates based on needs identified.
On May 23, the Board accepted staffs recommendation to proceed basically with a plan that included an
option to expand the northwest corner of the library (Option 1) and an option to enclose the existing
terrace Option (2). In addition, the Board also accepted the concept of including a recommended list of
up grades to the building excepting out the impact resistant glass. The estimated project cost of these
improvements is $2,181,800.
The estimated construction budget for these improvements without fees is as follows:
Option 1 - $ 563,000.00
Option 2 - $ 711,000.00
Upgrades $ 458.000.00
Total $1,730,000.00
Exhibit One of the proposed contract proposes a fee structure as follows:
Basic Services (A) $147,500 (8.5%)
Basic Services (B) $ 8,250 (0.5%)
Non -Basic Services $ 16,750 (11/6) (hourly, not -to -exceed)
Basic Services (A) provides standard architectural, structural, mechanical, electrical, civil and
landscape/irrigation services including schematic design, design development, construction documents
and construction administration for Option 1, Option 2, and all optional upgrades excluding impact
resistant glass.
Basic Services (B) is for the more complex design and additional effort needed for the non-standard
structural work to be performed by the civil engineer.
Non -Basic Services is for building programming, Site Plan Approval (including public hearings) and St.
John's River Water Management District Permitting. This is a not -to -exceed amount and will be hourly.
Depending on the complexity of those items the final cost may be less.
RECOMENDATION:
Staff submits that the proposed architectural agreement with Dow, Howell, Gilmore Associates, Inc. is
fair and reasonable and recommends Board approval, and that the Chairman be authorized to execute the
agreement upon execution by the architectural firm of Dow, Howell, Gilmore, Associates Inc.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Macht, SECONDED BY
Commissioner Ginn, the Board unanimously approved the
architectural agreement with Dow, Howell, Gilmore Associates, Inc.
and authorized the Chairman to execute the same, as recommended in
the memorandum.
July 18, 2000
AGREEMENT IS ON FILE
IN TBE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD
93
6K 1 14 PG 30 1
J
11.G. ARTIFICIAL REEF PROJECT - FINAL PAYMENT FOR
CONTRACT #2040 - McCULLY MARINE SERVICES, INC.
Deleted.
H.H. CR 512 ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS MATER/FORCE
MAIN REPLACEMENT) AND CR 510 WASTEWATER
IMPROVEMENTS - AUTHORIZATION TO PROCEED WITH
PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING DESIGN SERVICES TO
MASTELLER & MOLER CONSULTING ENGINEERS - ADDENDUM
#3 TO INDIAN RIVER COUNTY PROJECT #9611 PHASES III & IV
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of June 29, 2000:
DATE: JUNE 29 2000
TO:
JAMES E. CHANDLER
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
THRU:
DONALD R. HUBBS., P. 1� 1
DIRECTOR OF UTILITY SER ES
PREPARED AND
STEVEN J. DOYLE. P.E.
STAFFED BY:
CAPITAL PROJECTS MANAGER
SUBJECT.
COUNTY ROUTE 512 ROADWAY ROVE Y92- s (WATER / FORCE
MAIN REPLACEMENT) AND COUNTY ROUTE 510 WASTEWATER
IMPROVEMENTS (CR -510 / 58'H AVE. / 77'H ST TO THE NORTH W WTF)
REQUEST FOR AUTHORI2:ATTON TO PROCEED WITH PROFESSIONAL
ENGINEERING DESIGN SERVICES TO MASTELLER & MOLER,
CONSULTING ENGINEERS
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY PW PROJECT NO. 9611
BACKGROUND & ANALYSIS
On Jamrary 21, 1997 (Exhibit A), the Board of County Commissioners entered into a Contract with
Masteller & Moler, Inc. for Surveymg, Design and Permitting Services for the four lane expansion to County
Route 512 (Roseland Road to Interstate I-95). The contract was executed under Indian River County Public
Works Department Project #9611.
As a result of the proposed roadway improvements project: desigri, portions of Indian River County
Utilities existing potable water and wastewater systems along the project route must be relocated. This item is
intended to request authorization for Masteller & Moler, Inc. (F -of -Record) to proceed with the necessary
design services, permitting services and services during construction for the proposed relocation of County Utility
systems to be compatible with the County Route 512 roadway design.
July 18, 2000
94
Ibis authorization is in cm*mnance with the conditions of the current Masteller & Moler. Inc. contract
with the Public Works Department dated January 21, 1997. The original authorization for professional services
provided for Specifically, Section M A.21 of the Contract Authorization authorizes the County Utilities
Department to eruer into an Age vitt the consultant in the event relocation of County Utilities facilities
design services are raltured.
The scope of Services for Professional Services has been fiuther expanded to included the design,
permitting and construction services for the installation of a 12 -inch diameter Master Plan Force Main along CR -
510, south along 58* Ave. then east along Tie Street to the County s North Regional Wastewater Treatment
Facility (W WTF). The County's current North Regional Wastewater Collection System consist of a single force
main along CR -512 which heads east to US Highway #1 and thea south along US Highway #1 to the Carry's
North Regional WWTF. The need to expand the wastewater collection system is prompted by development and
hydraulic over loading of the existing wastewater collection mains. The County's long range pig dtort plan
is to construct an additional force main along CR -5 10, which will allow for looping of the wastewater collection
systsm and permit future development along CR -510. This will further reduce the hydraulic overloading of the
existing force main along the US Hrghway # I corridor.
The Scope of Services for the professional work to be perfumed is attached herewith as Exhibit B as
described in Masteller & Moler, Inc.'s proposal dated J»ce 2, 2000, Addendum #3 in the total amount of
$136,950.00.
RECOMMENDED ACTION
The.staff of the Department of Utility Services recommends that the Board of County Commissioners
authorize the attached Contract for engineering and permitting services in the amount of $136,950.00 and
authorize the Chairman to execute same, as presented.
LIST OF EXHIBITS:
Exhibit A. Excerpt from Previous Board of County Commission Agenda dated January 21, 1997
Exhibit B. Excerpt front Work Authorizations dated June 2, 2000, fi>nn Masteller & Moler, Inc.
Exhibit C. Sketch of Proposed Force Main alang CR -510,5e Ave. & 77th Street
ACCOUNT INFORMATION:
July 18, 2000
OSI
R ! 4 PG 303
I
Descripti
Account No.
Account Name
Amount
Phase M.
Relocation of Existing Water Main
471-000-169-398.00
Repairand Replacement
$22.900.00
aloe CR -512
Phase IV.
Water Main Extension under CR-
Y:7L000-169400.00
Capacity Charge Fund
$12.600.00
512 for Future Developments
Phase ID.
Relocation of Existing Force Main
471-000-169-399.00
Repair and Replacement
$19.800.00
aloe CR -512
Force Main Extension along CR -
Phase III.
510 to 58th Ave. to 77th Street to
`/'Z-000-169-419.00
Capacity Charge Fund
$81.650.00
the North WWTF
TOTAL
$136.950.00
July 18, 2000
OSI
R ! 4 PG 303
I
ON MOTION by Commissioner Ginn, SECONDED BY
Commissioner Stanbridge, the Board unanimously approved the
proposed contract with Masteller & Moler for engineering and
permitting services in the amount of $136,950 and authorized the
Chairman to execute same, as recommended in the memorandum.
ADDENDUM #3 TO CONTRACT FOR PROJECT #9611 IS ON FILE
IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO TBE BOARD
M.A. EMERGENCY SERVICES DISTRICT
None.
14.B. SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL DISTRICT
The Chairman announced that following the meeting, the Commissioners would sit
as the Board of Commissioners of the Solid Waste Disposal District. Those minutes are
being prepared separately.
U.C. ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL BOARD
None.
July 18, 2000
6K I I Li PG 3 0 4
There being no further business, upon motion duly made and seconded, the Chairman
adjourned the meeting at 11:50 a.m.
ATTEST:
Jeffrey eBarton, Clerk
Minutes approved I .gip
July 18, 2000
97
WWI
Fran B. Adams, Chairman
BK 1 1 4 PG 305